A New Way to Infer CSM Properties Ryan Foley University of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a new way to infer csm properties
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A New Way to Infer CSM Properties Ryan Foley University of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 05, 2023 116 likes •499 views

A New Way to Infer CSM Properties Ryan Foley University of Illinois Single Degenerate Wind Accretion Single Degenerate Wind Accretion Variable Na Circumstellar Material Time Patat et al. 2007 Double Degenerate Double Degenerate

slide-1
SLIDE 1

A New Way to Infer CSM Properties

Ryan Foley University of Illinois

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Single Degenerate Wind Accretion

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Single Degenerate Wind Accretion

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Variable Na ➡ Circumstellar Material Time

Patat et al. 2007

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Double Degenerate

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Double Degenerate

slide-7
SLIDE 7

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Normalized Flux

SN2008ec

Na D2 − Jul 18, 2008 Na D1 − Jul 18, 2008

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Normalized Flux

SN2007sa

Na D2 − Jan 23, 2008 Na D1 − Jan 23, 2008

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Relative Velocity [km s−1]

Normalized Flux

SN2007sr

Na D2 − Jan 17, 2008 Na D1 − Jan 17, 2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Normalized Flux

SN2007fs

Na D2 − Jul 19, 2007 Na D1 − Jul 19, 2007

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200

Relative Velocity [km s−1]

A B C D

−1

Sternberg et al. 2011

High-Resolution Spectra Probe CSM

slide-8
SLIDE 8

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Normalized Flux

SN2008ec

Na D2 − Jul 18, 2008 Na D1 − Jul 18, 2008

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Normalized Flux

SN2007sa

Na D2 − Jan 23, 2008 Na D1 − Jan 23, 2008

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Relative Velocity [km s−1]

Normalized Flux

SN2007sr

Na D2 − Jan 17, 2008 Na D1 − Jan 17, 2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Normalized Flux

SN2007fs

Na D2 − Jul 19, 2007 Na D1 − Jul 19, 2007

−200 −150 −100 −50 50 100 150 200

Relative Velocity [km s−1]

A B C D

−1

Sternberg et al. 2011

High-Resolution Spectra Probe CSM Blue Single Red Sym

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Equal Blue/Redshifted Fraction for ISM

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Equal Blue/Redshifted Fraction for ISM

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Equal Blue/Redshifted Fraction for ISM

slide-12
SLIDE 12

54.6% 22.7% 22.7% SNe Ia

Blueshifted Redshifted Single/Symmetric Sternberg et al. 2011

Many SN Ia Progenitors Have Winds

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Folatelli et al. 2010

SNe Ia With Variable Na Have Low RV

RV = 3.1 RV = 1.6

CCM+O Rv=3.1 CCM+O Rv=1.6+/-0.1 Goobar p=-2.5+/-0.1

Circumstellar Scattering

slide-14
SLIDE 14

2 Values of RV?

  • 20
  • 19
  • 18
  • 17
  • 16

Wang et al. 2009

AV RV = AV/E(B-V)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

2 Values of RV?

  • 20
  • 19
  • 18
  • 17
  • 16

Wang et al. 2009

AV RV = AV/E(B-V)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Foley et al., 2012

Explosion Linked to Environment Full SN Ia Sample CSM No CSM

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 BMax−VMax (mag) −10 −12 −14 −16 Si II Velocity at Maximum (103 km s−1)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Foley et al., 2012

Explosion Linked to Environment Full SN Ia Sample High-Res Sample Blueshifted Na

−9 −10 −11 −12 −13 −14 −15 −16 Si II Velocity at Maximum (103 km s−1) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cumulative Fraction

Blue HR FSK11

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Implications

Either: Multiple progenitor channels where progenitors with winds produce more energetic explosions Or Asymmetric explosions with higher velocity ejecta aligned with winds

slide-19
SLIDE 19

11 12 13 14 15

02bo 08fp 86G 06X 02jg 02ha 07fb 07kk 09ig 06cm 07le 09le

Single/Symmetric Redshifted Blueshifted Non-detection

Host

11 12 13 14 15 log NNa I (cm

  • 2)

0.01 0.1 1 AV (mag)

Phillips et al., 2013

Blueshifted Systems Are Gas-Rich

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Phillips et al., 2013

Blueshifted Systems Are Gas-Rich

0.01 0.1 1 10

AV (mag)

0.01 0.1 1 10

EW Na I D (Å)

Milky Way Single/Symmetric Redshifted Blueshifted

0.01 0.1 1 10

AV (mag)

0.01 0.1 1 10

EW Na I D (Å)

Poznanski et al. (2012) Munari & Zwitter (1997) x 2.53

86G 02bo 06X 06cm 08fp 09le 09ds 02ha 07fb 07kk 09ig 07le 02jg

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Foley et al., in prep.

Blueshifted/Redshifted Separate Cleanly

0.01 0.10 1.00 E(B−V) (mag) 0.01 0.10 1.00 Na I D EW (Å)

09le 12cg

Blueshifted Gas−Rich Redshifted Single Symmetric Gas−Poor

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Foley et al., in prep.

∆EW Separates Gas-Rich/Gas-Poor

−2 −1 1 2 3 ΔEW (Å) 10 20 30 40 Frequency

Gas−Rich Gas−Poor

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Foley et al., in prep.

∆EW Works for Low-Resolution Spectra!

0.01 0.10 1.00 E(B−V) (mag) 0.1 1.0 Na I D EW (Å)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Gas−Rich Probability

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Foley et al., 2012

Explosion Linked to Environment

−9 −10 −11 −12 −13 −14 −15 −16 Si II Velocity at Maximum (103 km s−1) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cumulative Fraction

Blue HR FSK11

Foley et al., in prep.

8 10 12 14 16 Velocity (103 km s1) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cumulative Fraction

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Briefly... SN Cosmology is Currently Limited by the Low-z Anchor Sample

  • Table 2: Noise Sources

Noise source dw Total Uncertainty 0.072 Statistical Uncertainty 0.050 Systematic Uncertainty 0.052 Photometric calibration 0.045 SN color model 0.023 Host galaxy dependance 0.015 MW extinction 0.013 Selection Bias 0.012 Coherent Flows 0.007

  • Table 1: Low-z Sets

Set Total Final JRK07 133 49 CFA3 185 85 CFA4 94 43 CSP 85 45

8 (!!) Different Low-z Samples Combined

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Briefly... SN Cosmology is Currently Limited by the Low-z Anchor Sample

  • Table 2: Noise Sources

Noise source dw Total Uncertainty 0.072 Statistical Uncertainty 0.050 Systematic Uncertainty 0.052 Photometric calibration 0.045 SN color model 0.023 Host galaxy dependance 0.015 MW extinction 0.013 Selection Bias 0.012 Coherent Flows 0.007

  • Table 1: Low-z Sets

Set Total Final JRK07 133 49 CFA3 185 85 CFA4 94 43 CSP 85 45

8 (!!) Different Low-z Samples Combined

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Low-z Calibration a Real Problem

  • 40
  • 20

20 40

  • Cal. Offset Relative to PS1 (mmag)

PS1 g

CfA1/2 B

CfAK

B

CfAS

B

CfA4

B

CSP

B

CSP

g

SNLS

g

SDSS

g

  • 40
  • 20

20 40

  • Cal. Offset Relative to PS1 (mmag)

PS1 g

CfA1/2 B

CfAK

B

CfAS

B

CfA4

B

CSP

B

CSP

g

SNLS

g

SDSS

g

Scolnic et al., in prep.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

The Ideal Low-z Sample

Single System Well Calibrated/Self-Consistent Full Sky Coverage w/Multiple Observations Precisely Measured Filters Existing Data Reduction Pipeline Large High-z Sample on Same System

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Pan-STARRS Supernova Survey

1.8 m mirror 7 deg2 Field of View 1.4 Gigapixel Camera 25% of time for SN Survey Nightly Observations

  • f ~6 Fields

~400 high-z SNe Ia

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Pan-STARRS Supernova Survey

1.8 m mirror 7 deg2 Field of View 1.4 Gigapixel Camera 25% of time for SN Survey Nightly Observations

  • f ~6 Fields

~400 high-z SNe Ia

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Pan-STARRS High-z Sample

34 36 38 40 42 44 Distance Modulus (mag)

CfA4 CSP CfA3 CfA2 CfA1 PS1 ΩΛ = 0.7 Ωm = 0.3 ΩΛ = 0.3 Ωm = 0 ΩΛ = 1 Ωm = 0

Redshift −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Residuals (mag) 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.60

Scolnic et al., in prep.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Redefine Low-z Sample

Foley et al., in prep.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Ωm

  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

w

PS1+High-z+Foundation Sim PS1+low-z Sim

Foundation Sample:

PS1 Telescope 400–800 z < 0.1 SNe Ia ~1000 SNe Ia with 0 < z < 0.8

Founding Fathers:

Ryan Foley Armin Rest Dan Scolnic Saurabh Jha

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Redefine Low-z Sample

Foley et al., in prep.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Ωm

  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

w

PS1+High-z+Foundation Sim PS1+low-z Sim

Foundation Sample:

PS1 Telescope 400–800 z < 0.1 SNe Ia ~1000 SNe Ia with 0 < z < 0.8

Founding Fathers:

Ryan Foley Armin Rest Dan Scolnic Saurabh Jha

2.5 x Improvement!

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Foley et al., in prep.

Foundation Data

−10 10 20 30 40 Rest−frame Days Relative to B Maximum 21 20 19 18 17 16 Apparent Brightness (mag)

g r − 1 i − 2 z − 3

Already 37 SNe Ia 39 SOAR/KPNO nights over 2 years +Salt for spectroscopy

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Foundation Sample As of Today: 37 SNe

50 100 150 200 MJD − 57000 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 Apparent Brightness (mag)

z i r g

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Foundation Sample As of Today: 37 SNe

50 100 150 200 MJD − 57000 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 Apparent Brightness (mag)

z i r g

50 100 150 200 MJD − 57000 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 Apparent Brightness (mag)

z i r g

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Two Questions:

Why are the observables (and explosions?) so similar for gas-rich and gas-poor SNe? How can we further improve the Foundation Survey?