Search for: All records

Abstract We present three new spectra of the nearby Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) 2011fe covering ≈480–850 days after maximum light and show that the ejecta undergoes a rapid ionization shift at ∼500 days after explosion. The prominent Feiiiemission lines at ≈4600 Å are replaced with Fei+Feiiblends at ∼4400 Å and ∼5400 Å. The ≈7300 Å feature, which is produced by [Feii]+[Niii] at ≲400 days after explosion, is replaced by broad (≈±15,000 km s⁻¹) symmetric [Caii] emission. Models predict this ionization transition occurring ∼100 days later than what is observed, which we attribute to clumping in the ejecta. Finally, we use the nebular-phase spectra to test several proposed progenitor scenarios for SN 2011fe. Nondetections of H and He exclude nearby nondegenerate companions, [Oi] nondetections disfavor the violent merger of two white dwarfs, and the symmetric emission-line profiles favor a symmetric explosion. 

Abstract SN 2017jgh is a type IIb supernova discovered by Pan-STARRS during the C16/C17 campaigns of the Kepler/K2 mission. Here we present the Kepler/K2 and ground based observations of SN 2017jgh, which captured the shock cooling of the progenitor shock breakout with an unprecedented cadence. This event presents a unique opportunity to investigate the progenitors of stripped envelope supernovae. By fitting analytical models to the SN 2017jgh lightcurve, we find that the progenitor of SN 2017jgh was likely a yellow supergiant with an envelope radius of ∼50 − 290 R⊙, and an envelope mass of ∼0 − 1.7 M⊙. SN 2017jgh likely had a shock velocity of ∼7500 − 10300 km s−1. Additionally, we use the lightcurve of SN 2017jgh to investigate how early observations of the rise contribute to constraints on progenitor models. Fitting just the ground based observations, we find an envelope radius of ∼50 − 330 R⊙, an envelope mass of ∼0.3 − 1.7 M⊙ and a shock velocity of ∼9, 000 − 15, 000 km s−1. Without the rise, the explosion time can not be well constrained which leads to a systematic offset in the velocity parameter and larger uncertainties in the mass and radius. Therefore, it is likely that progenitor property estimates through these models may have larger systematic uncertainties than previously calculated.