From Progenitor to Afterlife Roger Chevalier SN 1987AHST/SINS

Core Collapse Supernova Types IIP (plateau light curve) IIL (linear light curve) Ib (no H, He present) Ic (no H, no He) IIb (H early; like Ib or Ic late) IIn (narrow line) IIpec (peculiar, e.g., SN 1987A) Wheeler 1990

Progenitor stars IIP (plateau) –Red supergiant IIb, IIn (narrow line), IIL (linear) –Red, or cool, supergiant Ib, Ic –Wolf-Rayet star SN 1987A – like –Blue supergiant

Single massive star evolution Heger et al. 2003

Fractional frequency of SN Types (Cappellaro,….) Type IIP 0.3 Types IIL, IIn, IIb 0.3 Types Ib,Ic 0.25 SN 1987A – like 0.15 (upper limit) High incidence of Type IIL/n/b and Ib/c indicates that binary evolution is important

Element mixing by instabilities during explosion Kifonidis et al. 03

Supernova density profile Break at velocity Break at velocity v br ~ (E/M) 1/2 v br ~ (E/M) 1/2 v br ~ 3000 km/sec v br ~ 3000 km/sec for E=10 51 ergs for E=10 51 ergs and M =10 M  and M =10 M  Maximum velocity limited by radiation (Matzner & McKee 99)

Afterlife properties that depend on SN type Composition structure Maximum velocity Photoionizing radiation at shock breakout Core (neutron star/black hole) mass Fallback of matter to central core Density structure (on E and M)

Forward shock Reverse shock Freely expanding ejecta cs wind

Blondin, RAC

Cas A radio NRAO/AUI

Type Ic SN 1994I in M51 Model with synchrotron self-absorption and interaction of outer steep power law profile with a wind -1.0 spectrum, R~t spectrum, R~t 0.9 Data from Weiler, Stockdale,….

Type Ib/c, no GRB Type Ib/c, GRB Type IIb Type IIP Type IIL Type IIn

Type Ib/c, GRB Relativistic H env. – 0 M  Type Ib/c, no GRB H env. - 0 M  Type IIb – WR H env M  Type IIb – RSG H env M  Type IIL H env. - 1 M  Type IIP H env M 

SN 1987A – delayed radio increase Data from Ball optically thin optically thick

X-ray Chandra Immler et al. 02 SN 1994I at 7 years

Model radio – X-ray spectrum of SN Ic Fransson/RAC Inverse ComptonPhotosphere Synchrotron

X-ray emission Type II –Thermal Type Ib, Ic –Synchrotron –Inverse Compton near maximum light

Mass loss IIP (plateau) –~ M  /yr (v w =10 km/sec) IIb, IIn (narrow line), IIL (linear) –~ M  /yr (v w =10 km/sec) Ib, Ic, some IIb –~ M  /yr (v w =1000 km/sec) if magnetic amplification efficient

Long duration gamma-ray bursts Associated with SNe Ib/c, ~1/200 the rate Afterglow theory well-developed, but generally indicates interaction with a constant density medium

Synchrotron emission Spherical relativistic blast wave early Jet effects late Sari et al. 98 Zhang & Woosley

Shocked wind bubble a possibility, but termination shock radius too large, transition not seen,…

SN 1987A 1/3 pc scale HST/SINSLight echo – dense wind to ~5 pc

Extended mass loss Fast wind during main sequence phase gives extended bubble Slow RSG wind extends to During possible Wolf-Rayet phase, dense wind can be swept out by the fast wind

Inner and outer interaction Blondin, RAC, Frierson 01 Forward shock Reverse shock Shock in ejecta Pulsar wind termination shock

Possible IIP - Crab No outer interaction observed Crab has low velocity hydrogen Crab abundances imply progenitor mass ~10 M 

G – initially pure pulsar nebula Radio Becker & Szymkowiak 1981 Chandra – X-ray Matheson & Safi-Harb 2005

, Kes 75, MSH Radii 9-20 pc Average velocity >~10,000 km/sec Seem to have crossed “wind bubble” Not IIL/n/b Probably Ib, Ic; irregular shell may be RSG wind swept out by WR star wind Kes 75, X-ray Helfand et al. 03

Young PWNe SNRTypeP P 0 estimate B (msec)(msec) (10 12 G) CrabIIP C 58 IIP66404 Kes 75 Ib/c G IIL/n/b65602 G IIL/n/b Ib/c50405 MSH Ib/c

Wind interaction model for Cas A - likely IIL/n/b Expansion rate of bright shell and forward shock consistent with wind (  ~r -2 ) interaction model Wind density: dM/dt ~3x10 -5 M  /year for v w =10 km/sec Contains a quiet, compact object RAC & Oishi 03 NASA/SAO/CXC

Summary Properties of young remnants can be related to supernova properties; mass loss environment deduced from interaction generally consistent with evolutionary expectations (not the case for GRBs) Present data do not show a correlation of pulsar/neutron star properties with supernova type

Reverse shock in Cas A (Fesen,Morse,RAC…)