1 Observations of SN 2011dh
Abstract

CCD UBVRI photometry is presented for type IIb SN 2011dh for about 300 days. The main photometric parameters are derived and the comparison with SNe of similar types is reported. The light curves are similar to those for SN IIb 2008ax, but the initial flash is stronger and very short, and there are humps on the light curves in and at the onset of linear decline. Preliminary modeling is carried out, and the results are compared to the quasi-bolometric light curve and to the light curves in UBVRI bands.

Peremennye Zvezdy 32, No.3, 2012 Variable Stars 32, No.3, 2012

SAI, INASAN, Astronet.ru Moscow, Russia 10 July 2012

PHOTOMETRIC OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY MODELING

OF TYPE IIB SUPERNOVA 2011dh

D.YU. TSVETKOV, I.M. VOLKOV, E.I. SOROKINA, S.I. BLINNIKOV, N.N. PAVLYUK, G.V. BORISOV Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, University Ave. 13, 119992 Moscow, Russia Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 059 60 Tatranska Lomnica, Slovak Republic Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Bol’shaya Cheryomushkinskaya Str. 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia Crimean Laboratory of Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Nauchnyi, Crimea, Ukraine


Introduction

On May 31, 2011 a supernova exploded in bright nearby spiral galaxy M51 (NGC5194, Whirlpool galaxy). The outburst, designated SN 2011dh, was promptly discovered independently by several amateurs and the Palomar Transient Factory (see CBET No.2736 and Arcavi et al. (2011b) for details). The early discovery of such a nearby SN facilitated numerous follow-up studies. Early spectra and light curve indicated SN 2011dh to belong to the class of stripped-envelope core-collapse SN, designated as type IIb (Arcavi et al., 2011a, 2011b). The progenitor or progenitor system was identified in archival images obtained by the HST (Li and Filippenko, 2011), although its nature remains controversial. Maund et al. (2011) suggest it was a yellow supergiant with initial mass about 13, while Van Dyk et al. (2011) prefer higher mass in the range 18-21 . The variability of the candidate progenitor was reported by Szczygiel et al. (2012). Multi-wavelength follow-up observations in the radio, millimiter, X-ray and gamma-ray bands suggest a compact progenitor with cm, which is inconsistent with the radius of the yellow supergiant, so this star may be a binary companion of presupernova or even unrelated to the SN (Soderberg et al., 2012). Radio observations were reported also by Krauss et al. (2012), Marti-Vidal et al. (2011) and Bietenholz et al. (2012). Vinko et al. (2012) presented optical spectroscopy and photometry of SN 2011dh and applied the EPM method to derive the distance of 8.4 Mpc for M51.

Observations and reductions

On June 1 a sequence of unfiltered images of M51 was obtained with the 192-mm telescope (hereafter C19), equipped with FLI PL16803 CCD camera, at Crimean Observatory of Sternberg Astronomical Institute (SAI). 53 frames were obtained in the period 19:25–20:31 UT. 5 days later we started regular monitoring of SN 2011dh and continued observations until 2012 April 4. CCD images in Johnson-Cousins UBVRI bands were obtained with the following instruments: the 15-cm and 60-cm telescopes of Astronomical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences at Tatranska Lomnica (S15, S60), equipped, respectively, with SBIG ST-10XME and Princeton Instruments VersArray F512 CCD cameras; the 60-cm reflector of Crimean Observatory of SAI (C60) with Apogee AP-47p camera; the 70-cm reflector of SAI in Moscow (M70) with Apogee AP-7p camera; 60-cm reflector of Simeiz Observatory (K60) with VersArray F512 camera, and 1-m reflector of Simeiz Observatory, equipped with either VersArray F512, or VersArray B1300 cameras (K100a, K100b).

The standard image reductions and photometry were made using IRAF.222IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by AURA under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation

The galaxy background around SN 2011dh is quite smooth, nevertheless we applied image subtraction for all of the frames obtained later then 2011 September 20. The template images were constructed from frames obtained at C60 while carrying out observations of SN 2005cs.

The magnitudes of the SN were derived by PSF-fitting relative to a sequence of local standard stars. The image of SN 2011dh and comparison stars is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. SN 2011dh with local standard stars


The magnitudes of these stars were taken from Pastorello et al. (2009) On the images with larger field of view we also used more distant comparison stars, also from Pastorello et al. (2009).

The results of observations of the SN are presented in Table 1. We did not detect significant variations of brightness on the sequence of images obtained on June 1, so the averaged values, calibrated by magnitudes, are reported in Table 1.

JD 2450000+ Tel.

5714.32
13.54 0.03 C19
5714.35 13.52 0.03 C19
5719.34 14.67 0.06 14.54 0.02 13.94 0.02 13.64 0.01 13.61 0.01 M70
5723.37 13.85 0.04 13.79 0.02 13.17 0.02 12.89 0.01 K100a
5724.37 13.83 0.04 13.70 0.02 13.03 0.02 12.77 0.01 K100a
5725.31 13.65 0.04 13.60 0.02 12.92 0.02 12.65 0.01 12.56 0.01 K100a
5726.31 13.62 0.04 13.55 0.02 12.87 0.02 12.65 0.01 12.49 0.01 K100a
5727.28 13.60 0.04 13.53 0.02 12.79 0.02 12.51 0.01 12.40 0.01 K100a
5729.31 13.52 0.04 13.42 0.02 12.67 0.02 12.39 0.01 12.26 0.01 K100a
5730.31 13.53 0.04 13.42 0.02 12.64 0.02 12.34 0.01 12.22 0.01 K100a
5731.30 13.53 0.04 13.38 0.02 12.60 0.02 12.30 0.01 12.17 0.01 K100a
5731.32 13.49 0.07 13.32 0.02 12.60 0.02 12.31 0.01 12.17 0.01 K100a
5733.31 13.59 0.04 13.41 0.02 12.55 0.02 12.27 0.01 12.11 0.01 K100a
5734.29 13.66 0.04 13.42 0.02 12.55 0.02 12.21 0.01 12.07 0.01 K100a
5734.37 13.63 0.08 13.36 0.02 12.60 0.04 12.26 0.03 12.09 0.04 C60
5735.27 13.76 0.04 13.48 0.02 12.57 0.02 12.22 0.01 12.06 0.01 K100a
5735.33 13.78 0.06 13.43 0.02 12.60 0.02 12.25 0.03 12.08 0.04 C60
5736.28 13.90 0.04 13.59 0.02 12.61 0.02 12.24 0.01 12.07 0.01 K100a
5737.28 14.16 0.04 13.72 0.02 12.66 0.02 12.27 0.01 12.08 0.01 K100a
5741.28 15.15 0.05 14.28 0.02 13.00 0.02 12.49 0.01 12.25 0.01 K100a
5743.28 15.44 0.04 14.57 0.02 13.19 0.02 12.61 0.01 12.33 0.01 K100a
5744.32 15.71 0.05 14.79 0.02 13.27 0.02 12.67 0.01 K100a
5744.33 14.63 0.05 13.35 0.02 12.72 0.02 12.43 0.03 C60
5746.28 15.95 0.04 14.89 0.02 13.41 0.02 12.79 0.01 12.47 0.01 K100a
5747.27 16.06 0.06 14.99 0.02 13.48 0.02 12.82 0.01 12.48 0.01 K100a
5749.30 16.36 0.12 15.07 0.02 13.59 0.02 12.91 0.01 12.57 0.01 K100a
5749.34 14.99 0.02 13.65 0.02 12.95 0.02 12.60 0.03 C60
5750.29 16.37 0.11 15.11 0.02 13.64 0.02 12.96 0.01 12.62 0.01 K100a
5751.26 16.41 0.04 15.21 0.02 13.69 0.02 13.00 0.01 12.63 0.01 K100a
5752.35 16.46 0.04 15.24 0.02 13.75 0.02 13.05 0.01 12.67 0.01 K100a
5755.35 15.34 0.02 13.94 0.02 13.19 0.02 12.79 0.03 C60
5757.34 15.31 0.04 14.00 0.02 13.26 0.02 12.84 0.02 C60
5783.28 16.19 0.17 15.68 0.03 14.53 0.04 13.85 0.01 13.41 0.02 C60
5786.31 15.66 0.03 14.60 0.04 13.91 0.02 13.48 0.02 C60
5788.28 15.74 0.05 14.62 0.04 13.95 0.03 13.53 0.03 C60
5789.26 15.69 0.03 14.64 0.02 13.97 0.02 13.55 0.03 C60
5790.24 15.78 0.04 14.62 0.02 13.99 0.01 13.56 0.02 C60
5808.24 15.94 0.02 14.98 0.02 14.39 0.02 13.99 0.02 C60
5811.22 15.98 0.03 15.03 0.02 14.45 0.02 14.07 0.02 C60
5817.22 16.01 0.03 15.16 0.02 14.62 0.02 14.07 0.03 K100b
5818.22 16.39 0.06 16.06 0.02 15.20 0.02 14.61 0.02 14.09 0.03 K100b
5819.21 16.71 0.07 16.10 0.02 15.23 0.01 14.66 0.01 14.10 0.03 K100b
5820.21 16.57 0.05 16.12 0.02 15.22 0.02 14.66 0.02 14.11 0.03 K100b
5821.21 16.62 0.08 16.08 0.02 15.22 0.02 14.68 0.02 14.13 0.03 K100b
5822.21 16.66 0.08 16.14 0.02 15.24 0.02 14.69 0.02 14.17 0.03 K100b
5823.24 16.70 0.09 16.15 0.02 15.27 0.02 14.73 0.03 14.16 0.02 K100b
5825.20 16.63 0.07 16.17 0.03 15.34 0.02 14.75 0.02 14.25 0.03 K100b
5830.21 16.82 0.37 16.24 0.03 15.41 0.04 14.85 0.04 14.37 0.05 K60
5831.20 16.47 0.18 16.27 0.04 15.41 0.04 14.91 0.03 14.39 0.04 K60
5832.20 16.88 0.12 16.32 0.04 15.46 0.04 14.90 0.04 14.45 0.04 K60
5835.19 16.50 0.05 15.52 0.03 14.90 0.02 K100a
5853.21 15.84 0.12 15.29 0.10 14.62 0.20 S15
5853.22 15.95 0.06 15.31 0.04 S60
5854.22 15.92 0.06 15.48 0.04 14.97 0.12 S60
5856.20 15.82 0.13 15.43 0.09 14.87 0.07 S15
5856.21 16.77 0.06 15.96 0.05 15.42 0.04 14.97 0.10 S60
5880.68 17.43 0.21 16.66 0.12 16.09 0.10 S15
5880.69 16.56 0.08 S60
5953.46 18.28 0.17 17.64 0.20 17.12 0.07 16.99 0.11 M70
5955.66 18.45 0.05 18.22 0.06 17.29 0.04 S60
5987.58 17.91 0.07 S60
6022.39 19.44 0.12 18.35 0.04 K100b

Table 1: Observations of SN 2011dh

Light and color curves

Figure 2. The light curves of SN 2011dh. The dashed lines are the light curves of SN 2008ax


The light curves of SN 2011dh are shown in Fig. 2. The premaximum rise and the main peak have good coverage by observations, and we can determine the dates and magnitudes of maximum light in different bands: . After the maximum the brightness of SN declined very fast. At the phase 15 days past maximum the magnitude declined by 1.64 mag. The fast drop continued for about 21 days, and at about JD 2455753 the onset of the linear decline is observed (K-point). The rates of decline in the period JD 2455780-2456010 are (in mag/day): 0.016 in , 0.020 in , 0.019 in , 0.021 in .

Comparison with SN 2008ax (Pastorello et al., 2008; Tsvetkov et al., 2009) reveals good match of the light curves at the main peak. After K-point the agreement is good in the , and bands, while in the and the luminosity decline of SN 2011dh is slower. In the band there is even a slight increase of brightness after K-point, and in the band a protrusion on the light curve can be noticed.

Figure 3. The light curves of SN 2011dh for the first 30 days past outburst. The color coding is the same as in Fig.2, but no magnitude shifts were applied. Observations in band are plotted in cyan. We show our data (dots), and photometry by Vinko et al. (2012) (triangles), Arcavi et al (2011a) (circles) and by amateur astronomers (squares). Solid and dashed green lines are the -light curves of SNe 1993J and 2008ax


Fig. 3 shows the light curves for the first 30 days after outburst. We plotted our data and the observations by Vinko et al. (2011), Arcavi et al. (2011a), and results of amateur astronomers, taken from ”Latest supernovae” site222www.rochesterastronomy.org/supernova.html

The last image of M51 with no SN visible (mag 18) was obtained on JD 2455712.86, and the first detection was on JD 2455713.34. We assume JD 2455712.9 as the time of explosion. The initial flash was very fast: the rise to first peak with brightness of about 12.8 mag took only about 0.4 days, and atfer 2.6 days the local minimum was reached on JD 2455716, at about 15 mag.

We compare the early light curves of SN 2011dh with those for SNe IIb 1993J and 2008ax (Richmond et al., 1996; Pastorello et al., 2008; Tsvetkov et al., 2009). The light curves were shifted in time to coinside at the estimated moment of explosion, and the shift in magnitudes was applied to match the main peak brightness. The difference between the objects is evident: the initial peak for SN 1993J was the widest and strongest among these objects, while for SN 2008ax it was very weak.

Figure 4. The color curves of SN 2011dh. Blue and red lines are the color curves of SNe 1993J and 2008ax


The color curves are shown in Fig. 5. The evolution of colors , and is similar. SN 2011dh quickly reddens until K-point, and then becomes bluer. The color remains nearly constant after K-point. The comparison with type IIb SNe 1993J and 2008ax reveals diversity of the color curves, both in shape and the values of colors. Good match is observed only for and colors between SNe 2011dh and 2008ax. SN 2011dh is significantly redder in and than the other two objects.

The absolute -magnitude light curves of SN 2008ax and several SNe of types IIb, Ib and Ic are compared in Fig. 5.

Figure 5. The absolute -band light curves of SN 2011dh and SNe of types IIb (1993J, 1996cb, 2008ax), Ib (1999ex), Ic (2002ap). Day 0 corresponds to the main maximum on the light curves


For SN 2011dh we adopted distance of 8.4 Mpc (Vinko et al., 2012) and extinction . The light curves of other SNe are taken from Richmond et al. (1996), Qiu et al. (1999), Stritzinger et al. (2002), Foley et al. (2003), Pastorello et al. (2008), Tsvetkov et al. (2009). With absolute peak magnitude of mag SN 2011dh appears to be quite typical among SNe of similar classes. It is little fainter than SNe IIb 1993J, 2008ax and SN Ib 1999ex, have nearly the same luminosity as SN Ic 2002ap and is significantly brighter than SN IIb 1996cb.


Modeling the light curves

We derived quasi-bolometric light curve for SN 2011dh, integrating the flux in UBVRI bands. On the dates when observations in some bands were missing, we used the color curves to estimate the color of SN at that date and then calculated the missing magnitudes. We attempted to model the quasi-bolometric light curve as well as the light curves in UBVRI bands using our code STELLA, which incorporates implicit hydrodynamics coupled to a time-dependent multi-group non-equilibrium radiative transfer (Blinnikov et al., 1998). The specific model employed here was Model 13C of Woosley et al. (1994). This model was derived from a 13 M main sequence star that lost most of its hydrogen envelope to a nearby companion. We present results for 6 variants of the model with different values of radius, explosion energy and ejected mass, which are reported in Table 2. The mass of Ni was fixed at 0.07 M. The results are presented in Figs. 6-9.

The influence of changing main parameters on the shape of resulting light curve can be seen in Figs. 6,7. The reduction of radius leads to shortening of the primary flash, but at the same time it becomes weaker. Model 5 with increased energy of explosion show the worst agreement with observational data. Models 3,4 and 5 have good agreement with observed curve at late stages. Figs. 8,9 show the computed UBVRI light curves for the models 3 and 6, which fit better the quasi-bolometric light curves. The main maximum in the and bands is reproduced satisfactorily, but the computed duration of the initial flash is longer, and its lumonosity is lower than observed. The agreement in other bands is worse. We may conclude that, although our models reproduce main features of the observed light curves, the agreement is not satisfactory. We continue the search for models which will give better fits. The results and more detailed discussion of the properties of the models and their impact on the possible evolution of the progenitor will be published in a subsequent paper.

Model Radius, Mass, Energy, 10 erg/s
1 562 2.24 1.5
2 300 2.24 1.5
3 300 2.24 2.0
4 150 2.24 2.0
5 150 2.24 4.0
6 300 4.24 2.0
Table 2: Model parameters

Figure 6. The computed quasi-bolometric light curves for 6 models compared to the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN 2011dh (black dots). Day 0 is JD 2455712.9


Figure 7. The same as Fig. 6 for the first 40 days past explosion


Figure 8. The light curves for models 3 (solid lines) and 6 (dashed lines) in UBVRI bands compared to the observed light curves of SN 2011dh


Figure 9. The same as Fig. 8 for the first 40 days past explosion. Observatons of amateur astronomers are plotted as circles



Acknowledgements. We thank N.P.Ikonnikova who made some of the observations.

The work is supported partly by the grant of the Government of the Russian Federation (No 11.G34.31.0047), by RFBR grants 10-02-00249a, 10-02-01398a, 11-02-01213a, by RF Sci. Schools 3458.2010.2 and 3899.2010.2, by the grant IZ73Z0-128180/1 of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SCOPES), and by SAIA – scholarship (Slovakia).


References:

Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Polishook, E., et al., 2011a, Astronomer’s Telegram, No.3413

Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al., 2011b, Astrophys. J., 742, L18

Bietenholz, M.F., Brunthaler, A., Soderberg, A.M., et al., 2012, Astrophys. J., 751, 125

Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., Woosley, S. E., 1998, Astrophys. J., 496, 454

Foley, R.J., Papenkova, M.S., Swift, B.J., et al., 2003, PASP, 115, 1220

Krauss, M.I., Soderberg, A.M., Chomiuk, L., et al., 2012, Astrophys. J., 750, L40

Li, W., Filippenko, A.V., 2011, Astronomer’s Telegram, No.3399

Marti-Vidal, I., Tudose, V., Paragi, Z., et al., 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 535, L10

Maund, J.R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al., 2011, Astrophys. J., 739, L37

Pastorello, A., Kasliwal, M.M., Crockett, R.M., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 389, 955

Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

Richmond, M.W., Treffers, R.R., Filippenko, A.V., Paik, Y., 1996, Astron. J., 112, 732

Soderberg, A.M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B.A., et al., 2012, Astrophys. J., 752, 78

Stritzinger, M,, Hamuy, M., Suntzeff, N.B., et al., 2002, Astron. J., 124, 2100

Szczygiel, D.M., Gerke, J.R., Kochanek, C.S., Stanek, K.Z., 2012, Astrophys. J., 747, 23

Tsvetkov, D.Yu., Volkov, I.M., Baklanov, P.V., Blinnikov, S.I., Tuchin, O., 2009, Variable Stars, 29, No.2

Van Dyk, S.D., Li, W., Cenko, S.B., et al., 2011, Astrophys. J., 741, L28

Vinko, J., Takats, K., Szalai, T., et al., 2012, Astron. Astrophys., 540, 93

Woosley, S.E., Eastman, R.G., Weaver, T.A., Pinto, P.A., 1994, Astrophys. J., 429, 300

Qiu, Y., Li, W., Qiao, Q., Hu, J., 1999, Astron. J., 117, 736


Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
254388
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description