4.6 Article

Type Ia supernovae in globular clusters: observational upper limits

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 539, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118222

关键词

supernovae: general; galaxies: star clusters: general

资金

  1. NWO [016.093.305]
  2. NASA [NAS 5-26555]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. In the dense stellar environment of globular clusters it is expected that compact binaries can be produced dynamically. This in turn would mean that the fraction of type Ia supernovae that will explode in globular clusters will be higher than would be expected from the mass of stars present. Therefore we wish to determine observational constraints on the number of supernovae type Ia explosions in globular clusters as a means to constrain the number of dynamically formed binary systems. Methods. We searched for globular clusters at the positions of observed type Ia supernovae. We used archival HST images and literature data that cover the positions either before the supernovae exploded, or sufficiently long after the supernovae to have faded below the luminosities of globular clusters. Results. We did not find evidence for globular clusters at any of the supernova positions. For 18 type Ia supernovae, the observations are sensitive enough that any globular cluster would have been detected, and for another 17 type Ia supernovae, the brighter globular clusters would have been detected. Correcting for incompleteness, we derive a 90% upper limit of 0.09 for the fraction of type Ia supernovae that explode in globular clusters for the full sample and 0.22 for the sample of supernovae in late-type galaxies. This allows us to limit enhancements per unit stellar mass for a coeval population eta(co) less than or similar to 50 (100) with 90% (99%) confidence. We find that by observing the positions of a sample of less than 100 type Ia supernovae in the outer parts of early-type galaxies, it will be possible to probe the currently favoured range of eta(co) similar to 1-10.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据