UH88 Japan Time – 2013 年度岡山ユーザーズミーティング

UH88/SNIFS and Gemini/GMOS IFU spectroscopyof nearby core-collapse supernova sites
Hanindyo Kuncarayakti , Mamoru Doi , Greg Aldering , Nobuo Arimoto , Keiichi Maeda ,Tomoki Morokuma1, Rui Pereira6, Tomonori Usuda7, Yasuhito Hashiba1,81,5,81,2

34,75

Institute of Astronomy, the University of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan; 2Research Center for the Early Universe, the University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan;
3Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; 4National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan; 5Kavli IPMU (WPI),
the University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan; 6CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucleaire de Lyon, 4 Rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France; 7Subaru Telescope, National
Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 650 North A'ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA; 8Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, the University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan1

We present the results of our integral field spectroscopic study of 27 nearby type Ic/Ib/II-L/II-P supernova explosion sites done withUH88/SNIFS and Gemini/GMOS, provided via NAOJ and Subaru. Employing the technique of IFS enables us to observe the stellar populations
present at the explosion site spatially and spectrally. The physical properties of the parent stellar population of the SN progenitor such as age
and metallicity were derived from its spectrum, which in turn give age and metallicity estimate of the coeval SN progenitor. With this method
we were able to constrain the metallicity and initial mass of the SN progenitors and compare it to theoretical predictions. We foundindications that both single massive progenitor and binary sub-WR progenitor channels may be at play in producing SNe Ib/c, and some of
the type II SN progenitors may have been as massive as Ib/c progenitors.

Hunting down the progenitors of CCSNe

 What kind of massive star explodes as a particular type of SN?
 Mass & metallicity: two of the most important parameters in progenitor star evolution
 It is still necessary to confront model predictions with more observational data
 From direct detection (and nondetection) → SN II-P progenitors are RSG stars of ~8-17 Mʘ

SN IIP 2008bk, Mattila+2010

2001/2005(Smartt+09); few II-L/IIb/IIn progenitor detections up to now No Ib/c progenitor detection so far … are they really WR stars >25 M ʘ? Or lower-mass binaries?
 Direct detection: powerful but difficult to increase statistics → alternative strategy: study theimmediate SN environment & parent stellar population
 Usingat Mauna Kea in 2010-2011
 Coverage:330-970 nm @ R~1000, 6.4”x6.4” FoV @ 0.4”/spaxel (SNIFS)
400-680 nm @ R~1700, 5”x3.5” FoV @ 0.2”/spaxel (GMOS) Data reduction & analysis using IRAF
immediate SN environment spatially and spectrally
 Minimizing contamination & proxy usage, as opposed
to conventional slit spectroscopy

2010

IFU spectroscopy of nearby SN sites

 Observations using 2.2m UH88/SNIFS and 8.1m Gemini/GMOS

 With integral field spectroscopy: probing the2008

SNIFS
GMOS

IFS, we detect SN progenitor parent stellar population
 Extract the spectrum of the parent population from IFU datacube
 Compare parent population spectrum with SSP models(Starburst99; Leitherer+99) → age from age indicators such as Hα /CaT equivalent widths
 Metallicity is derived by strong-line method (Pettini & Pagel 2004)
 Derive SN progenitor age & metallicity from the parent population
 Progenitor star age (lifetime) → initial (ZAMS) mass via Padova
stellar evolution models (Bressan+93)

Looking into the explosion sites, spatially & spectrally
SC-A: 7.8 Myr, 1.12 ZA → 24.4 MA
SC-B: 6.7 Myr, 1.35 ZA → 28.3 MASC-C: 6.4 Myr, 1.20 ZA → 29.3 MA
SC-D: 6.4 Myr, 1.35 ZA → 29.1 MA
SC-E: 6.8 Myr, 0.85 ZA → 27.9 MA
SN 2007gr progenitor @SC-A: 24.4 MA

SC: 11.0 Myr, 0.83ZA: → 17.9 MA progenitor

Cluster age: 7 Myr (Crockett+08)
Site metallicity: 0.95 ZA (Modjaz+11)

Nomoto+94: 15 M A binary progenitor

SC-A: 18.2 Myr, 0.78 ZA → 12.4 MA
SC-B: 6.0 Myr, 0.66 ZA → 34.7 MA
SC-C: 6.4 Myr, 0.63 ZA → 32.2 MA
SC-D: 6.3 Myr, 0.81 ZA → 29.7 MA
SN 2009jf progenitor @SC-A: 12.4 MA

SC-A: 13.4 Myr, 0.83ZA: → 14.9 MA progenitor

Valenti+09: 25-30 MA progenitor(from SN properties), 8-25 MA (fromenvironment color)

Mass & metallicity of SN progenitors
SC: 15.6 Myr, 0.33ZA: → 14.7 MA progenitor

SC: 12.8 Myr, 1.35ZA: → 15.8 MA progenitor

 On average, SN Ic
progenitors are more
massive and metal richthan Ib

SC age: 10-16 Myr (Vinko+09), 20 Myr(Wang+05), 13.6 Myr (Maiz-Apellanis+04)

 Binary (sub-WR mass)progenitors are prevalent in
SN Ib/c, in addition tomassive (>25 Mʘ) single
progenitors (similar to theconclusion of Leloudas+11),
and possibly more frequentin SN Ib

SC age: 10-35 Myr (Lancon+08), 30-135
Myr (Smith+06)

Georgy+09 model

SC: 6.4 Myr, 0.98ZA: → 29.3 MA progenitor≲20 MA progenitor (Elias-Rosa+11)

References: Bressan et al. 1993. A&AS 100, 647; Crockett et al. 2008. ApJ 672, 99; Elias-Rosa et al. 2011. ApJ 742, 6;
Georgy et al. 2009. A&A 502, 611; Lancon et al. 2008. A&A 486, 165; Leitherer et al. 1999. ApJS 123, 3; Leloudas et al.
2011. A&A 530, 95; Maiz-Apellaniz, et al. 2004. ApJ 615, 113; Mattila et al. 2010. arXiv1011.5494; Modjaz et al. 2011. ApJ731, 4; Pettini & Pagel. 2004. MNRAS 348, L59; Smartt et al. 2009. MNRAS 395, 1409; Smith et al. 2006. MNRAS 370,513; Valenti et al. 2011. MNRAS 416, 3138; Vinko et al. 2009. ApJ 695, 619; Wang et al. 2005. ApJ 626, 89;

Ic

Ib

Smartt+09 II-P

II-L

II-P

Upper limits only Some SN II progenitors
may be as massive as
single SN Ib/c progenitors,as we estimated that 50%of the sample are possibly
contaminants (SN-clusterchance superpositions)→ Kuncarayakti+13,

AJ in press (arXiv 1305.1105, 1306.2106)