Timeline for Prior binary star system as possible explanation of high-velocity Type II Supernovae remnants
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2014 at 10:29 | comment | added | steveOw | @KyleKanos why "NS would need to move past the ejecta"? The effect would occur as soon as ejecta (30,000 kps) moved passed the ns (500 kps). This could be observed on Earth within a year of the SN event light arrival at Earth for a SN event which happened a few hundred years ago and whose pre-SN-event history we have been observing for a few years. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 0:10 | vote | accept | steveOw | ||
| Jul 15, 2014 at 22:44 | answer | added | steveOw | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 22:05 | comment | added | steveOw | @Kyle Kanos OK Many thanks for your help. I will make an answer. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | It could be verified a few hundred years from now when we have observations of a recent, galactic type ii event before and long after ( ns would need to move past the ejecta). Occam's razor would point to a single star, rather than a more complex situation you describe. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | steveOw | It could be verified if the companion 2sm NS was observable before and after the explosion. Not very likely perhaps. But anyway isnt it a feasible and simple theoretical solution to the cited "long-standing problem"? | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 20:54 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Well then it just boils down to the fact that you're basically proposing an idea can't be observationally verified. Sure, it could be nice, but without any sort of proof for it, it's not really any better than the current model. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 20:44 | comment | added | steveOw | Companion doesnt need a kick if it already has high orbital velocity. In my model (before explosion) a max distance of 100 MKm and elliptical orbits can give max velocity of companion = c. 500kps. No need for explosion asymmetry. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 20:40 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | In retrospect, yes the companion would have the linear velocity; not sure what I was thinking. However, this appears to defeat your hypothesis as the companion cannot be given the kick (which comes from an asymmetry in the explosion); the high-velocity object must be the remnant of the star that exploded. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 20:31 | comment | added | steveOw | OK forget BH as product, keep 0.1sm NS. Wikipedia: Non-rotating and non-accreting NSs are virtually undetectable. 9.9sm of ejecta continue to contribute to system momentum. The companion merely retains most of its linear orbital velocity at "moment of release" when ejecta shell moves outside of it. No kick from the other star is required. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 12:58 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | No black hole can be that small (something like 3sm is the cutoff). Conservation of momentum would say that the smaller star would have a larger kick than the larger star. And, AFAIK, all NS are X-ray emitters, so we should observe it regardless of its size. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 11:27 | comment | added | steveOw | If the Type II SN reduces a 10sm (solar mass) star to a very low-mass NS/BH (e.g. 0.1sm) and the companion was a high-mass NS (e.g. 2sm) then both stars will get a velocity kick but only the latter will be observed moving fast away from the scene. | |
| Jul 14, 2014 at 13:59 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | A Type I SNe destroys its precursor, Type II do not (hence the NS or BH). If the NS/BH gets a velocity kick, the companion would as well and I don't think any stars have been observed moving with such kicks in the vicinity of a SNR or NS. | |
| Jul 14, 2014 at 13:50 | comment | added | steveOw | You know more than me but logically it appears to me that although Type II mechanism does not NEED a binary that does not preclude some Type II progenitors from having a binary partner which survives (maybe "damaged" somehow) and goes runaway. I dont understand the significance of the ratio (hmb:ns) in your last sentence. | |
| Jul 14, 2014 at 11:14 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | We can tell from the physics if the explosion mechanism. Type II are caused by the collapsed core and does not need a binary. I am not entirely sure, but I think high-mass binaries are extremely rare compared to the number of neutron stars we know about. | |
| Jul 14, 2014 at 9:44 | comment | added | steveOw | Sorry I put the wrong link for the 1st wikipedia article. I did not initially mean to bring Type I supernovae into the discussion. How can we be sure that any particular supernova is from a progenitor star which does not have a small binary partner. | |
| Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 | history | edited | steveOw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected link to wikipedia
|
| Jul 14, 2014 at 1:12 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | You are conflating Types here. Type II SNe are caused by single stars, Type I SNe occur in binary systems. | |
| Jul 13, 2014 at 12:12 | comment | added | steveOw | What if original pair comprised a stable fast-moving neutron star and a star which supernova'ed (Type II-P) leaving a small undetected neutron star, black hole or no remnant (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova see Table:Core collapse scenarios by mass and metallicity, based on Heger et al 2003 paper). | |
| Jul 13, 2014 at 11:00 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | No. The observed object that is moving away is the result of a Type II supernovae: the neutron star. | |
| S Jul 13, 2014 at 9:15 | history | suggested | GRrocks |
Added tag 'astronomy'
|
|
| Jul 13, 2014 at 8:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 13, 2014 at 9:15 | |||||
| Jul 13, 2014 at 8:36 | history | asked | steveOw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |