LETTER TO THE EDITOR
pdf ps
Based on a presentation made at the 89th
Annual Meeting of the AAVSO, October 27th, 2000
“The Slow Death of Supernova 1999em”
The type IIP supernova 1999em in NGC 1637
appeared to this observer as dimming very slowly in brightness, less than a
magnitude in 60 days. So I decided to search the AAVSO International Database
online to see if this was unusual. From October 29, 1999 (discovery date of SN 1999em), to October
14, 2000, 12 supernovae made their way into the AAVSO program. 5 of these are
type I, 5 are type II, and 2 are unrecorded as to type. All faded faster than
SN 1999em. Searching 5 years back found SN 1998S as the slowest to fade, 3.5
magnitudes in 60 days. An immediate fact appeared: there are few faint data on
the decay of supernovae. Only 13 observations of supernovae below 16th
magnitude were reported to the AAVSO October 1999-October 2000. We all like to
discover them, but not many like to help develop a light curve of their demise.
I remembered that the type II supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud (1987A)
decayed very slowly. So I ran its light curve
and found that it had decayed about 5 magnitudes in 334 days, the same
amount of time since SN 1999em peaked.
If SN 1999em were following a similar decay, as suggested by the light curve,
then it should be between 17.5 and 18.0 magnitude and so easily imaged by CCD.
This proved to be true. I imaged SN 1999em 334 days after peak magnitude and
easily found it still there, shinning at about 18th magnitude, though it was
difficult for me to get a precise measure due to lack of sequence and its
location in a bright galaxy background. SN1993J in M81, type II, took a similar
drop, but there are no AAVSO data below 16.0 magnitude. And this was the
brightest supernova this decade! I don’t know if there is much scientific value
for AAVSO CCDers to follow supernovae into this Inner-inner Sanctum below 16th
magnitude, but we can do it, so should we?
I contacted Dr. Peter Garnavich,
University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, who responded:
“It is always useful to follow supernovae
to as faint a level as possible. But if the quality of the data isn’t good then
it is not worth it. So if you can’t get photometry to better than 0.1 mag
accuracy in a standard filter then it is probably better to observe some
brighter objects. Scientifically, the most useful thing about following
supernovae at late time is that the decay rate is a clue to the mass of the
exploded star. Once the supernova ejecta becomes transparent to light, it is
powered only by the radioactive decay of elements produced in the explosion.
These unstable elements make gamma-rays that are absorbed or escape the debris.
The more massive the exploded star the more stuff around to absorb the
gamma-rays so the light curve decays slowly. A low mass star allows more of the
gammas to escape so the energy just flies away and the light curve drops
quickly.
“Both SN 1999em and 93J were probably red
supergiants. 87A was an oddball. Because it was in a blue SG [supergiant] phase
when it exploded it was much fainter than a similar mass red supergiant would
have been. Some models imply that the small amount
of heavy elements in the Magellanic Cloud is the reason it was in a blue SG phase.
“93J was unusual too, but for different
reasons. It had lost about 10 solar masses of gas to a companion star before it
blew up and that is why it had a strange light curve.
“99em was the most normal of the three.
It was a red supergiant with a large hydrogen envelope which is why it stayed
on the “plateau” for so long.
“I’d love to get more people with CCDs
following supernovae. They aren’t popular with the visual observers because
they tend to be too faint, but with CCDs new possibilities appear.
“Also with CCDs the need for a comparison
sequence is relaxed. As long as there are stars in the field relative
magnitudes can be determined. Usually some professional will make a standard
sequence around some interesting supernova, it just takes a year to get
published. The last thing needed is to figure the color terms for your
filter/CCD combination, but that only takes looking at some standard fields on
one photometric night. And the color terms won’t change unless you get a new
filter or CCD....
“What do you think about organizing more
AAVSO observers with CCDs to be supernova observers? I think there is lots of potential, but it will take some work to
get everyone taking the needed data so that the results can be combined.
-Peter.”
So I think that before we read the Last
Rites and pull the plug on these supernovae, we should put them in HOSPICE and
attend to them in their demise.
I want to thank AAVSO Headquarters and staff for
making their Website so useful and easy in researching this kind of data.
Ronald E. Royer
3519
St. Pancratius Place
Lakewood, CA 90712
Link to ADS abstract, article and citation information
