Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Progenitor Mass Distribution of Core-Collapse Supernova Remnants in Our Galaxy and Magellanic Clouds based on Elemental Abundances

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1807.03426 v1 pith:EP5MJ7FA submitted 2018-07-10 astro-ph.HE

Progenitor Mass Distribution of Core-Collapse Supernova Remnants in Our Galaxy and Magellanic Clouds based on Elemental Abundances

classification astro-ph.HE
keywords massprogenitorzamsdistributionodotcocoreabundancesccsnrs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a progenitor mass distribution of core-collapse supernova remnants (CCSNRs) in our Galaxy and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, for the first time. We count the number of CCSNRs in three mass ranges divided by the zero-age main-sequence mass, $M_{\rm ZAMS}$; A: $M_{\rm ZAMS} < 15\ {\rm M}_\odot$, B: $15\ {\rm M}_\odot < M_{\rm ZAMS} < 22.5\ {\rm M}_\odot$, C: $M_{\rm ZAMS} > 22.5\ {\rm M}_\odot$. Simple compilation of progenitor masses in the literature yields a progenitor mass distribution of $f_{\rm A}: f_{\rm B}: f_{\rm C} =0.24:0.28:0.48$, where $f$ is the number fraction of the progenitors. The distribution is inconsistent with any standard initial mass functions. We notice, however, that previous mass estimates are subject to large systematic uncertainties because most of the relative abundances (X/Si) are not really good probe for the progenitor masses. Instead, we propose to rely only on the Fe/Si ratio which is sensitive to the CO core mass ($M_{\rm COcore}$) and $M_{\rm ZAMS}$. Comparing Fe/Si ratios in SNRs in the literature with the newest theoretical model, we estimate 33 $M_{\rm COcore}$ and $M_{\rm ZAMS}$, leading to a revised progenitor mass distribution of $f_{\rm A}: f_{\rm B}: f_{\rm C} = 0.47: 0.32 : 0.21$. This is consistent with the standard Salpeter initial mass function. However, the relation between $M_{\rm COcore}$ and $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ could be affected by binary evolution, which is not taken into account in this study and should be considered in the future work to derive a better progenitor mass distribution estimate.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.