1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[aasms4]{aastex}
4: %\usepackage{psfig,graphics,graphicx}
5: %\def\baselinestretch{2.2}
6: %\topmargin=-0.45in
7: %\textheight=9.8in
8: %\received{}
9: %\revised{}
10: %\accepted{}
11: %\ccc{}
12: %\cpright{}{}
13:
14: \slugcomment{ApJ, in press}
15: \shorttitle{X-ray emission of SN 2004et with {\it Chandra} }
16: \shortauthors{}
17: \newcommand{\ergs}{\rm ~erg~s^{-1}}
18: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
19: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\odot}$}}
20: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\/}}
21: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{eff}$}
22: \newcommand{\grav}{log($g$)}
23: \newcommand{\mtv}{$\xi$}
24: \newcommand{\ew}{$W_{\lambda}$}
25: \newcommand{\fe}{[Fe/H]}
26: \newcommand{\chandra}{\textit{Chandra}}
27: %\def\baselinestretch{1.8}
28:
29:
30:
31: \begin{document}
32: \title{{\it CHANDRA} OBSERVATIONS OF SN 2004et AND THE X-RAY EMISSION
33: OF TYPE IIP SUPERNOVAE}
34: \author{J. Rho\altaffilmark{1}, T. H. Jarrett\altaffilmark{1},
35: N. N. Chugai\altaffilmark{2,3}, R. A. Chevalier\altaffilmark{3}}
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{{\it Spitzer} Science Center, California Institute of Technology,
38: Pasadena, CA 91125; rho, jarrett@ipac.caltech.edu}
39: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Astronomy, RAS, Pyatnitskaya 48, 109017 Moscow, Russia;
40: nchugai@inasan.ru}
41: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400325,
42: Charlottesville, VA 22904; rac5x@virginia.edu}
43: \begin{abstract}
44:
45:
46:
47: We report the X-ray detection of the Type II-plateau supernova SN
48: 2004et in the spiral galaxy NGC 6946, using the {\it Chandra X-Ray
49: Observatory}.
50: The position of the X-ray source was found to agree with
51: the optical position within $\sim$0.4$''$. {\it Chandra} also surveyed
52: the region before the 2004 event, finding no X-ray emission at the
53: location of the progenitor. For the post-explosion observations, a total
54: of 202, 151, and 158 photons were detected in three pointings, each
55: ~29 ks in length, on 2004 October 22, November 6, and December 3,
56: respectively. The spectrum of the first observation is best fit by a
57: thermal model with a temperature of $kT=1.3^{+\infty}_{-0.8}$ keV and a
58: line-of-sight absorption of $N_H=1.0\pm1.0 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.
59: The inferred unabsorbed luminosity ($0.4-8$
60: keV) is $\sim$4$\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, adopting a distance of
61: 5.5 Mpc. A comparison between hard and soft counts
62: on the first and third epochs indicates
63: a softening over this time,
64: although there is an insufficient number
65: of photons to constrain the variation of temperature and absorption
66: by spectral fitting.
67: We model the emission as arising from the reverse shock
68: region in the interaction between the supernova ejecta and the
69: progenitor wind. For a Type IIP supernova with an extended progenitor,
70: the cool shell formed at the time of shock wave breakout from the star
71: can affect the initial evolution of the interaction shell and the
72: absorption of radiation from the reverse shock. The observed spectral
73: softening might be due to decreasing shell absorption. We find a
74: pre-supernova mass loss rate of $(2-2.5)\times 10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$
75: yr$^{-1}$ for a wind velocity of 10 \kms, which is in line with
76: expectations for a Type IIP supernova.
77: %The X-ray properties of SN 2004et
78: %suggest a red supergiant progenitor rather than a yellow supergiant;
79: %this is also consistent with the radio properties and optical light
80: %curves.
81:
82:
83: \end{abstract}
84: \keywords{stars: mass loss --- supernovae: general --- supernovae:
85: individual (\objectname{SN 2004et})}
86:
87: \section{INTRODUCTION}
88:
89:
90:
91: The supernova (SN) SN 2004et was optically discovered on 2004 September
92: 27 by \cite{zwi04} at the position of R.A.\ $20^{\rm h} 35^{\rm m}
93: 25.33^{\rm s}$ and Dec.\ $+60^\circ$07$^{\prime} 17.7^{\prime \prime}$
94: (J2000) in the spiral galaxy NGC 6946. \cite{klo04} report detection of
95: the SN at magnitude $15.17\pm0.16$ on September 22.983 UT,
96: $12.7\pm 0.3$ on September 25.978, and a non-detection
97: on September 22.017 with an lower magnitude limit of $19.4\pm 1.2$.
98: The rapid rise at the time of the first detection is indicative of
99: the rapid luminosity rise near the time of shock breakout \citep{U07},
100: which is expected to occur about 1 day after the central explosion
101: for a red supergiant progenitor star.
102: We thus agree with the estimate of
103: \cite{li05} of an explosion date of
104: September $22.0\pm 1.0$ (JD2453270.5).
105: The possible error in the date is of no consequence at the ages
106: of interest here.
107: NGC 6946
108: is a nearby spiral galaxy \citep[5.5 Mpc,][]{sha01} that is largely
109: veiled at optical wavelengths by the Milky Way (Galactic longitude
110: $l=95^{\circ}$, latitude $b=+12^{\circ}$). As revealed by
111: dust-penetrating near-infrared imaging, the galaxy is nearly face-on
112: ($\sim30^{\circ}$ inclination) and its starlight extends over 12 arcmin
113: in diameter (see Figure \ref{SN2004etspitzerimage}), or $\sim$19 kpc in
114: physical size \citep{jar04, jar07}. The galaxy is gas-rich, actively
115: forming stars within giant molecular cloud complexes that trace the
116: multiple spiral-arm disk structure; the HI disk extends well beyond the
117: starlight, doubling the size of the galaxy. NGC 6946 is a prolific
118: factory for supernova events.
119: Many supernova remnants (SNRs)
120: have been identified using radio and X-ray telescopes
121: \citep{lac01, hym00, sch00, bla94, sch94, jar07}, and SN 2004et is the
122: eighth historical SN found in NGC 6946. Previous SNe include SN 2002hh \citep{li02}
123: and SN 1980K \citep{wil80}.
124:
125:
126:
127: Optical spectroscopy of
128: SN 2004et showed it to be a Type II event
129: \citep{zwi04,fil04}, and the optical light curve
130: was that of a Type II plateau (IIP) supernova \citep{li05}.
131: \cite{sah06} found that 0.06$\pm0.02~ M_{\odot}$ of
132: $^{56}$Ni and $1.5-2 ~M_{\odot}$ of oxygen were ejected in the
133: explosion, implying a progenitor mass of $\sim20 ~ M_{\odot}$.
134: \cite{li05} identified a yellow supergiant progenitor candidate using
135: presupernova optical images, implying a lower progenitor mass of
136: $15^{+5}_{-2} ~M_{\odot}$.
137: %The maximum velocity observed by \cite{li05} is 14,200 km s$^{-1}$.
138: Radio observations were carried by
139: \cite{sto04}, \cite{bes06}, and \cite{arg06}. \cite{CFN06} modeled the
140: radio light curve, comparing with synchrotron and Compton
141: cooling models. They estimated a mass loss rate of $\dot M_{-6}/u_{10}=
142: (9-10) T^{3/4}_{cs5}$, where $\dot{M}_{-6}$ is the mass loss rate in
143: units of $10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, $u_{10}$ is the wind velocity in
144: units of $10$ km s$^{-1}$, and $T_{cs5}$ is the circumstellar
145: temperature in units of $10^5$ K. The {\it Spitzer Infrared Nearby
146: Galaxies Survey} (SINGS; Kennicutt et al. 2003; see Figure
147: \ref{SN2004etspitzerimage}) imaged NGC 6946 after the 2004 supernova
148: event. Using these data, a bright infrared source was reported by
149: \cite{fab05}. \cite{RJC07} reported the detection of X-rays from a
150: position coincident with the infrared source, likely arising from the SN.
151:
152: In this paper, we give a more detailed presentation of the X-ray
153: emission from SN 2004et and implications of the X-ray emission for the
154: mass loss density. We discuss the interaction model that is needed to
155: describe the circumstellar interaction with ejecta in Type IIP
156: supernovae.
157:
158:
159: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS}
160:
161:
162: Using archival {\it Chandra} data, we serendipitously identified X-ray
163: emission from SN 2004et. There are two \chandra\ observations of NGC
164: 6946 before the SN 2004et explosion: on 2001 September 7 and 2002
165: November 25 \citep{hol03}. No X-ray source is detected at the position
166: of SN 2004et using these two, pre-explosion observations (see Figure
167: \ref{SN2004etimage}). Three \chandra\ observations (PI: Lewin) of NGC
168: 6946 after the SN 2004et event were carried out using the ACIS-S
169: detector on the \chandra\ {\it X-ray Observatory}. SN 2004et lies
170: in the ACIS-S3 chip.
171:
172: We used all five sets of \chandra\ observations to study the early
173: evolution of SN 2004et. We cross-correlated the respective
174: positions of the USNO, 2MASS, and the previously published X-ray sources
175: \citep{hol03} with the positions of our X-ray sources. There were a
176: few USNO/2MASS sources that coincided with X-ray sources within
177: 1$''$. We found that the results of cross-correlated positions
178: conformed to our observations. An X-ray source appeared at the position
179: of SN 2004et for the three observations taken after the explosion.
180: The position of the X-ray source was found to agree with the
181: optical position to within $\sim$0.4$''$, consistent within the
182: position uncertainty ($<$1$''$) for each of the three epochs.
183: Figure \ref{SN2004etimage} shows \chandra\ X-ray images of NGC 6946
184: covering SN 2004et before and after the SN event. Figure
185: ~\ref{SN2004etimagezoom}, the magnified version centered on SN 2004et,
186: shows clear X-ray detection at the position of SN 2004et after the
187: explosion date.
188:
189:
190:
191: For each epoch, we estimated the source counts using WAVDETECT (in
192: the CIAO\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/} package) with
193: the reprocessed event data cube; this tool performs a Mexican hat
194: wavelet decomposition and reconstruction of the image after
195: accounting for the spatially varying point spread function as
196: described by \citet{fre02}. We extracted the counts for SN 2004et
197: using a 2 pixel ($\sim$2$''$) circular aperture, enclosing $>$90\%
198: of the point-spread-function, detecting 202, 151, and 158 photons
199: for the observations on 2004 October 22, 2004 November 6, and 2004
200: December 3, respectively. These dates correspond to 30, 45, and 72
201: days after the explosion. In Table 1, we summerized the net counts,
202: count rates and exposure times for three energy bands, $0.4-2$ keV,
203: $2-8$ keV and $0.4-8$ keV. Throughout the paper, we constrain our
204: analysis to the energy bands from 0.4 to 8 keV. The X-ray
205: source, SN 2004et, was not resolved in the \chandra\ image. We
206: estimated a hardness ratio (HR), defined as HR=(H$-$S)/(H+S) where
207: S is the soft band ($0.4-2.0$ keV) and H is the hard band ($2.0-8$
208: keV), ranging from $-0.237\pm0.070$ to $-0.454\pm0.085$ (see Table
209: 1). The hardness ratios of the three observations indicate that the
210: spectra become softer between 30 and 72 days after the explosion.
211:
212:
213:
214:
215: We also extracted spectra using PSEXTRACT in the CIAO package. The
216: relatively low number counts, $\sim$200 (2004 October 22
217: observation), were barely sufficient to obtain a statistically
218: meaningful spectrum. Accordingly we binned the spectra with a
219: minimum count of 10 per bin. The resulting spectrum of the 2004
220: October 22 observation, in Figure \ref{f-spec}, is best fit by a
221: thermal model with a temperature of $kT=1.3^{+\infty}_{-0.8}$ keV
222: and a line-of-sight absorption of $N_H=1.0\pm1.0 \times 10^{22}$
223: cm$^{-2}$. All errors associated with the spectral fitting results
224: are within 90\% confidence. The column density and temperature
225: confidence contours are also shown in Figure \ref{f-conf}. The
226: estimated extinction to the supernova, $A_v$, is 0.41 mag
227: \citep{zwi04} using optical lines, implying a foreground atomic
228: hydrogen column density of $3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ using
229: N$_H$/E(B-V) = 6.8$\pm$1.6$\times$10$^{21}$ H atoms cm$^{-2}$
230: mag$^{-1}$ (Gorenstein \& Tucker 1976). This extinction is
231: consistent with the lower envelope of our X-ray absorption
232: measurements. The thermal model uses
233: APEC/MEKAL/RS\footnote{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/} models, which
234: produced almost identical fit parameters to within 2\%. The thermal
235: model which includes Ne X (at 1 keV), Mg XII (at 1.35 keV), and Si
236: XIII (at 1.865 keV) lines is consistent with the observed X-ray
237: spectrum, as shown in Figure \ref{f-spec}. The line emission
238: indicates that the observed X-ray emission is largely dominated by
239: reverse shock material at lower temperature than that of forward
240: shocked material (see \S3 and \S4). The inferred unabsorbed X-ray
241: luminosity ($0.4-8$ keV) is $3.8^{+1.8}_{-2.6} \times 10^{38}$ erg
242: s$^{-1}$, using a distance of 5.5 Mpc, which falls into the
243: luminosity range of known X-ray SNe \citep{sch01, Imm03}. Similar
244: consistency is found by fitting a bremsstrahlung model to the 2004
245: October 22 spectrum, yielding an absorbing column density of
246: 0.22$^{+0.78}_{-0.22} \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, and a temperature
247: of 25$^{+\infty}_{-24.5}$ keV. The results of spectral fitting are
248: summarized in Table 2.
249:
250:
251: Figure \ref{threespec} shows comparisons of the spectra at the three
252: epochs. The spectral fitting was not stable for the second and
253: third observations, due to the diminishing number of X-ray photons, so
254: we were unable to constrain the variation of temperature and
255: absorption by using spectral fitting. Assuming that the spectral
256: parameters were the same as the best-fit parameters of the first
257: observations, and using a thermal model (N$_H$=1.1$\times 10^{22}$
258: cm$^{-2}$ and kT= 1.3 keV), we estimated fluxes and luminosities of
259: the second and third observations. The corresponding fluxes were
260: 3.0$^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$$\times 10^{-14}$ and 3.4$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$$\times
261: 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively, and the
262: luminosities were 3.3$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$$\times 10^{38}$ and
263: 3.6$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$$\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively;
264: note that the errors of fluxes and luminosities were estimated using
265: those of the count rates, and the estimated former errors had lower
266: limits because uncertainties of spectral fitting were not taken
267: account. The respective luminosities and fluxes of the second and
268: third observations were consistent with being the same as those of
269: the first observation.
270:
271:
272: \section{IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WIND DENSITY}
273:
274: In the standard picture for the interaction of SN~IIP ejecta with a
275: smooth wind, a double-shock structure forms with the forward shock
276: propagating in the circumstellar (CS) gas and the reverse shock in the
277: SN ejecta \citep{Che82a,Nad85}. For the red supergiant wind expected
278: in a SN~IIP, assuming $\dot{M}\sim 10^{-6}-10^{-5}~M_{\odot}$
279: \citep{CFN06}, the reverse shock dominates the X-ray luminosity. In the
280: case of a power law density distribution in the ejecta, $\rho_{\rm
281: sn}\propto v^{-k}$, the interaction with the wind in the self-similar
282: regime \citep{Che82b} gives a luminosity of the adiabatic reverse shock
283: at an age $t$
284: %
285: \begin{equation}
286: L=\xi(k-3)(k-4)^2\frac{w^{2}\Lambda N_{\rm A}^{2}}{4\pi v_{\rm sn}t}=
287: 0.9\times10^{38}\omega^2\left(\frac{t}{30~\mbox{d}}\right)^{-1}
288: \left(\frac{v_{\rm sn}}{10^{9}\,\mbox{cm~s$^{-1}$}}\right)^{-1}\ergs \,,
289: \end{equation}
290:
291: where $k=9$ is assumed,
292: $\xi=(1+X)(1+2X)/8=0.66$ for solar abundances, $N_{\rm A}$ is
293: Avogadro's number, $v_{\rm sn}$ is the boundary (highest) ejecta
294: velocity, and $w=\dot{M}/u$ is the wind density parameter, while
295: $\omega=\dot{M}_{-6}/u_{10}$ is the dimensionless wind density
296: parameter, where $\dot{M}_{-6}$ is the mass loss rate in units of
297: $10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $u_{10}$ is the wind velocity in units
298: of $10$ km s$^{-1}$. The blue edge of H$\alpha$ in SN 2004et on day 30
299: \citep{sah06} implies $v_{\rm sn}\approx12,500$ km s$^{-1}$. The
300: temperature at the reverse shock assuming equilibration is $T_{\rm
301: r}=1.36\times 10^{9}(v_{\rm sn}/10^{9} ~\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})^{2}/(k-2)^{2}$
302: \citep{Che82b} and for the assumed parameters is equal to 3.7 keV. The
303: cooling function for this temperature is $\Lambda\approx
304: 2\times10^{-23}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^3$. To produce the unabsorbed X-ray
305: luminosity of $\sim4\times10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ on day 30, one then needs
306: a wind density $\omega\approx 2.5$. The pre-supernova mass loss rate
307: of $(2-2.5)\times 10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$
308: yr$^{-1}$ for a wind velocity of 10 \kms.
309: The wind density is in line with estimates for other
310: Type IIP supernovae, such as SN 1999em \citep{poo02} and SN 2006bp \citep{Imm07}.
311:
312:
313:
314:
315: The temperature of the reverse shock predicted by the self-similar
316: model (3.7 keV) is larger than the 1.3 keV implied by the observed
317: spectrum, although it is within
318: the observational uncertainty.
319: Incomplete temperature equilibration cannot be the reason for
320: this because equilibration is expected for the physical conditions that
321: are present. More plausible is that the velocity of the reverse shock is
322: lower due to a deviation from self-similar evolution. The formation of
323: a boundary shell during the shock breakout stage
324: \citep{GIN71,FA77,Che81,U07} causes deviations from a power law density
325: distribution in the outmost layers. The effect is especially important
326: for SNe IIP because of their large progenitor radius and relatively low
327: peak velocities.
328:
329: The existence of the boundary shell and of the velocity cutoff at
330: $v_{\rm c}$ is implemented here in a numerical interaction model based
331: on the thin shell approximation \citep{Che82b,CC06}. The mass of the
332: boundary shell is approximately equal to the mass of the outer envelope
333: ($v>v_{\rm c}$) with an extrapolated power law $\rho\propto v^{-k}$. We
334: take the density distribution to be $\rho_{\rm sn}=\rho_0/(1+(v/v_0)^k)$
335: with $k=9$ and $v_{\rm c}=15000$ km s$^{-1}$. The assumed ejecta mass
336: is $M=15~M_{\odot}$, which implies a main sequence mass
337: $16.4-17~M_{\odot}$, in general agreement with the observational
338: estimate of the progenitor mass, $15^{+5}_{-2}~M_{\odot}$ \citep{li05}.
339: The assumed kinetic energy is $E=1.3\times10^{51}$ erg, in line with a
340: model for the Type IIP SN~1999em \citep{U07}.
341:
342: Two expected effects related to the boundary shell are:
343: (1) non-self-similar early evolution of the shell deceleration that affects
344: the velocity of the reverse shock and its X-ray emission;
345: (2) significant absorption of X-rays in the cool boundary shell at the
346: reverse shock.
347: This contrasts with pure self-similar evolution, in which a radiative
348: shell does not typically form for the winds of interest, and so the
349: absorption of reverse shock emission is small \citep{CFN06}. In the
350: presence of a boundary shell with mass $M_{\rm bs}$ the initial
351: velocity of the reverse shock $v_{\rm rs}= v_{\rm sn}-v_{\rm s}$ is
352: about zero once free expansion of the ejecta has been set up because
353: both velocities coincide and are equal to the boundary velocity $v_{\rm
354: c}$. As the shell decelerates, the velocity and X-ray luminosity of
355: the reverse shock rapidly increase from zero values (Figure \ref{f-dyn}).
356: The shell deceleration is surprisingly fast because only a small mass of
357: the swept up wind suffices to reduce the shell velocity by $\Delta
358: v\sim v_{\rm c}/(k-3)$, the value of the velocity jump between ejecta
359: and shell in the self-similar regime. For our model with wind density
360: $\omega=2.5$, $v_{\rm c}=15,000$ km s$^{-1}$, and mass of the boundary
361: shell $M_{\rm bs}=4.7\times10^{-4}~M_{\odot}$, the initial
362: deceleration takes $t_{\rm dec}\approx(M_{\rm bs}/wv_{\rm
363: c})(k-3)^{-1}\sim 8$ d. This does not mean that the self-similar regime
364: is completely attained at the age $t\sim t_{\rm dec}$. Relatively
365: small deviations of the velocities $v_{\rm sn}$ and $v_{\rm s}$ from
366: the self-similar values lead to a significant deviation of $v_{\rm rs}$
367: from its self-similar value. It takes at least $t\approx(M_{\rm
368: bs}/wv_{\rm c})\sim(k-3)t_{\rm dec}$ or about 50 days for the model of
369: interest to approach the self-similar expansion regime. Computations
370: show that in the model with a boundary shell, $v_{\rm rs}$ remains
371: lower than the self-similar value by $>20\%$ during about first 200
372: days, primarily on account of the lower ejecta velocity $v_{\rm sn}$
373: compared to the self-similar value.
374:
375:
376:
377: The calculated X-ray luminosities (absorbed and unabsorbed) of the
378: forward and reverse shocks, the electron temperatures in the shocks, and
379: velocities of the thin shell and highest velocity ejecta are shown in
380: Figure \ref{f-dyn} for two values of the wind density parameter,
381: $\omega=2.5$ and 2. The unabsorbed luminosity deduced from observations
382: is lower then the unabsorbed luminosity in the interaction model
383: because the procedure of fitting the spectrum and the column density of
384: the absorber assumes a unique parameter $N_{\rm H}$. In reality the
385: emergent luminosity is a combination of the radiation of the front and
386: rear sides of the reverse shock and these components differ by the
387: amount of absorption by the SN ejecta. On day 30, the optical depth at
388: 1 keV in the SN ejecta is $\tau\approx 15$, while all the remaining
389: components (cool dense shell, CS wind and Galactic absorption) provide
390: only $\tau\approx 3$. Evidence for strongly absorbed radiation from
391: the rear side of the reverse shock is seen for $E>2$ keV (Figure \ref{f-spec}).
392: The unabsorbed luminosity obtained from X-ray
393: observations thus underestimates the real value by a factor
394: $\approx2$. Considering this, and taking into account the uncertainty
395: of the distance, we conclude that the observed X-ray emission from
396: SN~2004et implies a wind density $\omega\approx 2-2.5$. The electron
397: temperature of the reverse shock in the model with $\omega=2.5$ is very
398: close to the observational estimate (Figure \ref{f-dyn}), which solves
399: the temperature problem in the self-similar model. In our model, the
400: temperature at the reverse shock front remains fairly constant over the
401: time of interest (Figure \ref{f-dyn}), but the observed spectrum becomes
402: softer with time because of the decreasing column density through the
403: cool shell. This can be seen in the relative absorbed and unabsorbed
404: luminosities in Figure \ref{f-dyn}, and may be the reason for the spectral
405: softening seen in the observations.
406:
407: A further test of the interaction model is provided by the evolution of
408: the boundary velocity of the SN ejecta ($v_{\rm sn}$) and the observed
409: blue edge velocity ($v_{\rm be}$) of H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ absorption
410: (Figure \ref{f-dyn}). Generally, at the late photospheric stage, the
411: outer layers of ejecta are considered to have recombined, so one
412: expects that $v_{\rm be}$ should be significantly lower than $v_{\rm
413: sn}$. However, it was found recently that ionization and excitation of
414: SN~IIP ejecta by X-rays emitted from the reverse shock can produce
415: significant additional excitation of hydrogen in the outer layers so
416: the blue edge velocity $v_{\rm be}$ in H$\alpha$ can be very close to
417: $v_{\rm sn}$ \citep{CCU07}. Using the same procedure as in
418: \cite{CCU07}, we computed the excitation of hydrogen for a model of
419: SN~2004et ejecta with X-ray irradiation effects for $\omega=2$ and
420: $\omega=2.5$. In both cases, the additional high velocity absorption in
421: H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ turns out to be strong and the blue edge of
422: absorption is only $\sim250$ km s$^{-1}$ lower than the boundary
423: velocity $v_{\rm sn}$. The lower panel of Figure \ref{f-dyn} shows that
424: the model with $\omega=2.5$ successfully passes the velocity test and
425: therefore is preferred to the $\omega=2$ model. For $\omega=2$, the
426: interaction model predicts somewhat larger values of $v_{\rm sn}$.
427: However, given the uncertainty in the choice of the initial velocity
428: cut-off $v_{\rm c}$, this test should not be considered as conclusive,
429: although it demonstrates the self-consistency of the model.
430: %The observed
431: %blue edge velocity $v_{\rm be}$ of H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ thus should
432: %coincide with $v_{\rm sn}$ remaining
433: %by only $\approx 250$ km s$^{-1}$ smaller.
434:
435: \section{DISCUSSION}
436:
437:
438:
439: We detect the X-ray emission from SN 2004et using the
440: {\it Chandra X-Ray Observatory} data and interpret it in terms of the
441: interaction of ejecta with a presupernova wind characterized by the
442: wind density parameter $\omega=2-2.5$ or
443: $\dot{M}=(2-2.5)\times10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$
444: assuming the wind velocity of 10 \kms.
445: It should be kept in mind that the derived wind density
446: is model dependent and also suffers from the error
447: in the observed X-ray luminosity. Both result in an
448: uncertainty in the wind density of at least 0.3 dex.
449: Interestingly, the wind density deduced for SN~2004et is a factor
450: of two larger than the wind density for SN~1999em and SN~2004dj
451: with $\omega\approx 1$ as estimated from optical effects of the ejecta-wind
452: interaction \citep{CCU07}. This fact
453: possibly reflects a real difference, because the radio
454: luminosity of SN 2004et is among highest for SNe~IIP \citep{CFN06}.
455:
456: The preferred wind density in SN~2004et ($\omega=2.5$) is consistent
457: with the value found from free-free absorption of radio emission
458: \citep{CFN06}, if the assumed temperature of the wind is $T_{\rm
459: w}\approx15,000$ K. We computed the wind temperature irradiated by the
460: X-rays from the reverse shock in the steady state approximation (barely
461: applicable at the relevant age of $30-50$ d) and found $T_{\rm
462: w}\approx13,000$ K in the case of $\omega=2.5$. This makes the radio
463: and X-ray properties of the wind in SN~2004et consistent with a wind
464: density parameter $\omega=2.5$. The value of $\dot M$ deduced for SN
465: 2004et is consistent with the mass loss rate expected for a progenitor
466: star of its mass, $(15-20)~M_{\odot}$ \citep[Figure 1 of][]{CFN06}. We
467: have assumed that SN 2004et had a normal red supergiant progenitor, but
468: \cite{li05} found that the progenitor might be a yellow supergiant, with
469: possible similarities to the progenitors of SN 1987A or SN 1993J.
470: However, its radio and X-ray properties are similar to those of other
471: Type IIP supernovae \citep[][and references therein]{CFN06} and unlike
472: those of SN 1987A and SN 1993J. Also, the optical light curve of SN
473: 2004et is typical of a SN IIP \citep{sah06}, which would seem to require
474: a red supergiant progenitor.
475: Moreover, as noted above, the wind density around SN~2004et is
476: relatively large for a SN~IIP.
477: Yet for the same stellar mass a yellow supergiant is expected
478: to have a similar mass loss rate but a larger wind velocity, and,
479: therefore, a lower wind density compared to the red supergiant,
480: in contrast with the estimated wind density in SN~2004et. This
481: additionally argues in favor of the identification of the
482: SN~2004et progenitor with a red supergiant.
483: We conjecture that the ground-based
484: observations of the progenitor combine the emission from a red
485: supergiant with emission from an earlier type star or stars.
486:
487:
488: %====================================================================
489:
490: \acknowledgements
491: We are grateful to the referee for a very helpful report.
492: This research was supported in part by NSF grant AST-0307366 (NNC and
493: RAC). J. R. and T. H. J. acknowledge the support of California
494: Institute of Technology, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is
495: operated under contract with NASA.
496: This work is based on {\it Chandra}
497: archival data.
498:
499:
500:
501: %{\vskip 9truecm}
502: %\input ref.tex
503: \begin{thebibliography}{}
504: \bibitem[Argo et al.(2006)]{arg06}Argo, M., Beswick, R., Muxlow, T., Pedlar, A., Fenech, D., \& Thrall, H. 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 76, 565
505: \bibitem[Beswick et al.(2006)]{bes06}
506: Beswick, R. J., Muxlow, T. W. B., Argo, M. K., Pedlar, A., Marcaide, J. M., \& Wills, K. A. 2005, ApJ, 623, L21
507: \bibitem[Blair \& Fesen(1994)]{bla94} Blair, W. P., \& Fesen, R. A. 1994, \apjl, 424, 103
508: \bibitem[Chevalier(1981)]{Che81} Chevalier, R. A. 1981, Fund. of Cosmic Phys.,
509: 7, 1
510: \bibitem[Chevalier(1982a)]{Che82a} Chevalier, R. A. 1982a, ApJ, 258, 790
511:
512: \bibitem[Chevalier(1982b)]{Che82b} Chevalier, R. A. 1982b, ApJ, 259, 302
513:
514: \bibitem[Chevalier et al.(2006)]{CFN06} Chevalier, R. A., Fransson, C., \& Nymark, T. K.
515: 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029
516: \bibitem[Chugai \& Chevalier(2006)]{CC06} Chugai, N. N., \& Chevalier, R. A. 2006,
517: ApJ, 641, 1051
518:
519: \bibitem[Chugai et al.(2007)]{CCU07} Chugai, N. N., Chevalier, R. A.,
520: \& Utrobin, V.P. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0703468)
521: \bibitem[Fabbri et al.(2005)]{fab05}
522: Fabbri, J., Sugerman, B., \& Barlow, M., 2005, \iaucirc, 8489
523: \bibitem[Falk \& Arnett(1977)]{FA77} Falk, S. F., \& Arnett, W. D. 1977,
524: ApJS, 33, 515
525:
526: \bibitem[Filippenko et al.(2004)]{fil04} Filippenko, A. V., Foley, R. J., Treu, T., \&
527: Malkan, M.A. 2004, IAU Circ, 8414
528: \bibitem[Freeman et al.(2002)]{fre02} Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V.,
529: Rosner, R., \& Lamb, D. Q.
530: 2002, \apjs, 138, 185
531: \bibitem[Gorenstein \& Tucker(1976)]{gor76}
532: Gorenstein, P., \& Tucker, W. H. 1976, \araa, 14, 373
533: \bibitem[Grasberg et al.(1971)]{GIN71} Grasberg, E. K., Imshennik, V. S., \&
534: Nadyozhin, D. K. 1971, Ap\&SS, 10, 28
535:
536: \bibitem[Holt et al.(2003)]{hol03} Holt, S. S., Schlegel, E. M., Hwang, U., \& Petre, R.
537: 2003, ApJ, 588, 792
538: %\bibitem[Immler(2007)]{Imm07}Immler, S. 2007,
539: %http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/immler/supernovae\_list.html
540: \bibitem[Hyman et al.(2000)]{hym00} Hyman, S. D., Lacey, C. K., Weiler, K. W., \&
541: Van Dyk, S. D. 2000, AJ, 119, 1711
542: \bibitem[Immler \& Lewin (2003)]{Imm03} Immler, S., \& Lewin, W. H. G. 2003 {\it Supernovae and
543: Gamma-Ray Bursts}, edited by K. W. Weiler (Springer-Verlag)
544: \bibitem[Immler et al.(2007)]{Imm07} Immler, S., et al.\
545: 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0703765)
546: \bibitem[Jarrett(2004)]{jar04}Jarrett, T., 2004, PASA, 21, 396
547: \bibitem[Jarrett et al.(2007)]{jar07}Jarrett, T., et al. 2007, in preparation
548: \bibitem[Kennicutt et al.(2003)]{ken03}
549: Kennicutt, R.C., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 928
550: \bibitem[Klotz et al.(2004)]{klo04} Klotz, A., Pollas, C. \& Boer, M., 2004, IAU Circ. 8413, 2
551: \bibitem[Lacey \& Duric(2001)]{lac01} Lacey, C. K., \& Duric, N. 2001, ApJ, 560, 719
552: \bibitem[Li et al.(2002)]{li02} Li, W., 2002, IAU circular, IAU 8005
553: \bibitem[Li et al.(2005)]{li05} Li, W., van Dyk, S., Fillippenko, V., \& Cuillandre, J.-C.
554: 2005, PASP, 117, 121
555: \bibitem[Nadyozhin(1985)]{Nad85} Nadyozhin, D. K. 1985, ApSS, 112, 225
556:
557: \bibitem[Pooley et al.(2002)]{poo02} Pooley, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 932
558: \bibitem[Rho et al.(2007)]{RJC07} Rho, J., Jarrett, T.~H., \&
559: Chevalier, R.\ 2007, \iaucirc, 8799, 2
560:
561: \bibitem[Sahu et al.(2006)]{sah06} Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Srividya, S., \& Muneer S.
562: 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1315
563: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1994)]{sch94} Schlegel, E. M., et al. 1994, ApJ, 424, 95
564: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(2000)]{sch00} Schlegel, E. M., Blair, W. P., \& Fesen R. A. 2000, AJ, 120, 791
565: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(2001)]{sch01} Schlegel, E. M, 2001, ApJ, 556, L25
566: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2001)]{sha01} Shapley, A., Fabbiano,
567: G., \& Eskridge, P.~B.\ 2001, \apjs, 137, 139
568: \bibitem[Stockdale et al.(2004)]{sto04}
569: Stockdale, C. J., Kaster, B., Weiler, K. W., Van Dyk, S. D., Sramek, R. A.,
570: \& Panagia, N. 2004a, SN 2004et Data Table (Washington: NRL),
571: http://rsd-www.nrl.navy.mil/7213/weiler/kwdata/04etdata.asc
572: %Stockdale, C. J., Van Dyk, S. D., Sramek, R. A., Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Rupen, M. P., \& Paczynski, B. 2004, IAU Circ., 8282, 2
573: \bibitem[Utrobin(2007)]{U07} Utrobin, V. P. 2007, A\&A, 461, 233
574:
575: \bibitem[Utrobin \& Chugai(2002)]{UC02} Utrobin, V. P., \& Chugai, N. N. 2002,
576: Astron. Lett., 28, 386
577:
578: \bibitem[Wild(1980)]{wil80} Wild, P., 1980, IAU circular, No. 3532
579: %\bibitem[Yamaoka et al.(2004)]{yam04} Yamaoka, H., Itagaki, K., Klotz, A., Pollas, C., \&
580: %Boer, M. 2004, IAU Circ. 8413, 2
581: \bibitem[Zwitter et al.(2004)]{zwi04} Zwitter, T., Munari,
582: U., \& Moretti, S.\ 2004, \iaucirc, 8413, 1
583:
584:
585: \end{thebibliography}{}
586:
587:
588:
589:
590: \clearpage
591: %\LongTables
592: %\begin{landscape}
593: \begin{deluxetable}{llllcccccclll}
594: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
595: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
596: \rotate
597: \tablenum{1}
598: \tablewidth{0pt}
599: \tablecaption{Summary of observations}
600: \label{chaobs1}
601: \tablehead{
602: \colhead{date } &\colhead{OBSID$^a$} &\colhead{net counts }& \colhead{snr$^b$} & \colhead{exposure}
603: & \colhead{hard counts$^c$} & \colhead{soft counts$^c$} & \colhead{HR$^c$} \\
604: \colhead{(days$^d$) } &\colhead{ } &\colhead{ } & \colhead{} & \colhead{time (ks)}
605: & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}
606: }
607: \startdata
608: 2004 October 22 (30) & 4631 &201.8$\pm$16.7 & 12.8 & 29.7 & 133.5$\pm$11.5&82.4$\pm$9.11&$-0.237\pm$0.070(38\%) \\
609: 2004 November 06 (45) &4632 &150.7$\pm$14.6 & 10.3 & 28.0 & 105.6$\pm$10.3&53.5$\pm$7.3 &$-0.327\pm$0.084(34\%) \\
610: 2004 December 03 (72) &4633&158.3$\pm$14.7 & 10.8 & 26.6 & 121.6$\pm$11.0&45.6$\pm$6.8 &$-0.454\pm$0.085(27\%) \\
611: %2004 October 22 (30) &201.8$\pm$16.7 & 12.8 & 29.7 & 6.79$\times 10^{-3}$&133.5$\pm$11.5&82.4$\pm$9.11&$-0.237\pm$0.070(38\%) \\
612: %2004 November 06 (45) &150.7$\pm$14.6 & 10.3 & 28.0& 5.38$\times 10^{-3}$&105.6$\pm$10.3&53.5$\pm$7.3 &$-0.327\pm$0.084(34\%) \\
613: %2004 December 03 (72) &158.3$\pm$14.7 & 10.8 & 26.6 & 5.95$\times 10^{-3}$&121.6$\pm$11.0&45.6$\pm$6.8 &$-0.454\pm$0.085(27\%) \\
614: \enddata
615: \tablenotetext{a}{observation id. $^b$snr: signal-to-noise.
616: $^c$The hardness ratio (HR) is defined as HR=(H$-$S)/(H+S) where S is the soft
617: band ($0.4-2.0$ keV) and H is the hard band ($2.0-8$ keV). The number in the
618: parenthesis is percent of hard band photons.
619: $^d$days since the explosion.
620: }
621: \end{deluxetable}
622:
623: \begin{deluxetable}{ccllcccc}
624: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
625: \tablenum{2}
626: \tablewidth{0pt}
627: \tablecaption{Results of spectral fitting using the first epoch observation}
628: \label{chaobs2}
629: \tablehead{
630: \colhead{Model } & \colhead{$^a\Delta \chi2$} & \colhead{N$_H$} & \colhead{kT}& \colhead{Z/Z$_{\odot}$}& \colhead{f$_{\rm x}$$^b$} & \colhead{L$_{\rm x}$$^c$}\\
631: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{ (keV)}& \colhead{}& \colhead{(erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(erg s$^{-1}$)}\\
632: }
633: \startdata
634: thermal& 0.4$^c$ &1.1($<$2.1) & 1.3 ($>$0.4)& $\equiv$1 & 2.9$^{+4.7}_{-1.4} \times 10^{-14}$& 3.8$^{+1.8}_{-2.6}$$\times 10^{38}$ \\
635: thermal& 0.18 & $\equiv$0.3 & 8.9($>$1.5) &$\equiv$1 &7.1($>$4.3)$\times 10^{-14}$ & 3.2($>$2.4)$\times 10^{38}$ \\
636: thermal$^d$& 0.2 &0.23 ($<$1.3) & 22 ($>$0) &0.2 & 6.6$\times 10^{-14}$&
637: 2.8$\times 10^{38}$\\
638: bremstrahlung&0.18 &0.22 ($<$1) & 25 ($>$0.5) &--& 7.5$^{+2.2}_{-5.8}$$\times 10^{-14}$& 3.3$^{+2.4}_{-1.2}$$\times 10^{38}$ \\
639: \enddata
640: \tablenotetext{a}{the typical degree of freedom is $\sim$16. $^b$absorbed flux, $^c$unabsorbed luminosity (0.4-8 keV).
641: $^d$ the errors of the abundance, flux and luminosity could not be constrainted.
642: }
643: \end{deluxetable}
644:
645: %\end{document}
646: \clearpage
647:
648: \begin{figure}
649: %\includegraphics[width=18truecm,angle=270]{2004etxrayimage.ps}^M
650: \includegraphics[width=15truecm,angle=0]{f1.eps}
651: \caption{
652: {\it Spitzer} IRAC 8 $\mu$m (from 6.5 to 9.5 $\mu$m) image of NGC 6946
653: acquired by the SINGS \citep{ken03} project.
654: The observations were made on 2004 November 25, and the integration time was
655: 480 sec per sky position.
656: SN 2004et is located in the outer, south-eastern spiral arm;
657: a closeup view of the region is shown in the lower left, showing that
658: the source is extended, composed
659: of a point source coinciding with SN 2004et and an extended shell
660: that is $\sim$7 arcsec ($\sim$186 pc) in diameter.
661: }
662: \label{SN2004etspitzerimage}
663: \end{figure}
664:
665: \begin{figure}
666: \includegraphics[width=15truecm,angle=0]{f2.eps}
667: \caption{X-ray {\it Chandra} images (0.4 - 8 keV) observed on 2002 November 25, 2002 (pre-SN; a), 2004 October 22 (b), 2004 November 6 (c), and
668: 2004 December 3 (d), showing detection of X-ray emission from SN 2004et (marked with a
669: circle
670: of 5$''$ radius).
671: }
672: \label{SN2004etimage}
673: \end{figure}
674: \begin{figure}
675: \includegraphics[width=15truecm,angle=0]{f3.ps}
676: \caption{Magnified version of Figure \ref{SN2004etimage} centered on SN 2004et. The image covers
677: a 3$'$ field of view.
678: }
679: \label{SN2004etimagezoom}
680: \end{figure}
681:
682:
683: \begin{figure}
684: \includegraphics[width=8truecm,angle=270]{f4.ps}
685: \caption{X-ray spectrum of SN 2004et from the 2004 October 22 observation;
686: the best-fit model is superposed.
687: }
688: %\label{SN2004etspecconf}
689: \label{f-spec}
690: \end{figure}
691:
692: \begin{figure}
693: %\includegraphics[width=8truecm,angle=0]{idlconf.ps}^M
694: %\includegraphics[width=8truecm,angle=0} ]{mar9_contoura.ps}^M
695: \includegraphics[width=8truecm,angle=0]{f5.ps}
696: \caption{
697: The confidence contours for column density and temperature solutions.
698: The confidence levels are 99\%, 90\% and 67\%. The contours (thick lines) of the hardness
699: ratio of $-0.237$ and $-0.454$ are also shown.
700: For a given temperature, the softened X-ray spectrum between
701: the hardness ratio of $-0.237$ (the first) and of $-0.454$ (the last epoch)
702: indicates lowering in the absorption.
703: }
704: %\label{SN2004etspecconf} ^M
705: \label{f-conf}
706: \end{figure}
707:
708:
709:
710: \begin{figure}
711: %\plotone{threespec.ps}
712: \includegraphics[width=8truecm,angle=270]{f6.ps}
713: \caption{{\it Chandra} spectra of SN 2004et at three epochs.
714: The spectra at the first, second, and third epochs
715: are marked with crosses, squares, and circles, respectively.
716: The spectral change below 1 keV is
717: noticeable and the spectral
718: softening might be due to decreasing shell absorption.
719: The best-fit model of the first epoch spectrum
720: is superposed.}
721: \label{threespec}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724:
725:
726: %======================================================================
727: \begin{figure}
728: %\plotone{figdyn.ps}
729: \plotone{f7.ps}
730: \caption{The interaction model for two values of wind density $w=2.5$
731: and $w=2$. The {\em top} panel shows the X-ray luminosity of the forward
732: ({\em thick} lines) and reverse ({\em thin}) shocks for unabsorbed ({\em
733: solid}) and absorbed ({\em dotted}) emergent radiation. The
734: absorbed radiation includes absorption in the cool boundary shell (see
735: the text for details). The observed X-ray luminosities are shown by
736: {\em crosses}. The {\em middle} panel displays the electron temperature
737: of the forward ({\em thick} lines) and reverse ({\em thin}) shocks; the
738: observational estimate of the temperature, 1.3 keV on day 30, is shown
739: by a filled {\em square}. In the {\em lower} panel, the velocity of the
740: thin shell ({\em thick} line) and boundary velocity of the unshocked SN
741: ejecta ({\em thin} line) are shown together with the velocities of the
742: blue edge of the H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ lines according to spectra of
743: \cite{sah06}.
744: }
745: \label{f-dyn}
746: \end{figure}
747: \end{document}
748: