1: \documentclass[twocolumn]{elsart}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,amssymb,natbib}
3: \def\aa{{\em A\&A}\ }
4: \def\aas{{\em A\&AS}\ }
5: \def\aj{{\em AJ}\ }
6: \def\annrev{{\em ARA\&A}\ }
7: \def\apj{{\em ApJ}\ }
8: \def\apjs{{\em ApJS}\ }
9: \def\baas{{\em BAAS}\ }
10: \def\mnras{{\em MNRAS}\ }
11: \def\nat{{\em Nature}\ }
12: \def\pasp{{\em PASP}\ }
13: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
14: \hbox {$<$}}}
15: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
16: \hbox {$>$}}}
17: \newcommand{\ms}{$M_\odot$}
18: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g., }
19: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e., }
20: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
21: \newcommand{\Mms}{M_{\rm MS}}
22: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
23: \newcommand{\ergs}{erg~s$^{-1}$}
24: \newcommand{\OI}{O~{\sc i}}
25: %\newcommand{\MgI}{Mg~{\sc i}}
26: %\newcommand{\NaI}{Na~{\sc i}}
27: \newcommand{\SiII}{Si~{\sc ii}}
28: \newcommand{\CaII}{Ca~{\sc ii}}
29: \newcommand{\FeII}{Fe~{\sc ii}}
30: \newcommand{\FeIII}{Fe~{\sc iii}}
31: \newcommand{\TiII}{Ti~{\sc ii}}
32: \newcommand{\Fefs}{$^{56}$Fe}
33: \newcommand{\Cofs}{$^{56}$Co}
34: \newcommand{\Nifs}{$^{56}$Ni}
35: \newcommand{\Mej}{M_{\rm ej}}
36: \newcommand{\KE}{E_{\rm K}}
37:
38: \begin{document}
39: \runauthor{Nomoto, Tanaka, Tominaga, Maeda, and Mazzali}
40: \begin{frontmatter}
41: \title{Hypernovae and their Gamma-Ray Bursts Connection}
42: \author[tokyo]{Ken'ichi Nomoto}
43: \author[tokyo]{Masaomi Tanaka}
44: \author[tokyo]{Nozomu Tominaga}
45: \author[MPA,tokyo2]{Keiichi Maeda}
46: \author[MPA,Trieste,tokyo]{Paolo A. Mazzali}
47:
48: \address[tokyo]{Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo,
49: Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
50: \address[MPA]{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
51: Karl-Schwarzschild-Stra{\ss}e 1, 85741 Garching, Germany}
52: \address[tokyo2]{Department of Earth Science and Astronomy,
53: College of Arts and Science, University of Tokyo, Meguro-ku, Tokyo
54: 153-8902, Japan}
55: \address[Trieste]{Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica-OATs, Via Tiepolo
56: 11, I-34131 Trieste, Italy}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59:
60: The connection between long Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) and Supernovae
61: (SNe), have been established through the well observed cases of
62: GRB980425/SN\,1998bw, GRB030329/SN\,2003dh and GRB031203/SN\,2003lw.
63: These events can be explained as the prompt collapse to a black hole
64: (BH) of the core of a massive star ($M \sim 40 \Msun$) that had lost
65: its outer hydrogen and helium envelopes. All these SNe exhibited
66: strong oxygen lines, and their
67: energies were much larger than those of typical SNe, thus these SNe
68: are called Hypernovae (HNe). The case of SN\,2006aj/GRB060218 appears
69: different: the GRB was weak and soft (an X-Ray Flash, XRF); the SN is
70: dimmer and has very weak oxygen lines. The explosion energy of
71: SN\,2006aj was smaller, as was the ejected mass. In our model, the
72: progenitor star had a smaller mass than other GRB/SNe ($M \sim 20
73: \Msun$), suggesting that a neutron star (NS) rather than a black hole
74: was formed. If the nascent neutron star was strongly magnetized (a
75: so-called magnetar) and rapidly spinning, it may launch a weak GRB or
76: an XRF. The final fate of 20-30 $\Msun$ stars show
77: interesting variety, as seen in the very peculiar Type Ib/c SN 2005bf.
78: This mass range corresponds to the NS to BH transition. We also
79: compare the nucleosynthesis feature of HNe with the metal-poor stars
80: and suggest the Hypernova-First Star connection.
81:
82: \end{abstract}
83:
84: \begin{keyword}
85: supernovae; hypernovae; gamma-ray bursts; first stars; nucleosynthesis
86: \end{keyword}
87:
88: \begin{center}
89: {\small {\bf
90: ~ \\
91: To appear in New Astronomy Reviews \\
92: ``A LIFE WITH STARS''\\
93: Amsterdam, 22-26 August 2005 \\
94:
95: }}
96: \end{center}
97:
98: \end{frontmatter}
99:
100: \section{Supernovae, Hypernovae, and Gamma-Ray Bursts}
101:
102:
103: \begin{figure*}
104: \begin{center}
105: \includegraphics*[width=10.4cm]{f01.eps}
106: \end{center}
107: \caption{
108: The spectra of 3 Hypernovae a few days before maximum.
109: SN~1998bw/GRB~980425 represents the GRB-SNe \cite{iwa98}. SN~2002ap is
110: a non-GRB Hypernova. SN~2006aj is associated with XRF~060218,
111: being similar to SN~2002ap.
112: }
113: \label{figspcomp}
114: \end{figure*}
115:
116:
117: Massive stars in the range of 8 to $\sim$ 130$M_\odot$ undergo
118: core-collapse at the end of their evolution and become Type II and
119: Ib/c supernovae unless the entire star collapses into a black hole
120: with no mass ejection. These Type II and Ib/c supernovae (as well as
121: Type Ia supernovae) release large explosion energies and eject
122: explosive nucleosynthesis materials, thus having strong dynamical,
123: thermal, and chemical influences on the evolution of interstellar
124: matter and galaxies. Therefore, the explosion energies of
125: core-collapse supernovae are fundamentally important quantities, and
126: an estimate of $E \sim 1\times 10^{51}$ ergs has often been used in
127: calculating nucleosynthesis and the impact on the interstellar medium.
128: (In the present paper, we use the explosion energy $E$ for the final
129: {\sl isotropic} kinetic energy of explosion.) A good example is
130: SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud, whose energy is estimated to be
131: $E = (1.0$ - 1.5) $\times$ $10^{51}$ ergs from its early light curve
132: \citep{nomoto1994b}.
133:
134: One of the most interesting recent developments in the study of
135: supernovae (SNe) is the discovery of the connection between
136: long-duration Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) and a particular subtype of
137: core-collapse SNe (Type Ic) as has been clearly established from GRB
138: 980425/SN 1998bw \cite{gal98}, GRB 030329/SN 2003dh \cite{sta03,
139: hjo03}, and GRB 031203/SN 2003lw \cite{mal04}. These GRB-SNe have
140: similar properties; they are all Hypernovae, i.e., very energetic
141: supernovae, whose {\sl isotropic} kinetic energy (KE) exceeds
142: $10^{52}$\,erg, about 10 times the KE of normal core-collapse SNe
143: (hereafter $E_{51} = E/10^{51}$\,erg).
144:
145:
146:
147:
148: Figure 1 shows the spectrum of SN~1998bw/GRB~980425 a few days before
149: maximum. The spectrum of SN~1998bw has very broad lines, indicative
150: of the large $E$. The strongest absorptions are \TiII-\FeII\
151: (shortwards of $\sim 4000$\AA, \FeII-\FeIII\ (near 4500\AA), \SiII\
152: (near 5700\AA), \OI-\CaII\ (between 7000 and 8000 \AA). From the
153: synthetic spectra and light curves, it was interpreted as the
154: explosion of a massive star, with $E \sim 30 \times 10^{51}$\,erg and
155: $\Mej \sim 10 \Msun$.\cite{iwa98} Also the very high luminosity of SN
156: 1998bw indicates that a large amount of \Nifs\ ($\sim 0.5 \Msun$) was
157: synthesized in the explosion.
158:
159: The other two GRB-SNe, 2003dh and 2003lw, are also characterized by
160: the very broad line features and the very high luminosity. $\Mej$ and
161: $\KE$ are estimated from synthetic spectra and light curves and
162: summarized in Figure 2\cite{nak01a, mazzali2003, deng05, maz06a}. It
163: is clearly seen that GRB-SNe are the explosions of massive progenitor
164: stars ($M \sim 35 - 50 \Msun$), have large explosion kinetic energies
165: ($E \sim 3 - 5 \times 10^{52}$\,erg), synthesized large amounts of
166: \Nifs\ ($\sim 0.3 - 0.5 \Msun$), thus forming the ``Hypernova Branch''
167: in Figure 2.
168:
169:
170: Other ``non-GRB Hypernovae'', such as SN~1997ef \cite{iwa00, maz00},
171: SN~2002ap \cite{maz02}, and SN 2003jd \cite{maz05}, have been
172: observed. These HNe show spectral features similar to those of the
173: GRB-SNe but are not known to have been accompanied by a GRB. The
174: estimated $\Mej$ and $E$, obtained from synthetic light curves and
175: spectra, show that there is a tendency for non-GRB HNe to have smaller
176: $\Mej $, $E$, and lower luminosities as summarized in Figure 2. For
177: example, SN~2002ap has similar spectral features, but narrower and
178: redder (Fig. 1), which was modeled as a smaller energy explosion, with
179: $E \sim 4 \times 10^{51}$\,erg and $\Mej \sim 3 \Msun$\cite{maz02}.
180:
181: Recently X-Ray Flash (XRF) 060218 has been found to be connected to SN
182: Ic 2006aj \cite{campana2006, pian2006}. SN~2006aj is very similar to
183: SN~2002ap,
184: being a less energetic ($E_{51} \sim 2$). However, it differs in the
185: lack of the \OI-\CaII\ absorption near 7500\AA.
186: The progenitor is
187: estimated to be $\sim 20 M_\odot$, thus being suggested to be a
188: ``neutron star-making SN'' \cite{mazzali2006b}
189: (see \S 2 for details).
190:
191:
192: \begin{figure*}
193: \begin{center}
194: \includegraphics*[width=10.4cm]{f02a.eps}\\
195: \includegraphics*[width=10.4cm]{f02b.eps}
196: \end{center}
197: \caption{
198: The kinetic explosion energy $E$ and the ejected $^{56}$Ni mass as a
199: function of the main sequence mass $M$ of the progenitors for several
200: supernovae/hypernovae.}
201: \label{figME}
202: \end{figure*}
203:
204:
205: Hypernovae are also characterized by asphericity from the observations
206: of polarization and emission line features \cite[e.g.,][]{wang2003,
207: kaw02, mae02}. The explosion energy of the aspherical
208: models for hypernovae tends to be smaller than the spherical models by
209: a factor of 2 - 3, but still being as high as $E_{51} \gsim 10$
210: \cite{mae06LC}.
211:
212: In contrast to HNe, SNe II 1997D and 1999br were very faint SNe with
213: very low KE \cite{turatto1998, hamuy2003, zampieri2003}. In the
214: diagram that shows $E$ and the mass of $^{56}$Ni ejected $M(^{56}$Ni)
215: as a function of the main-sequence mass $M_{\rm ms}$ of the progenitor
216: star (Figure~\ref{figME}), therefore, we propose that SNe from stars
217: with $M_{\rm ms} \gsim 20-25 M_\odot$ have different $E$ and
218: $M(^{56}$Ni), with a bright, energetic ``hypernova branch'' at one
219: extreme and a faint, low-energy SN branch at the other
220: \cite{nomoto2003}. For the faint SNe, the explosion energy was so
221: small that most $^{56}$Ni fell back onto the compact remnant
222: \cite[e.g.,][]{sollerman1998}. Thus the faint SN branch may become a
223: ``failed'' SN branch at larger $M_{\rm ms}$. Between the two
224: branches, there may be a variety of SNe \cite{hamuy2003,
225: tominaga2005}.
226:
227: This trend might be interpreted as follows. Stars more massive than
228: $\sim$ 25 $M_\odot$ form a black hole at the end of their evolution.
229: Stars with non-rotating black holes are likely to collapse ``quietly''
230: ejecting a small amount of heavy elements (Faint supernovae). In
231: contrast, stars with rotating black holes are likely to give rise to
232: Hypernovae. The hypernova progenitors might form the rapidly rotating
233: cores by spiraling-in of a companion star in a binary system.
234:
235: Here we focus on our findings that SN Ic 2006aj (\S2) and SN Ib 2005bf
236: (\S3) are very different SNe from previously known SNe/HNe. These
237: properties might be due to their progenitor masses, which indicate
238: that these SNe correspond to the border from the NS and BH formation.
239:
240: As a related topic, it is of vital importance to identify the first
241: generation stars in the Universe, i.e., totally metal-free, Pop III
242: stars. We examine possible GRB/Hypernova - First Star connection
243: through nucleosnthesis approach \cite{nomoto2006}. We summarize
244: nucleosynthesis features in hypernovae, which must show some important
245: differences from normal supernova explosions (\S4). This might be
246: related to the unpredicted abundance patterns observed in the
247: extremely metal-poor halo stars. This is one of the important
248: challenges of the current astronomy~\cite{weiss2000,abel2002}.
249:
250:
251: \section{SN~2006aj}
252:
253: GRB060218 is located in a galaxy only $\sim 140\,$Mpc away and it is
254: the second closest event as ever. The GRB was weak
255: \cite{campana2006}, as is often the case for nearby ones \cite{sod04},
256: and was classified as X-Ray Flash (XRF) because of its soft spectrum.
257: As the GRB was not followed by a bright afterglow, the presence of a
258: SN 2006aj was soon confirmed \cite{pian2006,mod06}. Here we summarize
259: the properties of SN 2006aj by comparing with other SNe~Ic.
260:
261: \begin{figure*}
262: \begin{center}
263: \includegraphics*[width=12.4cm]{f03.eps}
264: \end{center}
265: \caption{The bolometric LC of SN 2006aj compared with
266: other GRB/SN (SN 1998bw, SN 2003dh) and non-GRB/SN (SN 1997ef).}
267: \label{fig06ajLC}
268: \end{figure*}
269:
270: SN~2006aj has several features that make it unique. It is less bright
271: than the other GRB/SNe (Figure \ref{fig06ajLC}). Its rapid
272: photometric evolution is very similar to that of a dimmer, non-GRB SN
273: 2002ap \cite{maz02}, but it is somewhat faster. Although its spectrum
274: is characterized by broader absorption lines as in SN 1998bw and other
275: GRB/SN, they are not as broad as those of SN~1998bw, and again it is
276: much more similar to that of SN~2002ap (Figure \ref{fig06ajsp}). The
277: most interesting property of SN~2006aj is surprisingly weak oxygen
278: lines, much weaker than in Type Ic SNe.
279:
280:
281: \subsection{Spectroscopic Models}
282:
283: In order to quantify its properties, we modeled the spectra of
284: SN~2006aj with a radiation transfer code as in \cite{mazzali2000}.
285: We first
286: employed the same explosion model applied for SN 2002ap \cite{maz02}.
287: The model has an ejected mass $\Mej$ $\sim 3 \Msun$ and a kinetic
288: energy $E \sim 4 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. This explosion model gives
289: reasonable fits to the spectra.
290:
291: However, in order to improve the match, we had to reduce the masses of
292: both oxygen and calcium substantially and reduce $\Mej$ accordingly
293: (Figure \ref{figspfit}). As a result, we derive for SN~2006aj $\Mej
294: \sim 2 \Msun$ and $E \sim 2 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. Lack of oxygen in
295: the spectra does not necessarily mean absence of oxygen in the ejecta.
296: Our model contains $\sim 1.3 \Msun$ of O, and oxygen is still the
297: dominant element.
298:
299: The strength of the OI$\lambda$7774 line, which is the strongest
300: oxygen line in optical wavelength, is sensitive to the temperature in
301: the ejecta. Since the fraction of OI is larger in the lower
302: temperature ejecta (although OII is still the dominant ionization
303: state), the normal SNe Ib/c always show the strong OI absorption (see
304: SN 1994I in Fig \ref{fig06ajsp}) irrespective of the ejecta mass.
305:
306: In more luminous SNe like GRB-SNe and SN 2006aj, the OI fraction tends
307: to be smaller. However, if the ejecta are very massive, \eg $\sim 10
308: \Msun$, the mass of OI is large enough to make the strong absorption
309: (see SN 1998bw in Fig \ref{fig06ajsp}). In the case of SN 2006aj, the
310: temperature is larger than in normal SNe Ib/c. Therefore, the weak OI
311: line indicates that the ejecta mass is not as massive as SN 1998bw,
312: which supports our conclusion.
313:
314: \begin{figure*}
315: \begin{center}
316: \includegraphics*[width=9.4cm]{f04.eps}
317: \end{center}
318: \caption{({\it top}) The optical spectrum of SN 2006aj
319: at 13 days since the GRB/XRF (bold line) compared with the spectrum
320: of SN 2002ap (thin gray line) and SN 1994I (dotted line)
321: at $\sim$ 13 days since the explosion.
322: ({\it bottom}) The optical spectrum of SN 2006aj
323: at 16 days since the GRB/XRF (bold line) compared with the spectrum
324: of SN 2002ap at $\sim$ 15 days since the explosion (thin gray line)
325: and SN 1998bw at 16 days since GRB980425 (dotted line).
326: }
327: \label{fig06ajsp}
328: \end{figure*}
329:
330:
331: \begin{figure*}
332: \begin{center}
333: \includegraphics*[width=9.4cm]{f05.eps}
334: \end{center}
335: \caption{Synthetic spectra with a explosion model with
336: $(\Mej, E)$ = $(2.0 \Msun , 2.0 \times 10^{51}$ergs) [gray solid lines]
337: and $(4.0 \Msun , 9.0 \times 10^{51}$ergs) [black dashed lines]
338: compared with the observed spectra of SN 2006aj (solid lines).}
339: \label{figspfit}
340: \end{figure*}
341:
342:
343: \subsection{Light Curve Models}
344:
345: The spectroscopic results are confirmed through the light curve
346: modeling. The timescale of the LC around maximum brightness reflects
347: the timescale for optical photons to diffuse \cite{arn82}. For the
348: more massive ejecta and the smaller kinetic energy, the LC peaks later
349: and the LC width becomes broader becaause it is more difficult for
350: photons to escape.
351:
352: We synthesize the theoretical light curve with the 1-dimensional
353: density and chemical abundance structure that we find in the above
354: spectroscopic analysis. We then compare it with the optical-infrared
355: bolometric light curve of SN~2006aj. The best match to the rapidly
356: rising light curve is achieved with a total \Nifs\ mass of $0.21
357: \Msun$ in which $0.02 \Msun$ is located above 20,000\kms (Figure
358: \ref{figLCfit}). The high-velocity \Nifs\ is responsible for the fast
359: rise of the light curve, because photons created can escape more
360: easily.
361:
362: In the model, the mass fraction of \Nifs\ in the high velocity region
363: is as large as $\sim$ 35\%, which is unlikely to be attained in a
364: spherically symmetric explosion. In a realistic asymmetric explosion,
365: the high-velocity $^{56}$Ni could abundantly be produced along the
366: direction of the GRB jets \cite{mae02,mae03}.
367:
368: \subsection{The Progenitor and Implications for XRF}
369:
370: The properties of the SN~2006aj (smaller energy, smaller ejected mass)
371: suggest that SN~2006aj is not the same type of event as the other
372: GRB-SNe known thus far. One possibility is that the initial mass of
373: the progenitor star is much smaller than the other GRB-SNe, so that
374: the collapse/explosion generated less energy. If the zero-age main
375: sequence mass is $\sim 20 - 25 \Msun$, for example, the star would be
376: at the boundary between collapse to a black hole or to a neutron star.
377: In this mass range, there are indications of a spread in both $E$ and
378: the mass of \Nifs\ synthesized \cite{hamuy2003}. The fact that a
379: relatively large amount of \Nifs\ is required in SN 2006aj possibly
380: suggests that the star collapsed only to a neutron star because more
381: core material would be available to synthesize \Nifs\ in the case.
382:
383: \begin{figure*}
384: \begin{center}
385: \includegraphics*[width=9.4cm]{f06.eps}
386: \end{center}
387: \caption{The synthetic LC computed for the model with
388: $(\Mej, E)$ = $(2.0 \Msun , 2.0 \times 10^{51}$ergs).}
389: \label{figLCfit}
390: \end{figure*}
391:
392:
393:
394: Although the kinetic energy of $\sim 2 \times 10^{51}$ erg is larger
395: than the canonical value ($1 \times 10^{51}$ erg, \cite{nom94}) in the
396: mass range of $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 - 25 \Msun$, such an energy may be
397: easily attainable. Additionally, magnetar-type activity may have been
398: present, increasing the explosion energy\cite{tho04}. It is
399: conceivable that in this weaker explosion than typical GRB-SNe, the
400: fraction of energy channeled to relativistic ejecta is smaller, giving
401: rise to an XRF rather than a classical GRB.
402:
403: Another case of a SN associated with an XRF has been
404: reported (XRF030723)\cite{fyn04}. The putative SN, although its spectrum was not
405: observed, was best consistent with the properties of
406: SN~2002ap \cite{tom05}. This may suggest that XRFs are associated with
407: less massive progenitor stars than those of canonical GRBs, and that
408: the two groups may be differentiated by the formation of a neutron
409: star \cite{nak98} or a BH. Still, the progenitor star must have been
410: thoroughly stripped of its H and He envelopes, which is a general
411: property of all GRB-SNe and probably a requirement for the emission of
412: a high energy transient. These facts may indicate that the progenitor
413: is in a binary system.
414:
415: If magnetars are related to the explosion mechanism, some short
416: $\gamma$-ray repeaters energized by a magnetar \cite{tho95,tho04} may
417: be remnants of GRB060218-like events. Magnetars could generate a GRB
418: at two distinct times. As they are born, when they have a very large
419: spin rate ($\sim 1$ ms), an XRF (or a soft GRB) is produced as in
420: SN\,2006aj/GRB060218. Later (more than 1,000 yrs), when their spin
421: rate is much slower, they could produce short-hard GRBs \cite{hur05}.
422:
423: Stars of mass $20-25 \Msun$ are much more common than stars of $35-50
424: \Msun$, and so it is highly likely that events such as GRB060218 are
425: much more common in nature than the highly energetic GRBs. They are,
426: however, much more difficult to detect because they have a low
427: $\gamma$-ray flux. The discovery of GRB060218/SN~2006aj suggests that
428: there may be a wide range of properties of both the SN and the GRB in
429: particular in this mass range. The continuing study of these
430: intriguing events will be exciting and rewarding.
431:
432:
433: \section{SN~2005bf}
434: \label{sec:sn05bf}
435:
436: Peculiar and inhomogeneous natures of supernovae originating from
437: $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 - 30\Msun$, i.e., boundary between a neutron star
438: formation and a black hole formation, are further highlighted by SN
439: 2005bf. Unlike SN 2006aj/GRB060218, it did not show a high energy
440: transient counter part. However, it did show very unique photometric
441: and spectroscopic behavior. Based on the calculated light curve and
442: the spectra, we believe that SN2005bf fits into the scheme suggested
443: by \cite{nom95} which places core-collapse SN in a sequence
444: (IIP-IIL-IIb-Ib-Ic) of increasing mass loss from the progenitor star,
445: and that it originated in collapse of a star with $M_{\rm ms} \sim
446: 25\Msun$.
447:
448: SN 2005bf was discovered by \cite{mon05,moo05} on April 6, 2005 (UT)
449: in the spiral arms of the SBb galaxy MCG +00-27-5. It was initially
450: classified as a Type Ic SN (SN Ic) \cite{mor05,mod05a}. As time went
451: by, He lines were increasingly developed. Then it was classified as
452: Type Ib \cite{wan05,mod05b}. Even stranger, the light curve is very
453: different from any known SN \cite{ham05}: a fairly rapid rise to a
454: first peak was followed by a period of stalling or slow decline and by
455: a new rise to a later, brighter peak at $\sim 40$ days after explosion
456: (Fig.~\ref{fig05bfLC}). The brightness ($M_{\rm bol}\sim -18$ mag) at
457: the relatively slow peak date suggests that a large amount of \Nifs\
458: is ejected. SN 2005bf does not show the broad lines seen in
459: hypernovae. These properties make SN~2005bf a very interesting SN.
460:
461: \subsection{Early Phases}
462: \label{sec:bf-early}
463:
464: \begin{figure*}
465: \begin{center}
466: \includegraphics*[width=8.5cm]{f07.eps}
467: \end{center}
468: \caption{The bolometric light curve of SN2005bf, constructed
469: from FLWO (filled squares;
470: \cite{mod05c}), HCT (filled circles; \cite{anu05}),
471: and MAGNUM (filled triangle) photometry.
472: Synthetic light curves are shown for normal (dashed) and reduced (solid)
473: $\gamma$-ray opacities (see text).}
474: \label{fig05bfLC}
475: \end{figure*}
476:
477:
478: To derive physical quantities from observed properties, we first try
479: fitting the light curve covering the first 80 days \cite{tom05b}. The
480: radioactive decay (\Nifs\ $\to$ \Cofs\ $\to$\Fefs) is responsible for
481: powering the light curve. The theoretical LC width near peak depends
482: on ejected mass $\Mej$ and explosion kinetic energy $E$ as $\Mej
483: E^{-3}$ \cite{arn82,nom04}. The mass and distribution of \Nifs\ are
484: constrained by the LC brightness and shape. In general, various
485: combinations of ($\Mej$, $E$) can fit the LC. The degeneracy can be
486: solved by performing spectral modeling, since the line width is scaled
487: as $E^{1/2} M^{-1/2}$.
488:
489: We compute a set of synthetic light curves for a He star model, by
490: varying ($\Mej$, $E$) and abundance distribution (including
491: distribution of the heating source $^{56}$Ni). Parameters are
492: constrained by the observed bolometric light curve (LC) constructed as
493: in \cite{yos03} (see Fig.~\ref{fig05bfLC}). We assumed a Galactic
494: reddening $E(B-V)=0.045$, a distance modulus $\mu=34.5$, and an
495: explosion date of $2005$ March 28 UT as inferred from the marginal
496: detection on 2005 March 30 UT \citep{moo05}. The light curve for a
497: model with $\Mej=7\Msun$ and $E_{51} = E/10^{51}{\rm ergs}=2.1$ is
498: shown as a dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig05bfLC}.
499:
500: The model curve yields a nice fit until the second, main peak is
501: reached. However, the observed LC declines rapidly thereafter, unlike
502: other well-observed SNe Ib/c. A possible solution for this is to
503: consider a situation in which the ejecta are more transparent to
504: gamma-rays than in other SNe Ib/c (usually $\kappa_\gamma = 0.025 {\rm
505: cm^2 g^{-1}}$ \cite{mae06}). Using $\kappa_\gamma = 0.001 {\rm cm^2
506: g^{-1}}$ at $v<5,400$\,\kms\, the light curve shown in
507: Figure~\ref{fig05bfLC} is obtained. The model parameters are the
508: following: $\Mej=7\Msun$, $E_{51} = 1.3$, $M({\rm
509: ^{56}Ni})=0.32\Msun$. The parameters are not so different from those
510: derived without accelerated gamma-ray escape, since the set of
511: ($\Mej$, $E$) is constrained by the diffusion time scale and expansion
512: time scale, and $M$($^{56}$Ni) is determined from the peak
513: brightness. These are basically independent from the LC behavior after
514: the peak date.
515:
516: To break the degeneracy in ($\Mej$, $E$) and select the most likely
517: model, synthetic spectra are computed and compared to the observed
518: ones in Figure \ref{fig05bfsp}. The model with ($\Mej/\Msun$,
519: $E_{51}$) = (7, 1.3) provides satisfactory fits for all spectra.
520:
521: \begin{figure*}
522: \begin{center}
523: \includegraphics*[width=9.5cm]{f08.eps}
524: \end{center}
525: \caption{
526: Spectra of SN~2005bf (thick lines: 2005 April 13 - FLWO,
527: \cite{mod05c}; May 4 - HCT, \cite{anu05}; May 16 - Subaru Telescope)
528: compared to the synthetic spectra (dashed lines)
529: computed with the model ($\Mej/\Msun$, $E_{51}$) = (7, 1.3). The
530: position of He lines is shown by tick marks. The absorptions near
531: 4900 and 5100\AA\ are blended with Fe {\scriptsize II} lines. The
532: inset shows the absorption near 6300\AA\ in the April 13th spectrum.
533: The model with H at $v \gsim\ 13,000$ \kms\ (dashed line) provides the
534: best fit. Thin and dotted lines show models with H in the whole ejecta
535: and no H, respectively.
536: }
537: \label{fig05bfsp}
538: \end{figure*}
539:
540: At the time of the first peak (UT April 13, 16 days after explosion; \cite{mod05c})
541: SN~2005bf exhibited SN Ic features, but actually both He and H can be seen
542: as weak features.
543: The feature near 5700\AA\ is probably He {\scriptsize I} 5876\AA.
544: A photospheric velocity of $v_{\rm ph}=6,200$\,\kms is obtained by the spectroscopic
545: model.
546: The model with $\Mej=7\Msun$ fits better than that with $\Mej=6\Msun$.
547: The feature at 6300\AA\ is partly attributed to
548: H$\alpha$ (Fig.~\ref{fig05bfsp}, inset),
549: indicating presence of $\sim 0.02\Msun$ of hydrogen above $v \gsim 13,000$ \kms.
550: The spectra near
551: maximum brightness (UT May 4, 37 days after explosion)
552: and on UT May 16th (49 days) are
553: reasonably reproduced by the same ejecta model,
554: with the photospheric velocity $v_{\rm ph}=4,600$ km s$^{-1}$
555: and $3,800$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively.
556:
557: According to the model, the ejecta properties are derived as follows:
558: $\Mej \sim 7\Msun$ and $E_{51} \sim 1.3$. The ejecta consist of
559: \Nifs\ ($\sim 0.32 \Msun$) mostly near the center, He ($\sim
560: 0.4\Msun$), intermediate mass elements (mainly O, Si, S), and a small
561: amount of H ($\sim 0.02\Msun$). Thus the progenitor had lost almost
562: all its H envelope, but retained most of the He-rich layer (a WN
563: star).
564:
565: The He core mass at the explosion was $M_{\rm He}=\Mej+M_{\rm cut}\sim
566: 7.5-8.5\Msun$. The progenitor was probably a WN star of main-sequence
567: mass $\Mms \sim25\Msun$ \citep{nom88,ume05}. The formation of a WN
568: star from a star of only $\sim 25\Msun$ suggests that rotation may
569: have been important \citep{hir05}, although not sufficient to make SN
570: 2005bf a hypernova. In order to produce $\sim 0.32\Msun$ \Nifs, the
571: mass cut that separates the ejecta and the compact remnant should be
572: as deep as $M_{\rm cut}\sim 1.4\Msun$. This suggests that the remnant
573: was a neutron star rather than a black-hole. The mass range $\Mms
574: \sim 25\Msun$ is near the transition from neutron star (SN 2005bf) to
575: black hole formation (SN 2002ap; \cite{maz02}), the exact boundary
576: depending on rotation and mass loss.
577:
578: The ejecta we derived have small $E$ relative to $\Mej$. In this way,
579: relatively delayed peak at $\sim 40$ days is explined. The rapid rise
580: to the first peak at $\sim 20$ days requires a small amount of
581: $^{56}$Ni ($\sim 0.06 \Msun$) at high velocity ($v \gsim 3,900$ \kms),
582: while most of $^{56}$Ni is neat the center below $1,600$ km s$^{-1}$.
583: The high velocity component of \Nifs\ is at the bottom of the He
584: layer. It may express $^{56}$Ni-rich jets or blobs that did not reach
585: the He layer. Such inhomogeneous structure might result in the
586: enhanced $\gamma$-ray escape as is assumed to obtain a better fit to
587: the LC after the second peak.
588:
589:
590: \subsection{Late Phases}
591: \label{sec:bf-late}
592:
593: At late epochs ($\sim 1$ year since the explosion), a SN enters into
594: nebular phases. Then a SN shows optically thin spectra dominated by
595: emission lines arising even from the deepest regions. Thus the
596: nebular phase observations can prove the inner regions of the ejecta,
597: which are not seen at early phases. Spectroscopy and photometry of SN
598: 2005bf have been performed on 2005 December 26 (UT) and on 2006
599: February 6 with the 8.2 m Subaru telescope equipped with the Faint
600: Object Camera and Spectrograph (FOCAS; \cite{kas02}). Detailed
601: analysis for the late time observation is presented elsewhere
602: \cite{mae06b}.
603:
604: Figure \ref{figneb} shows the reduced spectra of SN 2005bf on 2005
605: December 26 ($\sim 270$days since the putative explosion date). There
606: is a feature at $\sim 6,500$\AA\ with FWHM $\sim 15,000$ km s$^{-1}$.
607: This is most likely H$_{\alpha}$ emission. This supports the
608: existence of the thin H envelope described in \S \ref{sec:bf-early}
609:
610: \begin{figure*}
611: \begin{center}
612: \includegraphics*[width=12.5cm]{f09.eps}
613: \end{center}
614: \caption{A nebular Spectrum of SN 2005bf}
615: \label{figneb}
616: \end{figure*}
617:
618: The spectrum shows strong forbidden emission lines, in which [OI]
619: $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 and [CaII] $\lambda$7300 are the strongest.
620: Other weak emission features are visible at $\sim 5200$\AA\ ([FeII])
621: and $\sim 8700$\AA (CaII IR and [CI] $\lambda$8727). The [OI]
622: $\lambda$6300/[CaII] $\lambda$7300 ratio in SN 2005bf is relatively
623: small, indicating the progenitor star with $M_{\rm ms} < 40\Msun$. A
624: forbidden carbon line [CI] $\lambda$8727 looks strong, indicating high
625: C/O ratio ($\sim 35\%$) in the ejecta. This suggests the progenitor
626: star with $M_{\rm ms} \lsim 20 - 25\Msun$. From these analyses, the
627: nebular spectra supports the progenitor mass $M_{\rm ms} \sim
628: 25\Msun$, as derived in the earlier phases (\S \ref{sec:bf-early}).
629:
630: Profiles of these line profiles are shown in Figure
631: \ref{figneb}. Interestingly, all these lines show blueshift relative
632: to the rest wavelength ($\sim 1,500 - 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$). A simple
633: and straightforward interpretation is that we see a unipolar
634: explosion, on average moving toward us, as is expected from the
635: fast-moving $^{56}$Ni seen in the early phase (\S \ref{sec:bf-early}).
636: Another interpretation is self-absorption of the light within the
637: ejecta which reduces the light from the far (therefore red) side.
638: These are thoroughly discussed in Maeda et al. (2007) \cite{mae06b}.
639:
640:
641: \subsection{Peculiarities}
642: \label{bf-pec}
643:
644: The major features of SN 2005bf can be understood in the context of
645: the explosion of a WN star with the progenitor $M_{\rm ms} \sim 25
646: \Msun$. However, there are still some questions to be answered, which
647: are probably related to unique natures of the progenitor, the central
648: remnant, and the explosion physics of stars with $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 -
649: 30\Msun$.
650:
651: First, in early phases, He lines evolved in their strengths and
652: velocities in a unique way. They become stronger (therefore look like
653: SN Ic first, then like SN Ib afterward) as time goes by. Their
654: velocities are also increased as a function of time. At the first
655: peak, these lines are well explained in LTE level populations. Near
656: maximum brightness (UT May 4, 37 days after explosion) and on UT May
657: 16th (49 days), however, level populations of He ion
658: should be more abundant than in LTE populations by a factor of $\sim
659: 2.0 \times 10^{3}$ (at $v \gsim 6,500 $ \kms) and $\sim 2 \times10^6$
660: (at $v \gsim 7,200 $ \kms), respectively.
661:
662: Non-thermal effects resulting from radioactive decay gamma-rays are
663: believed to be essential to populate He{\scriptsize I} levels
664: \citep{luc91}. Why SN 2005bf showed the peculiar evolution of He
665: lines is probably related to its unique $^{56}$Ni distribution. This
666: is still an open question, which will probably provide further clue to
667: understand the natures of SN 2005bf.
668:
669: Another question was brought by the nebular phase observation. The
670: R-band magnitude at 2006 December 26 ($\sim 270$ days since the
671: explosion) is $\sim 24.4$, corresponding the absolute magnitude $\sim
672: -10.2$ after correcting the distance and the reddening. It is very
673: faint as compared to other SNe Ib/c, at least by 2 magnitudes (e.g.,
674: by 3 magnitudes fainter than SN 1998bw at a similar epoch). If the R
675: magnitude is close the bolometric magnitude (which is usually a good
676: approximation for SN Ib/c nebulae if most of the light is emitted in
677: optical ranges), $^{56}$Ni required to fit the luminosity is only
678: $\sim 0.03 - 0.08\Msun$. Why this is much smaller than that
679: reproducing the early phase peak luminosity (at $\sim 40$ days) is
680: still to be answered. Several possibilities, including late time
681: fallback of materials onto a central remnant and a magnetar-like
682: activity are worth studying \cite{mae06b}.
683:
684:
685:
686: \section{Nucleosynthesis in Hypernovae and The First Star Connection}
687:
688:
689: In core-collapse supernovae/hypernovae, stellar material undergoes
690: shock heating and subsequent explosive nucleosynthesis. Iron-peak
691: elements are produced in two distinct regions, which are characterized
692: by the peak temperature, $T_{\rm peak}$, of the shocked material. For
693: $T_{\rm peak} > 5\times 10^9$K, material undergoes complete Si burning
694: whose products include Co, Zn, V, and some Cr after radioactive
695: decays. For $4\times 10^9$K $<T_{\rm peak} < 5\times 10^9$K,
696: incomplete Si burning takes place and its decayed products include
697: Cr and Mn (e.g., \cite{nakamura1999}).
698:
699: \begin{figure*}
700: \centering
701: \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{f10a.eps}
702: \includegraphics*[width=6.5cm]{f10b.eps}
703: \caption{Abundance distribution against the enclosed mass
704: $M_r$ after the explosion of Pop III 25 \ms\ stars with $E_{51} = 1$
705: (left) and $E_{51} = 10$ (right) \cite{umeda2002a}.}
706: \label{fig09}
707: \end{figure*}
708:
709: \subsection {Supernovae vs. Hypernovae}
710:
711: The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig09} shows the composition in the
712: ejecta of a 25 $M_\odot$ hypernova model ($E_{51} = 10$). The
713: nucleosynthesis in a normal 25 $M_\odot$ SN model ($E_{51} = 1$) is
714: also shown for comparison in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig09}
715: \cite{umeda2002a}.
716:
717: We note the following characteristics of nucleosynthesis with very
718: large explosion energies \cite{nakamura2001b,nomoto2001,ume05}:
719:
720: (1) Both complete and incomplete Si-burning regions shift outward in
721: mass compared with normal supernovae, so that the mass ratio between
722: the complete and incomplete Si-burning regions becomes larger. As a
723: result, higher energy explosions tend to produce larger [(Zn, Co,
724: V)/Fe] and smaller [(Mn, Cr)/Fe], which can explain the trend observed
725: in extremely metal-poor stars
726: \cite{ume05,tominaga2005}.
727: (Here [A/B] $= \log_{10}(N_{\rm A}/N_{\rm B})-\log_{10} (N_{\rm
728: A}/N_{\rm B})_\odot$, where the subscript $\odot$ refers to the solar
729: value and $N_{\rm A}$ and $N_{\rm B}$ are the abundances of elements A
730: and B, respectively.)
731:
732: (2) In the complete Si-burning region of hypernovae, elements produced
733: by $\alpha$-rich freezeout are enhanced. Hence, isotopes synthesized
734: through capturing of $\alpha$-particles, such as $^{44}$Ti, $^{48}$Cr,
735: and $^{64}$Ge (decaying into $^{44}$Ca, $^{48}$Ti, and $^{64}$Zn,
736: respectively) are more abundant.
737:
738: (3) Oxygen burning takes place in more extended regions for the larger
739: KE. Then more O, C, Al are burned to produce a larger amount of
740: burning products such as Si, S, and Ar. Therefore, hypernova
741: nucleosynthesis is characterized by large abundance ratios of
742: [Si,S/O], which can explain the abundance feature of M82
743: \cite{umeda2002b}.
744:
745: \begin{figure*}
746: \includegraphics*[width=12.5cm]{f11a.eps}
747: \includegraphics*[width=12.5cm]{f11b.eps}
748: \caption{Averaged elemental abundances of stars with [Fe/H] $= -3.7$
749: \cite{cayrel2004} compared with the hypernova yield (upper: 20 $M_\odot$,
750: $E_{51} =$ 10) and the normal SN yield (lower: 15
751: $M_\odot$, $E_{51} =$ 1).}
752: \label{fig11}
753: \end{figure*}
754:
755:
756: Hypernova nucleosynthesis may have made an important contribution to
757: Galactic chemical evolution. In the early galactic epoch when the
758: galaxy was not yet chemically well-mixed, [Fe/H] may well be
759: determined by mostly a single SN event \cite{audouze1995}. The
760: formation of metal-poor stars is supposed to be driven by a supernova
761: shock, so that [Fe/H] is determined by the ejected Fe mass and the
762: amount of circumstellar hydrogen swept-up by the shock wave
763: \cite{ryan1996}. Then, hypernovae with larger $E$ are likely to
764: induce the formation of stars with smaller [Fe/H], because the mass of
765: interstellar hydrogen swept up by a hypernova is roughly proportional
766: to $E$ \cite{ryan1996,shigeyama1998} and the ratio of the ejected iron
767: mass to $E$ is smaller for hypernovae than for normal supernovae.
768:
769:
770: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
771: \centering
772: \includegraphics*[width=14cm]{f12.eps}
773: \caption{Observed abundance ratios of [Zn, Co, Cr, Mn/Fe] vs [Fe/H]
774: [{\it open circle}: \cite{cayrel2004}; {\it open square}: \cite{hon04}]
775: compared with individual Pop III SN models ({\it filled circle}) and
776: IMF-integrated models ({\it filled square}).}
777: \label{fig10}
778: \end{figure*}
779:
780:
781: \subsection{EMP Stars from VLT Observations}
782:
783: The ``mixing and fall back'' process can reproduce the abundance
784: pattern of the typical EMP stars without a disagreement between
785: [(light element)/Fe] and [(Fe-peak element)/Fe].
786: Figure~\ref{fig11} shows that the averaged abundances of [Fe/H] $= -
787: 3.7$ stars in \cite{cayrel2004} can be fitted well with the hypernova
788: model of 20 $M_\odot$ and $E_{51} =$ 10 (upper) but not with the normal
789: SN model of 15 $M_\odot$ and $E_{51} =$ 1 (lower) \cite{tominaga2005}.
790:
791: \subsection{Hypernovae and Zn, Co, Mn, Cr}
792:
793: In the observed abundances of halo stars, there are significant
794: differences between the abundance patterns in the iron-peak elements
795: below and above [Fe/H]$ \sim -2.5$ - $-3$ (Figure 12).
796:
797: (1) For [Fe/H]$\lsim -2.5$, the mean values of [Cr/Fe] and [Mn/Fe]
798: decrease toward smaller metallicity, while [Co/Fe] increases
799: \cite{mcwilliam1995,ryan1996}.
800:
801: (2) [Zn/Fe]$ \sim 0$ for [Fe/H] $\simeq -3$ to $0$ \cite{sneden1991},
802: while at [Fe/H] $< -3.3$, [Zn/Fe] increases toward smaller metallicity
803: \cite{cayrel2004}.
804:
805: The larger [(Zn, Co)/Fe] and smaller [(Mn, Cr)/Fe] in the supernova
806: ejecta can be realized if the mass ratio between the complete Si
807: burning region and the incomplete Si burning region is larger, or
808: equivalently if deep material from the complete Si-burning region is
809: ejected by mixing or aspherical effects. This can be realized if (1)
810: the mass cut between the ejecta and the compact remnant is located at
811: smaller $M_r$ \cite{nakamura1999}, (2) $E$ is larger to move the outer
812: edge of the complete Si burning region to larger $M_r$
813: \cite{nakamura2001b}, or (3) asphericity in the explosion is larger
814: \cite{mae03}.
815:
816: Among these possibilities, a large explosion energy $E$ enhances
817: $\alpha$-rich freezeout, which results in an increase of the local
818: mass fractions of Zn and Co, while Cr and Mn are not enhanced
819: \cite{umeda2002a}. Models with $E_{51} = 1 $ do not produce
820: sufficiently large [Zn/Fe]. To be compatible with the observations of
821: [Zn/Fe] $\sim 0.5$, the explosion energy must be much larger, i.e.,
822: $E_{51} \gsim 10$ for $M \gsim 20 M_\odot$, i.e., hypernova-like
823: explosions of massive stars ($M \gsim 20 M_\odot$) with $E_{51} > 10$
824: are responsible for the production of Zn.
825:
826: Figure 12 exhibits that the higher-energy models tend to be
827: located at lower [Fe/H] = log$_{10}$ (Fe/$E_{51})-C'$ (if $C'$
828: distribute around a certain peak value), and thus can explain the
829: observed trend.
830:
831:
832: In the hypernova models, the overproduction of Fe, as found in the
833: simple ``deep'' mass-cut model, can be avoided with the mixing-fallback
834: model \cite{ume05}.
835: Therefore, if hypernovae made significant contributions to the early
836: Galactic chemical evolution, it could explain the large Zn and Co
837: abundances and the small Mn and Cr abundances observed in very
838: metal-poor stars (Fig.~\ref{fig11}:
839: \cite{tominaga2005}).
840:
841: \subsection{Pair Instability SNe vs. Core Collapse SNe}
842:
843: In contrast to the core-collapse supernovae of 20-130 $M_\odot$ stars,
844: the observed abundance patterns cannot be explained by the explosions
845: of more massive, 130 - 300 $M_\odot$ stars. These stars undergo
846: pair-instability supernovae (PISNe) and are disrupted completely
847: (e.g., \cite{umeda2002a,heger2002}), which cannot be consistent with
848: the large C/Fe observed in C-rich EMP stars. The abundance ratios of
849: iron-peak elements ([Zn/Fe] $< -0.8$ and [Co/Fe] $< -0.2$) in the PISN
850: ejecta \cite{umeda2002a,heger2002}, cannot explain
851: the large Zn/Fe and Co/Fe in the typical EMP stars
852: \cite{mcwilliam1995,norris2001,cayrel2004} and CS22949-037 \cite{dep02} either.
853: Therefore the supernova progenitors that are responsible for the
854: formation of EMP stars are most likely in the range of $M \sim 20 -
855: 130$ $M_\odot$, but not more massive than 130 $M_\odot$. This upper
856: limit depends on the stability of massive stars.
857:
858:
859:
860: \section{Summary and Discussion}
861:
862: We summarize the properties of core-collapse SNe as a function of the
863: progenitor mass. As seen in Figure 2, three GRB-SNe are all similar
864: Hypernovae (HNe) for their $\Mej$ and $E$. For non-GRB HNe, whether
865: the non-dection of GRBs is the effect of different orientations or of
866: an intrinsic property is still a matter of debate, but there is a
867: tendency for them to have smaller $\Mej$ and $E$.
868:
869: \subsection{XRFs and GRBs from 20 - 25 $\Msun$ Progenitors}
870:
871: The discovery of XRF~060218/SN~2006aj and their properties extend the
872: GRB-HN connection to XRFs and to the HN progenitor mass as low as
873: $\sim 20 \Msun$. The XRF~060218 may be driven by a neutron star
874: rather than a black hole.
875:
876: The progenitor mass range of 20 - 25 $\Msun$ is particularly
877: interesting, because it corresponds to the transition from the NS
878: formation to the BH formation. The NSs from this mass range could be
879: much more active than those from lower mass range because of possibly
880: much larger NS masses (near the maximum mass) or possibly large
881: magnetic field (i.e., Magnetar). Possible XRFs and GRBs from this
882: mass range of 20 - 25 $\Msun$ might form a different population.
883:
884: \subsection{The Rate of GRBs}
885:
886: An estimate and a comparison for the rates of hypernovae and GRBs was
887: performed \cite{pod04}. Within the substantial uncertainties, the
888: estimates are shown to be quite comparable and give a galactic rate of
889: $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-5} yr^{-1}$ for both events. These rates are
890: several orders of magnitude lower than the rate of core-collapse
891: supernovae, suggesting that the evolution leading to an HN/GRB
892: requires special circumstances, very likely due to binary
893: interactions.
894:
895: The discovery of SN~2006aj/XRF~060218 affects the estimate of the GRB
896: rates. The observations of various bands suggest XRF~060218 is an
897: intrinsically weak and soft event, rather than a classical GRB
898: observed off-axis. The existence of a population of less luminous
899: GRB/XRFs than ``classical'' GRBs is suggested. Such events may be the
900: most abundant form of X- or gamma-ray explosive transient in the
901: Universe, but instrumental limits allow us to detect them only
902: locally, so that several intrinsically sub-luminous bursts may remain
903: undetected.
904:
905: If the low-redshift GRBs are really typical of the global GRB
906: population, then their discovery within the current time and sky
907: coverage must be consistent with the local GRB explosion rate as
908: deduced from the very large BATSE GRB sample. Pian et
909: al.\cite{pian2006} include this underluminous population, assume no
910: correction for possible collimation, which may vary from object to
911: object, and obtain a local GRB rate of $110^{+180}_{-20}\;{\rm
912: Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$, compared to $1\;{\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ estimated
913: from the cosmological events only. The local rate of events that give
914: rise to GRBs is therefore at least one hundred times the rate
915: estimated from the cosmological events only (i.e., those observed by
916: BATSE). The fraction of supernovae that are associated with GRBs or
917: XRFs may be higher than currently thought.
918:
919: Such an estimate is only sketchy and should be taken as an order of
920: magnitude estimate at present. It should, however, improve as more
921: bursts with known redshifts are detected.
922:
923: \subsection{Hypernova-First Star Connection}
924:
925: Based on the results in the earlier section, we suggest that the first
926: generation supernovae were the explosion of $\sim$ 20-130 $M_\odot$
927: stars and some of them produced C-rich, Fe-poor ejecta.
928:
929:
930: %\acknowledgements
931:
932: This work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for
933: Scientific Research (17030005, 17033002, 18540231) and the 21st
934: Century COE Program (QUEST) from the JSPS and MEXT of Japan.
935:
936: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
937: \bibitem{abel2002}
938: Abel, T., Bryan, G.L., \& Norman, M.L., Science {\bf 295} (2002) 93
939:
940: \bibitem{anu05} Anupama, G. C., Sahu, D. K., Deng,
941: J., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M.,
942: Mazzali, P. A., \& Prabhu, T. P.
943: \apj {\bf 631} (2005) L125
944:
945: \bibitem{arn82} Arnett, W. D. \apj {\bf 253} (1982) 785
946:
947: \bibitem{audouze1995}
948: Audouze, J., \& Silk, J., \apj {\bf 451} (1995) L49
949:
950: \bibitem{campana2006}
951: Campana, S., et al., \nat {\bf 442} (2006) 1008
952:
953: \bibitem{cayrel2004}
954: Cayrel, R., et al., \aa {\bf 416} (2004) 1117
955:
956: \bibitem{deng05} Deng, J., et al.
957: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 624}, 898 (2005).
958:
959: \bibitem{dep02} Depagne, E., et al., \aa, {\bf 390} (2002) 187
960:
961: \bibitem{fyn04} Fynbo, J.P.U. et al.,
962: \newblock {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 609} (2004) 962
963:
964: \bibitem{gal98}
965: Galama, T., et al., \nat {\bf 395} (1998) 670
966:
967: \bibitem{hamuy2003}
968: Hamuy, M., \apj {\bf 582} (2003) 905
969:
970: \bibitem{ham05}Hamuy, M., Contreras, C., Gonzalez, S.,
971: Krzeminski, W. 2005, IAUCirc., 8520
972:
973: \bibitem{heger2002}
974: Heger, A., \& Woosley, S.E., \apj {\bf 567} (2002) 532
975:
976:
977: \bibitem{hir05} Hirschi, R., Meynet,
978: G., \& Maeder, A. \aa {\bf 433} (2005) 1013
979:
980: \bibitem{hjo03}
981: Hjorth, J., et al., \nat {\bf 423} (2003) 847
982:
983:
984: \bibitem{hon04}
985: Honda, S. et al., \apj {\bf 607} (2004) 474
986:
987: \bibitem{hur05} Hurley, K., et al.
988: {\it Nature} {\bf 434} (2005) 1098-1103
989:
990: \bibitem{iwa98}
991: Iwamoto, K., Mazzali, P.A., Nomoto, K., et al., \nat {\bf 395} (1998) 672
992:
993: \bibitem{iwa00}
994: Iwamoto, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., et al., \apj {\bf 534} (2000) 660
995:
996: \bibitem{kas02} Kashikawa, N. et al. {\it PASJ} {\bf 54} (2002) 819
997:
998: \bibitem{kaw02} Kawabata, K., \etal\ \apj
999: {\bf 580} (2002) L39
1000:
1001: \bibitem{luc91} Lucy, L. B. \apj {\bf 383} (1991) 308
1002:
1003:
1004: \bibitem{mae02} Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K.,
1005: Mazzali, P.A., Patat, F., \& Hachisu,
1006: I. \apj {\bf 565} (2002) 405
1007:
1008: \bibitem{mae03}
1009: Maeda, K. \& Nomoto, K., \apj {\bf 598} (2003) 1163
1010:
1011: \bibitem{mae06}
1012: Maeda, K. \apj {\bf 644} (2006) 385
1013:
1014: \bibitem{mae06LC}
1015: Maeda, K., Mazzali, P.A., \& Nomoto, K. \apj {\bf 645} (2006) 1331
1016:
1017: \bibitem{mae06b}
1018: Maeda, K. et al. \apj in press (astroph/07052713)
1019:
1020:
1021: \bibitem{mal04}
1022: Malesani, J., et al., \apj {\bf 609} (2006) L5
1023:
1024: \bibitem{maz00} Mazzali, P. A. \aa {\bf 363} (2000) 705
1025:
1026: \bibitem{mazzali2000}
1027: Mazzali, P.A., Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., \apj {\bf 545} (2000) 407
1028:
1029: \bibitem{maz02}
1030: Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., et al., \apj {\bf 572} (2002) L61
1031:
1032: \bibitem{mazzali2003}
1033: Mazzali, P.A., et al., \apj {\bf 599} (2003) L95
1034:
1035: \bibitem{maz05} Mazzali, P. A., et al.
1036: Science {\bf 308} (2005) 1284
1037:
1038:
1039: \bibitem{maz06a} Mazzali, P. A., et al.
1040: \apj, {\bf 645} (2006a) 1323
1041:
1042:
1043: \bibitem{mazzali2006b}
1044: Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al., \nat {\bf 442} (2006) 1018
1045:
1046:
1047: \bibitem{mcwilliam1995}
1048: McWilliam, A., Preston, G.W., Sneden, C., Searle, L., \aj {\bf 109} (1995)
1049: 2757
1050:
1051: \bibitem{mod05a} Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R.,
1052: Challis, P., Matheson, T., \& Landt, H., 2005a, IAUCirc., 8509
1053:
1054: \bibitem{mod05b} Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R.,
1055: \& Challis, P. 2005b, IAUCirc., 8522
1056:
1057: \bibitem{mod05c} Modjaz, M., \etal, in preparation
1058:
1059: \bibitem{mon05} Monard, L. A. G. 2005, IAUCirc., 8507
1060:
1061: \bibitem{moo05} Moore, M. \& Li, W. 2005, IAUCirc., 8507
1062:
1063: \bibitem{mor05} Morrell, N., Hamuy, M.,
1064: Folatelli, G., Contreras, C. 2005 IAUCirc., 8509
1065:
1066: \bibitem{mod06} Modjaz, M., et al.
1067: \apj {\bf 645} (2006) L21
1068:
1069: \bibitem{nak98} Nakamura, T.,
1070: {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 100} (1998) 921
1071:
1072: \bibitem{nakamura1999}
1073: Nakamura, T., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Burrows, A.,
1074: \apj {\bf 517} (1999) 193
1075:
1076:
1077: \bibitem{nak01a}
1078: Nakamura, T., Mazzali, P.A., Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., \apj {\bf 550} (2001a)
1079: 991
1080:
1081: \bibitem{nakamura2001b}
1082: Nakamura, T., Umeda, H., Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., et al., \apj {\bf 555} (2001b) 880
1083:
1084: \bibitem{nom88} Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M.
1085: Phys. Rep. {\bf 163} (1988) 13
1086:
1087: \bibitem{nom94} Nomoto, K., et al.
1088: {\it Nature} {\bf 371} (1994) 227
1089:
1090:
1091: \bibitem{nomoto1994b}
1092: Nomoto, K., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., Yamaoka, H., \& Suzuki, T., in
1093: {\em Supernovae}, Les Houche Session LIV (1994) ed. S. Bludmann et
1094: al. (North-Holland) 489
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem{nom95} Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., \&
1098: Suzuki, T. Phys. Rep. {\bf 256} (1995) 173
1099:
1100:
1101: \bibitem{nomoto2001}
1102: Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P.A., Nakamura, T., et al., in {\em
1103: Supernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts}, eds. M. Livio et al. (Cambridge
1104: Univ. Press) (2001) 144 (astro-ph/0003077)
1105:
1106: \bibitem{nomoto2003}
1107: Nomoto, K., et al., in {\em IAU Symp 212, A massive Star Odyssey,
1108: from Main Sequence to Supernova}, eds. V.D. Hucht, et al. (San
1109: Francisco: ASP) (2003) 395 (astro-ph/0209064)
1110:
1111: \bibitem{nom04}
1112: Nomoto, K., et al., in {\em Stellar Collapse}, ed. C.L. Fryer
1113: (Astrophysics and Space Science: Kluwer) (2004) 277 (astro-ph/0308136)
1114:
1115: \bibitem{nomoto2006} Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K.,
1116: Nuclear Phys A {\bf 777} (2006) 424 (astro-ph/0605725)
1117:
1118: \bibitem{norris2001}
1119: Norris, J.E., Ryan, S.G., \& Beers, T.C., \apj {\bf 561} (2001) 1034
1120:
1121:
1122: \bibitem{pian2006}
1123: Pian, E., et al., \nat {\bf 442} (2006) 1011
1124:
1125: \bibitem{pod04} Podsiadlowski, Ph. et al. \apj {\bf 607} (2004) L17
1126:
1127: \bibitem{ryan1996}
1128: Ryan, S.G., Norris, J.E., \& Beers, T.C., \apj {\bf 471} (1996) 254
1129:
1130: \bibitem{shigeyama1998}
1131: Shigeyama, T., \& Tsujimoto, T., \apj {\bf 507} (1998) L135
1132:
1133: \bibitem{sneden1991}
1134: Sneden, C., Gratton, R.G., \& Crocker, D.A., \aa {\bf 246} (1991) 354
1135:
1136:
1137: \bibitem{sod04} Soderberg, A. M., et al.
1138: {\it Nature} {\bf 430} (2004) 648
1139:
1140: \bibitem{sollerman1998}
1141: Sollerman, J., Cumming, R., \& Lundqvist, P., \apj {\bf 493} (1998)
1142: 933
1143:
1144: \bibitem{sta03}
1145: Stanek, K.Z., et al., \apj {\bf 591} (2003) L17
1146:
1147:
1148: \bibitem{tho95} Thompson, T.A., \& Duncan,
1149: R.C.
1150: {\it Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc.} {\bf 275} (1995) 255
1151:
1152: \bibitem{tho04} Thompson, T.A.,
1153: Chang, P., \& Quataert, E.
1154: \apj {\bf 611} (2004) 380
1155:
1156: \bibitem{tom05} Tominaga, N. et al.
1157: \apj {\bf 612} (2005) L105
1158:
1159: \bibitem{tom05b} Tominaga, N. et al.
1160: \apj {\bf 633} (2005) L97
1161:
1162: \bibitem{tominaga2005}
1163: Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K. \apj {\bf 660} (2007) 516
1164:
1165: \bibitem{turatto1998}
1166: Turatto, M., Mazzali, P.A., Young, T., Nomoto, K., et al., \apj
1167: {\bf 498} (1998) L129
1168:
1169: \bibitem{umeda2002a}
1170: Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K., \apj {\bf 565} (2002) 385
1171:
1172: \bibitem{umeda2002b}
1173: Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Tsuru, T., \& Matsumoto, H., \apj {\bf 578} (2002)
1174: 855
1175:
1176: \bibitem{ume05}
1177: Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K., \apj {\bf 619} (2005) 427
1178:
1179:
1180: \bibitem{wang2003}
1181: Wang, L., Baade, D., H\"oflich, P., \& Wheeler, J.C., \apj {\bf 592}
1182: (2003) 457
1183:
1184: \bibitem{wan05} Wang, L., \& Baade, D. 2005,
1185: IAUCirc., 8521
1186:
1187: \bibitem{weiss2000}
1188: Weiss, A., Cassisi, S., Schlattl, H., \& Salaris, M., \apj {\bf 533} (2000) 413
1189:
1190:
1191: \bibitem{yos03} Yoshii, Y. \etal\ \apj {\bf 592} (2003) 467
1192:
1193: \bibitem{zampieri2003}
1194: Zampieri, L., et al., \mnras {\bf 338} (2003) 711
1195:
1196:
1197: \end{thebibliography}
1198: \end{document}
1199: