1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.}}
3: %\newcommand{\psr}{\hbox{PSR~J0537$-$6910}}
4: \shortauthors{Middleditch}
5: \shorttitle{87A Link to SNe \& GRBs}
6: \font\eightrm=cmr8
7: \font\sixrm=cmr6
8: \font\fourrm=cmr4
9: \font\tworm=cmr2
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{The SN 1987A Link to Others and Gamma-Ray Bursts
14: %\newline \today\ at \the\time\ minutes VERSION
15: }
16:
17:
18: \author{John Middleditch$^1$}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Modeling, Algorithms, \& Informatics, CCS-3, MS B265,
21: Computer, Computational, and Statistical Sciences
22: Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
23: NM 87545; jon@lanl.gov}
24:
25: \email{jon@lanl.gov}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: Early measurements of SN 1987A can be interpreted in light of the
30: beam/jet (BJ), with a collimation factor $>$10$^4$, which had to
31: hit polar ejecta (PE) to produce the ``Mystery Spot'' (MS), some
32: 24 light-days distant. Other details of SN 1987A strongly suggest
33: that it resulted from a merger of two stellar cores of a common
34: envelope (CE) binary, i.e. a ``double degenerate'' (DD)-initiated
35: SN. Without having to blast through the CE of Sk -69$^{\circ}$ 202,
36: it is likely that the BJ would have caused a full, long-soft gamma-ray
37: burst ($\ell$GRB) upon hitting the PE, thus DD
38: can produce $\ell$GRBs. Because DD must be the overwhelmingly
39: dominant merger/SN mechanism in elliptical galaxies, where only short,
40: hard GRBs (sGRBs) have been observed, DD without CE or PE must also
41: produce sGRBs, and thus the pre-CE/PE impact photon spectrum of 99\%
42: of {\it all} GRBs is {\it known}, and neutron star (NS)-NS mergers may
43: not make GRBs as we know them, and/or be as common as previously
44: thought. Millisecond pulsars (MSPs) in the non-core-collapsed
45: globular clusters are also 99\% DD-formed from white dwarf (WD)-WD
46: merger, consistent with their 2.10 ms minimum spin period, the 2.14 ms
47: signal seen from SN 1987A, and sGRBs offset from the centers of
48: elliptical galaxies. The many details of Ia's strongly suggest that
49: these are also DD initiated, and the single degenerate total
50: thermonuclear disruption paradigm is now in serious doubt as well.
51: This is a cause for concern in Ia Cosmology, because Type Ia SNe will
52: appear to be Ic's when viewed from their DD merger poles, given
53: sufficient matter above that lost to core-collapse. As a DD-initiated
54: SN, 1987A appears to be the Rosetta Stone for 99\% of SNe, GRBs and MSPs,
55: including all recent nearby SNe except SN 1986J, and the more distant SN
56: 2006gy. There is no need to invent exotica, such as ``collapsars,'' to
57: account for GRBs.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{cosmology:observations--gamma-rays:
62: bursts--pulsars:general---white
63: dwarfs---stars: Wolf-Rayet---supernovae: general---supernovae: individual
64: (SN 1987A)}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: In Supernova 1987A (87A), Nature has provided an unparalleled
69: opportunity to learn the details of one of the most frequent, and
70: violent events in the Universe. Although confirming some early
71: expectations of theorists \citep{Chev92b}, even from the first,
72: features which would never have been seen at ordinary extra-galactic
73: distances, appeared in the early light curve, which at that time
74: defied easy explanation.
75:
76: The most remarkable feature\footnote{Not counting, for the moment,
77: the 2.14 ms pulsed optical remnant, which also revealed a $\sim$1,000
78: s precession (Middleditch et al.~2000a,b -- hereafter M00a,b). Since
79: a prototypical, dim, thermal neutron star remnant (DTN) has been
80: discovered in Cas A \citep{Ta99}, representing what PSR 1987A will look
81: like after another 300 years, and other pulsars have since been observed
82: to precess \citep{St00}, this candidate is no longer controversial.}
83: of 87A was the ``Mystery Spot'' (MS),
84: with a thermal energy of 10$^{49}$ ergs, even 50 days {\it after}
85: the core-collapse (CC) event (Meikle et al.~1987; Nisenson et al.~1987)
86: and separated from the SN photosphere ``proper'' (PP) by some 0.06 arc s,
87: with about 3\% of this energy eventually radiated
88: in the optical band.
89: The possibility that this enormous energy implied for the MS might somehow
90: link it gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) generally went unnoticed at the time.
91:
92: GRBs, particularly long, soft GRBs ($\ell$GRBs), appear to be the most
93: luminous objects in the Universe, occurring at the SN rate of one per
94: second, given a collimation factor near 10$^5$, yet we still know very
95: little about them (see, e.g., M\'esz\'aros 2006 and references therein).
96: Although some have been found to be associated with SNe, others, mostly
97: those lasting only a fraction of a second, with slightly harder spectra
98: (sGRBs), produce only ``afterglows,'' sometimes extending down to radio
99: wavelengths. A large number of models have been put forth to explain
100: GRBs, including NS-NS mergers for sGRBs, and exotic objects such as
101: ``collapsars'' \citep{MW99} for $\ell$GRBs. The prime physical
102: motivation for these is the enormous energy of up to 10$^{54}$ ergs
103: implied for an isotropic source. However, given that the data
104: from 87A presented herein support a beam/jet (BJ) collimation
105: factor (CF) $>$10$^4$ in producing its MS (see $\S$\ref{sec:early}),
106: there is no need for such a high energy.
107:
108: This letter offers a simple explanation for 99\% of SNe, MSPs, and
109: GRBs,\footnote{All except Soft Gamma Repeater [SGR] GRBs, which are
110: estimated to amount to less than 5\% of sGRBs and 1.5\% of the total
111: \citep{Pa05}.} in the context of
112: the DD SN 1987A, its BJ and MS (Middleditch 2004, hereafter
113: M04). It further argues that these start as sGRBs, and only
114: later are some modified to $\ell$GRBs (and one other type -- see
115: $\S$\ref{sec:link}), by interaction with the common
116: envelope (CE) and/or polar ejecta (PE).
117: It also argues that many, possibly all SNe Ia are caused by DD
118: (merger-induced) CC, the single degenerate (SD) paradigm (total
119: thermonuclear disruption) being now admittedly in serious doubt
120: (Siegfried 2007).
121: Thus Ia Cosmology has not yet successfully challenged the Standard
122: Model, and the burden of proof, for an accelerating expansion of the
123: Universe, lies with the challenging model, the convenience of Concordance
124: Cosmology amounting to only that.
125:
126: \section{The SN 1987A Bipolarity and ``Mystery Spot''}
127: \label{sec:bipolar}
128:
129: SN 1987A is clearly bipolar (NASA et al.~2007;
130: Wang et al.~2003). A ``polar blowout feature'' (PBF -- a needed
131: candidate for the r-process, e.g., Arnould et al.~2007) approaches
132: at $\sim$45$^{\circ}$ off our line of sight, partially
133: obscuring an equatorial bulge/ball (EB), behind which
134: part of the opposite, receding PBF is visible. The 87A PBFs
135: and EB are approximately equally bright, in contrast to what
136: polarization observations imply for Type Ia SNe (see
137: $\S$\ref{sec:Ia/c}).
138:
139: A binary merger of two electron degenerate stellar cores
140: (DD -- in isolation these would be white dwarfs [WDs]) has been
141: proposed for 87A \citep{Pod89}, and the triple ring structure has
142: recently been calculated in this framework \citep{MP07}.
143: Many other details of 87A, including the mixing (Fransson et
144: al.~1989), the blue supergiant progenitor, the early polarization
145: (Schwarz \& Mundt 1987; Barrett 1988), and the 2.14 ms optical
146: pulsations (M00a,b), strongly support this hypothesis.
147:
148: The first clear evidence for DD-formed MSPs coincidentally came in the
149: birth year of 87A, with the discovery of the 3 ms pulsar, B1821-24
150: \citep{Ly87}, in the non-core-collapsed (nCCd) globular cluster (GC) M28.
151: Subsequently many more were found in the nCCd GCs, such as
152: 47 Tuc, over the next 20 years, and attributing these to recycling through
153: X-ray binaries has never really worked \citep{CMR93}, by a few orders of
154: magnitude.\footnote{Relatively slowly rotating, recycled pulsars weighing
155: 1.7 M$_\odot$, in the CCd GC, Ter 5 \citep{Ra05}, have removed high
156: accretion rate from contention as a alternative mechanism to produce the
157: MSPs in the nCCd GCs. The three MSPs in Ter 5 with periods $<$ 2 ms, Ter
158: 5 O, P, and ad \citep{He06}, may have been recycled starting with periods
159: near 2 ms. There are four in this sample with periods between 2.05 and
160: 2.24 ms, and another, the first from Arecibo ALFA, at 2.15 ms \citep{Ch07}.}
161:
162: The 0.059 arc s offset of the MS from the
163: PP {\it coincides} with the PBF bearing of 194$^{\circ}$ (and thus
164: {\it along the axis of its DD merger}),\footnote{The far-side (southern)
165: minor axis of the equatorial ring has a bearing of 179$^{\circ}$.}
166: some 45$^{\circ}$ off our line of sight, corresponding to 24 light-days
167: ($\ell$t-d), or 17 $\ell$t-d in projection, it taking light from 87A
168: only {\it eight} extra days to reach the Earth after hitting the MS,
169: and there is
170: evidence for exactly this delay (see below).
171: In addition,
172: the typical 0.5$^{\circ}$ collimation for an
173: $\ell$GRB, over the 24 $\ell$t-d from 87A to its PE, produces $\sim$100 s
174: of delay, within the range of the non-prompt components of $\ell$GRBs.
175:
176: \section{The Early Luminosity History of SN 1987A}
177: \label{sec:early}
178:
179: The early luminosity histories of 87A
180: taken with the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO)
181: 0.41-m \citep{HS90} and the Fine Error Sensor (FES) of the
182: International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) \citep{Wa87}, both show
183: such evidence of the BJ and MS (Fig.~1).\footnote{The CTIO V band
184: center occurs at 5,500 \AA, as opposed to 5,100
185: \AA ~for the FES, and in consequence, the FES magnitudes have
186: been diminished by 0.075 in Fig.~1 to account for the resulting
187: luminosity offset.}
188:
189: Following the drop from the initial flash, the luminosity rises
190: again to a maximum (`A' in Fig.~1) of magnitude 4.35 at day
191: 3.0, interpretable as the hotter, more central part of the
192: BJ shining through/running ahead of the cooler, roughly
193: cylindrical outer layers which initially shrouded it. This declines
194: (`B') to magnitude 4.48 around day 7.0, interpretable as
195: free-free cooling of, or the loss of the ability to cool for, an
196: optically thin BJ.
197: The initial flash
198: should scatter in the PE at day 8, and indeed `C' shows
199: $\sim$2$\times$10$^{39}$ ergs/s in the optical for a day at day 8.0,
200: and a decline {\it consistent with the flash} after that, indicating
201: a CF $>$10$^4$ for this component (beam).
202: A linear ramp in luminosity starting
203: near day 10 indicates particles from the BJ penetrating into the PE,
204: with the fastest traveling at $>$0.9 c, {\it and} a particle CF $>$10$^4$.
205: A decrement\footnote{This is
206: preceded by a spike of up to 10$^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ in the CTIO data,
207: with the unusual colors of B, R, and I, in ascending
208: order. Optical pulsations were not seen during
209: this early period (R.~N.~Manchester, private communication, 2007).
210: The possibility of less-than-coherent pulsations, though, is harder
211: to eliminate.}
212: of $\sim$5$\times$10$^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ appears in both
213: data sets near day 20 (`D').
214: The CTIO point just before the decrement
215: can be used as a rough upper limit for the MS luminosity, and
216: corresponds to an
217: excess above the minimum (near day 7.0) of 5$\times$10$^{40}$ ergs
218: s$^{-1}$, or magnitude 5.8, the {\it same} as that observed in H$\alpha$
219: for the MS at days 30, 38, and 50.
220: %about 23\% of the total optical flux of 2.1$\times$10$^{41}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
221: %at that time.
222:
223: \section{The SN 1987A link to GRBs}
224: \label{sec:link}
225:
226: Without the H and He in the envelope of the progenitor of 87A,
227: Sk -69$^{\circ}$202, the collision of the BJ with its PE (which
228: produced the MS) might be indistinguishable from a full $\ell$GRB
229: \citep{Cen99}.\footnote{Otherwise it would just beg the question
230: of what distant, on-axis such objects would look like.}
231: This realization, together with the observation that
232: no $\ell$GRBs have been found in elliptical galaxies, and
233: the realization that the DD process {\it must} dominate (as
234: always, through binary-binary collisions) by a large factor the NS-NS
235: mergers in these populations, even when requiring enough WD-WD merged
236: mass to produce CC, leads to the {\it inescapable} conclusion that
237: the DD process produces sGRBs in the absence of CE and PE, the means
238: by which they would otherwise become $\ell$GRBs.
239: Given that the sGRBs in ellipticals are due to mergers of WDs,
240: we can conclude that:
241: 1) the pre-CE/PE impact photon spectrum of $\ell$GRBs is {\it known},
242: 2) sGRBs are offset from the centers of their elliptical hosts because
243: they are WD-WD mergers in their hosts' GCs (to produce most of their
244: MSPs -- Gehrels et al.~2005),
245: and 3) NS-NS mergers may not make GRBs as we know them, and/or be
246: %as common as previously thought.\footnote{Without ejected
247: %matter these merge within a few ms, far shorter
248: %than sGRBs \citep{Ei89}.} This is a
249: as common as previously thought,\footnote{Thus
250: sGRBs may not flag NS-NS mergers, which may last only
251: %These may merge in
252: a few ms, the same timescale as the 30-Jy DM=375 radio burst
253: \citep{Lo07}, far shorter than sGRBs (Hansen \& Lyutikov
254: 2001).}
255: a disappointment to gravitational observatories.
256: %a few ms, far shorter than sGRBs \citep{Ha01,Lo07}.}
257: %This is a
258: %a disappointment to the Earth-based gravitational observatories such as
259: %LIGO, because
260: %sGRBs may not flag NS-NS merger events.
261:
262: Through their interaction with the overlaying CE and/or PE,
263: BJs produce the wide variation in GRB/X-ray flash properties
264: observed from DD SNe of sufficiently low inclination to the line
265: of sight, and the flavors of the 99\% of GRBs due to DD depend
266: only on observer inclination, CE and/or PE mass, extent, and
267: abundance.
268: Of the {\it three} different classes of GRBs, $\ell$GRBs, sGRBs,
269: and the intermediate time, softest GRBs (iGRBs), as recently
270: classified by Horv\'ath et al.~(2006, see also Middleditch 2007),
271: most sGRBs occur from DD
272: WD-WD merger without CEs or PE, $\ell$GRBs pass through at least
273: the PE (necessary for small angle deviations to produce $\sim$100
274: s of delay), and usually the CE (which, in addition to the PE, can
275: soften the burst), while iGRBs pass through red supergiant (RSG) CEs,
276: but little or no PE, possibly the result of a merger of two stars
277: with very unequal masses, the possible cause of SN 1993J, which had an
278: RSG progenitor \citep{Po93}.\footnote{At 1.6\% and
279: 1.0\% \citep{Tr93} the early polarization of SN 1993J was {\it twice}
280: that of the 0.9\% and 0.4\% observed from 87A,
281: consistent with even {\it more} axiality than that of 87A.}
282: The $\sim$10 s limit for T$_{90}$, and its substantially negative slope
283: (tradeoff) with H$_{32}$ for the iGRBs, are consistent with an RSG
284: CE, but no PE.\footnote{The fluence of {\it both} the
285: non-prompt and prompt parts of off-axis $\ell$GRBs are suppressed, the
286: first by scattering in the PE, the second by being off axis by the time
287: it emerges from the CE, frequently leaving both roughly equally
288: attenuated. This scenario also explains why the two (``precursor'' and
289: ``delayed'') have similar temporal structure \citep{NP02}. Negligible
290: spectral lag for late ($\sim$10--100 s) emission from ``spikelike''
291: bursts \citep{NB06} can be explained in terms of small angle scattering
292: off the PE, without invoking extreme relativistic $\Gamma$'s.} As in
293: the case of $\ell$GRBs, the pre-CE impact photon spectrum of iGRBs
294: is also known.
295:
296: \section{DD in Type Ia/c SNe}
297: \label{sec:Ia/c}
298:
299: The list of good reasons against SD for Ia's is long:
300: (1 \& 2) no SN-ejected or wind-advected H/He \citep{Ma00,Lz02}, (3)
301: ubiquitous high velocity features (Mazzali et al.~2005a),
302: (4 \& 5) SiII/continuum polarization (CP) both inversely proportional
303: to luminosity (IPL -- Wang et al.~2006; Middleditch 2006),
304: (6) no radio Ia SNe (Panagia et al.~2006), (7) {\it four} Ia's within
305: 26 years in the merging spiral/elliptical galaxies comprising
306: NGC 1316 \citep{Im06}, (8) $>$1.2 M$_{\odot}$ of $^{56}$Ni
307: in SN 2003fg \citep{Ho06}, (9) cataclysmic variables are explosive
308: (Scannapieco \& Bildsten 2005), and (10) DD SNe are needed to account
309: for the abundance of Zinc \citep{Ko06}.
310:
311: {\it No} observation of {\it any} recent SN other than
312: SN 1986J\footnote{This SN, in the edge-on spiral galaxy,
313: NGC 0891, exceeds the luminosity of the Crab nebula at
314: 15 GHz by a factor of 200 \citep{Bie04}, and thus
315: is thought to have occurred because of
316: iron photodissociation catastrophe
317: (FePdC), producing a {\it strongly}
318: magnetized NS (the origin of magnetic fields in NSs is still poorly
319: understood, though it is believed that thermonuclear [TN] combustion
320: in a massive progenitor to an Fe core is related).}
321: and SN 2006gy, including all {\it ever} made of Type Ia SNe, is
322: inconsistent with the bipolar geometry of 87A. Thus, especially in the
323: light of SD's serious problems, it seems likely that Ia's are also
324: DD-initiated SNe, of which some still produce TN yield, but with all
325: producing weakly magnetized MSPs.
326:
327: Further, it seems likely that Ia's and Ic's form a continuous class,
328: classified as Ic's when
329: viewed from the merger poles, if sufficient matter exists, in excess
330: of that lost to CC, to screen the Ia TN products (a rare circumstance
331: in ellipticals), because this view will reveal lines of the r-process
332: elements characteristic of Ic's.\footnote{As with 87A-like events, it
333: would again beg the question of ``What {\it else} they could possibly
334: be?,''
335: and ``delayed detonation'' \citep{Kh91}, or
336: ``gravitationally confined detonation'' \citep{Pl04}, do not produce
337: the IPL polarization. And unless the view {\it is} very near polar,
338: this geometry can produce split emission
339: line(s) on rare occasions, as was seen in SN 2003jd \citep{Maz05b},
340: and thus again there is no need to invoke exotica, or an entire
341: population (III) to account for GRBs (Conselice et al.~2005; M04).}
342: All this complicates the use of SNe Ia in cosmology, because many Ia/c's in
343: actively star-forming galaxies (ASFGs) belong to the continuous class, and
344: Ia's in ellipticals (and some in ASFGs) may not produce enough $^{56}$Ni
345: to be bolometric \citep{PE01}, lying as much as two whole
346: magnitudes below the width-luminosity (W-L) relation
347: (the faint SNe Ia of Benetti et al.~2005).
348:
349: A ``missing link'' of Ia's must exist, more luminous than `faint' SNe,
350: which fall below the W-L relation by a tenth to a whole magnitude,
351: may still be largely absent from the local sample, but may {\it not} be
352: easily excluded by the TiII $\lambda \lambda$ 4,000-4,500 \AA ~shelf.
353: There is a more luminous class
354: of Ia's, found almost exclusively in ASFGs, that may be attributed to
355: CE Wolf-Rayet stars (see, e.g., DeMarco
356: et al.~2003, Howell et al.~2001, and the data in G\'orny \& Tylenda
357: 2000), and a less luminous ``leaner'' class, found in both ellipticals
358: and ASFGs \citep{Ha00,Su06,Wa06}, which can be attributed to
359: CO-CO WD mergers. In the DD paradigm, the Ia mass, above the
360: 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ lost to CC, determines the optical luminosity.
361: Since optical afterglows have been found in sGRBs
362: with no SNe \citep{GY6,Fyb6,MDV6,Gh6}, DD Ia's can be
363: very lean indeed.
364: It is not at all clear if SD {\it ever} happens.
365:
366: If Ia/c's are indeed the result of the same
367: process that underlay 10--15 M$_{\odot}$ in 87A, but which
368: instead only underlay 0.5 M$_{\odot}$, the outcome will
369: be even more extreme than the geometry of the SN 1987A remnant.
370: The PBFs will have higher velocities, and the equatorial/thermonuclear
371: ball (TNB) will be much brighter, due to the greater concentration
372: of $^{56}$Ni.
373: Thus PBFs form linearly extended structures, whose brightness
374: pales in comparison to that of the spheroidal TNBs, which explains
375: why Ia continuum and SiII polarization are both IPL \citep{Wa06,M06},
376: and also indicates that part of these lines must originate from the
377: sides of the Ia/c PBFs.
378:
379: Ia/c PBFs depart and/or thin out quickly because of their high velocities
380: and limited masses, potentially exposing a fraction of the TNBs during
381: the time interval when $\Delta m_{15}(B)$ is measured.
382: Ia/c's with PBFs initially showing r-process lines, because of views closer
383: to the poles of the DD merger, are frequently excluded from the local
384: sample as part of overdiligent attempts to select a ``pure'' sample
385: of Ia's. This selection doesn't work as effectively on the distant
386: sample, and the result will be distant SNe which are too faint for the
387: redshift of their host galaxies. Figure 3 of Middleditch (2007) shows
388: how this effect could spuriously produce half of $\Omega_\Lambda$=0.7
389: for a co-inclination (co-i) of 30$^{\circ}$ and a PBF of half angle
390: of 45$^{\circ}$. More realistic TNBs which begin as toroids
391: could produce a big effect even for low co-i's.
392:
393: \section{Conclusion}
394: \label{sec:conc}
395:
396: We have argued that the DD SN 1987A, its beam/jet,
397: Mystery Spot, and possible 2.14 ms pulsar remnant, are
398: intimately related to as many as 99\% of GRBs, MSPs, and other SNe,
399: including all Type Ia SNe, a grave concern for Ia Cosmology.
400: The time lags, energetics,
401: and collimation of $\ell$GRBs are consistent with those of 87A's BJ
402: and MS, and there is no need to invent exotica, such as collapsars,
403: to satisfy them, the expansion of the Universe may not be
404: accelerating, and there may be no Dark Energy. Recent observations
405: have also cast significant doubt on the existence of dark
406: matter as well \citep{NP07}.
407:
408: Given this new, very complex picture of Ia's, any sample, with a very
409: low dispersion in magnitude, is hardly reassuring. A rigorous
410: treatment of Ia data rules out all cosmologies \citep{Vi05}.
411: A straightforward
412: argument indicates that NS-NS mergers may not make {\it any} GRBs
413: as we know them, and/or occur nearly as frequently as previously
414: thought. Models of SNe to date are flawed because neither
415: the DD process, nor strong magnetic fields have been included,
416: developments that may still be at least a decade away.
417: Certainly, no relatively nearby FePdC SN has been well studied,
418: SN 1986J having occurred during 1983.
419:
420: The DD mechanism ensures that nearly all SNe are born from
421: a maximally rotating, post-merger WD with a rotation period
422: near 1.98 s,
423: thus rapid rotation
424: can not be invoked as an unusual circumstance, for the
425: case of SN 2003fg, to justify ``super-Chandrasekhar-mass''
426: WDs (SCMWDs). The $>$1.2 M$_{\odot}$ of $^{56}$Ni it produced
427: may only mean that CC underneath mixed TN fuel can initiate very
428: efficient combustion/detonation,\footnote{The spectroscopic
429: demands of a significant mass of unburned fuel, such as O, being
430: invalid because of the invalid paradigm under which such
431: estimates were made.} the paltry amounts
432: of $^{56}$Ni associated with Ib's and at least 90\% of
433: IIs being the result of dilution of their TN fuel with He
434: and/or H due to the DD merger process. Thus SN 2006gy may not
435: be a pair-instability SN \citep{Sm06},\footnote{The inner
436: layers of all FePdC SNe, possibly {\it many} M$_{\odot}$ of Si,
437: Ne, O, and C, have not been diluted with H and/or He by DD, and thus
438: may ignite/detonate upon CC, and burn efficiently. SN modelers
439: therefore face the unenviable choice of calculating FePdC SNe,
440: which involve strong magnetic fields, or DD SNe, which involve a
441: great deal of angular momentum and {\it demand} GRBs as an
442: outcome (see $\S$\ref{sec:link}).}
443: only a massive FePdC SN, which may have produced $\sim$20 M$_{\odot}$
444: of $^{56}$Ni, {\it and} a strongly magnetized NS remnant, a
445: prediction which can be tested soon.
446:
447: Although it would appear that a Universe without collapsars,
448: pair instability SNe, SCMWDs, and frequent NS-NS mergers which
449: make sGRBs, is much less ``exotic'' than previously thought,
450: SNe themselves are plenty exotic enough, with 1\% producing a
451: strongly magnetized NS remnant/pulsar, and the remaining 99\%
452: caused by DD, producing $\sim$2 ms pulsars, and BJs which
453: can incinerate half the planet from a great distance with
454: little or no warning. {\it This} is what we will spend a
455: good deal of the first half of this century figuring out.
456:
457: \acknowledgments
458: I am extremely grateful to CCS-3 for supporting me
459: during an interval when I was without funding. I would
460: like to thank Drs.~Aaron Golden, Geoffrey Burbidge, Falk Herwig,
461: Peter Nugent, and an anonymous referee for useful suggestions
462: which helped me to improve an earlier version of this manuscript.
463: I would also like to thank Jerry Jensen for conversations and
464: bringing this issue to my attention. This research was supported
465: in part by LDRD grant DR2008085 and performed
466: under the auspices of the Department of Energy.
467:
468: \eject
469:
470: \section{Appendix I: The Primal Scream Rejection}
471:
472: Prologue: The test of a good review is whether the
473: arguments in it could be sustained in a public forum.
474: Neither the very long review presented immediately
475: below, nor the very short one that follows as Appendix
476: II, pass this test:
477:
478: Dear Jon,
479:
480: Enclosed please find the EDITED referee's
481: report on your submission to the ApJ entitled
482: ``The SN 1987A Link to Others and Gamma-Ray Bursts''
483: (MS\# 72836).
484:
485: Please don't let the occasional harsh words in the
486: report distract from the point that the referee
487: identifies many critical flaws in the manuscript.
488: It seems to me that withdrawal would be the best
489: option. If you feel that the referee does not
490: understand your work well enough, you could request
491: a new and independent referee. I would support that,
492: BUT if the 2nd report is negative as well I would
493: have no choice but to reject the paper.
494:
495:
496: Please let me know asap whether or not you agree
497: with my suggestion to withdraw the submission.
498:
499:
500: If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
501:
502: I am sorry the news did not turn out to be more favorable.
503: With best regards, Dieter
504:
505:
506: *************** Referee Report (with reply):
507:
508: Whoa! A 2nd report?! That means I can get another gem
509: like {\bf this} one?!
510:
511: Well duh, Dieter. This person is obviously not objective
512: about a paper that turns much of that reviewer's research
513: into vapor. ``This is not exactly a review, more of a primal
514: scream.'' -- a colleague. I am surprised that ApJL even
515: considers this valid.
516:
517: Many of the reviewer's objections are seriously out
518: of date (Thielemann 1990?), and the rest have valid rebuttals.
519: These issues are addressed in full detail below (the specific
520: small changes made to the manuscript are not detailed herein.
521:
522: This is my answer to the points made by this referee:
523:
524: A common thread runs through the criticism of \#72836. That thread
525: is that calculations, or the lack thereof, trumps straightforward
526: interpretations of observations. It is far too early, and the
527: potential calculations far too complicated, to use their absence as
528: criticism of observational interpretation. An example is the
529: collapsar computations of MacFadyen and Woosley, which allow
530: astronomers to continue on and claim that they are actually doing
531: real science. I have a lot of respect for those who chose to hack
532: away at such a difficult endeavor, but it's a perversion of the
533: science to use them to filter out unpopular interpretations of
534: observations. Calculations are basically theory injected into
535: computers, and will NEVER fail to err without rigorous observational
536: constraint, and I'm not talking about just a single split emission
537: line from one SN.
538:
539: It is indeed unfortunate, possibly even tragic, that an entire
540: generation of young astronomers were misled by their mentors,
541: because those mentors rushed to ignore the implications of valid
542: observations of SN 1987A, even those which had been reproduced by
543: more than one competent group of observers. Now a large segment
544: of this generation is IN THE WAY, using up large telescope time in
545: the fruitless search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, neither of
546: which will ever be found to exist (see Nelson \& Petrillo 2007 on
547: the absence of Dark Matter). ``What they should be doing is studying
548: the nearby SNe, on the smaller telescopes, but they don't want to do
549: that.'' -- a colleague. In the meantime, SN 1987A, the one nearby SN
550: in nearly 400 years, has not been observed in high time resolution by
551: anyone for over 11 years, and that's criminal. The equatorial ring
552: will be a factor of 10 brighter in 10 years, and yet another factor of
553: 10 in the next 10. Time is running out. Far worse still, is that by
554: holding out hope for new physics, this frenzy may be distracting
555: political leaders from taking steps to mitigate global warming, and in
556: that sense it is irresponsible for them to remain in their state of denial.
557:
558: {\it In this paper, John Middleditch proposes, using SN 1987A as
559: his prime example, that essentially all supernova-like events
560: are caused by the double-degenerate merger of two white
561: dwarfs, presumably CO white dwarfs, leading to the formation
562: of a rapidly spinning millisecond (ms) pulsar. The author
563: suggests this as a unifying scheme that can explain all these
564: events, which he finds intellectually attractive, although
565: this is an aguable [sic] point, considering the diversity of
566: observed explosions.
567:
568: While the paper makes a couple of interesting points that
569: could stimulate discussions in the field, some of the main
570: claims are either wrong or unproven and can only be put
571: forward by ignoring the wealth of detailed scientific
572: literature (see below for more details). Because of this, I do
573: not think that this paper can be published. It would be
574: acceptable to have a speculative paper that stimulates ideas
575: in a new area of research, but ignoring well established facts
576: and a whole section of the relevant literature is
577: scientifically unacceptable.}
578:
579: Au contraire, my suggestions are quickly becoming the established
580: norm among most of those working in the many subfields (see below).
581:
582: {\it The main idea of the author is that a double-degenerate merger
583: can produce a diversity of observable supernovae depending on
584: whether it is surrounded by a common envelope or depending on
585: its viewing angle. While it is plausible that this leads to
586: different observational events, the link of this postulate to
587: observed supernova types is less than convincing. It is
588: generally believed (for good scientific reasons!) that there
589: are at least two different explosion mechanisms, core collapse
590: and thermonuclear explosions (leaving GRBs aside for the
591: moment).}
592:
593: Toward the end of the Wednesday afternoon session of the SN 1987A,
594: 20 Years After and GRB conference in Aspen on Type Ia SNe, the
595: question was asked: ``Is there any way of avoiding double-degenerate
596: for these [Type Ia SNe]?'' Someone ventured an answer, but Nino
597: reminded him that his suggestion had already been discredited.
598: There was no other reply.
599:
600: Bob Kirshner was there.
601:
602: Craig Wheeler was there,
603:
604: Alex Filippenko was there.
605:
606: Tom Janka was there.
607:
608: So the current thinking on Ia's is that they ARE indeed DD, which means
609: that they are core-collapse objects producing NSs, which likely will
610: indeed be weakly magnetized and rapidly spinning.
611:
612: What does THAT say about calculations of ``gravitationally
613: confined detonation''?
614:
615: What does that say about calculations of ``delayed detonation''.
616:
617: For that matter, what does it say about ``collapsars'' being real?
618:
619: And if Ia's are DD, why not other SNe of progenitors of modest
620: mass, which share at least early polarization in common?
621:
622: {\it The author seems to invoke only core collapse even to
623: explain SNe Ia that on average eject 0.6 Msun of Ni and
624: sometimes substantially more. How is this possible in this
625: scenario? The author briefly addresses this issue in the third
626: but last paragraph, but that discussion is little more than
627: uninformed gobbledegook and reveals an astonishing lack of
628: understanding of basic supernova physics. All of a sudden he
629: refers to ``efficient combustion/detonation'' to produce core
630: collapse, i.e. a ms pulsar, and 1.2 Msun of Ni? These numbers
631: just do not add up. He now introduces the concept that
632: different ways of mixing ``TN fuel'' produce different types of
633: events. None of this discussion refers to any proper
634: simulation of double-degenerate mergers or makes any
635: suggestion for the cause of the differences from event to
636: event. In this context, it should be noted that there has been
637: substantial progress in understanding thermonuclear explosions
638: from first principles that are generally believed to produce
639: SNe Ia. While there are still some detailed arguments
640: concerning, in particular, the transition to a detonation, the
641: basic paradigm is very sound and cannot just be ignored.}
642:
643: The single degenerate paradigm for Ia's is lying on the floor, shattered
644: into {\bf pieces} (see above), so this criticism is irrelevant.
645:
646: Again, also, the science is being perverted. A super-Chandrasekhar mass
647: WD is a fundamental violation of known physics, and its existence should
648: require extraordinary evidence, not just so much blather about unburned
649: mass determined from some lines, especially if these were interpreted
650: in the context of a {\bf wrong} paradigm.
651:
652: The inference of the spectroscopy as regards to amount of unburned material
653: has {\bf never} been redone in context of DD, and the resulting bipolar SNe.
654: The high luminosity of the thermonuclear ball is no guarantee because the
655: polar cones/jets can shade/expose it.
656:
657: {\it There is clearly a lot of confusion, even in the author's mind,
658: what he means by a double-degenerate merger, but let me
659: now address the various sections more systematically.}
660:
661: The folks at Aspen had no problems with it.
662:
663: {\it SN 1987A:
664:
665: The author uses SN 1987A as his prime example for a
666: double-degenerate scenario. He points out correctly that this
667: was an unusual event, specifically referring to the bipolar
668: nebula and the mystery spot, both of which could be indicative
669: of rapid rotation. Indeed, he points out that the probably
670: most promising model for the progenitor invokes the merger of
671: two stars, though not as he claims of two electron-degenerate
672: cores but of a red supergiant with a normal-type star. A
673: double-degenerate merger inside a common envelope, as he
674: proposes, could possibly also explain some of these supernova
675: features, but it cannot explain many others. First, the merger
676: occurred 20000 years before the explosion (based on the
677: dynamical age of the nebula). Why would the star look like a
678: blue supergiant for 20000 years? ... }
679:
680: Easy -- too much angular momentum. A blue straggler on
681: steroids. Does this reviewer seriously believe that SN 1987A
682: had an Fe core?
683:
684: {\it Even if the core collapse
685: event could be delayed by 20000 years (this may well be
686: possible), the merged cores surrounded by a large envelope
687: would almost certainly have the appearance of a red
688: supergiant, just like any 10 Msun star with a compact core of
689: about 2-3 Msun, not a blue supergiant (if the author is
690: convinced otherwise, he would have to demonstrate this by a
691: reasonable calculation).}
692:
693: Again, too much angular momentum. ApJL is a journal where one
694: can make reasonable suggestions, without having to take a year each
695: to run calculations (which have been discredited anyway -- see above)
696: on every little detail. In addition, are current calculations even
697: capable of resolving this question? I doubt it. It is not even
698: clear what the criticism is about. The reviewer is just trying to
699: stall this paper, in case he can't kill it, which is embarrassing
700: because he/she and so many others were so clueless for such a long
701: time. Ia's have been found to be DD at Aspen, and at Santa Barbara,
702: they were apologetic about it, and the whole house of cards is still
703: collapsing as I write. I don't OWE them waiting until 20 minutes after
704: THEY decide the paradigm has shifted, before {\bf I} can write about it.
705:
706: {\it I have used these particular values,
707: trying to imagine how such a scenario could work, taking a
708: positive constructive view, but this reflects another generic
709: problem with the paper, namely that it is lacking enough
710: details to allow a proper evaluation.}
711:
712: Again, it is easy to suggest that detailed calculations be made every time
713: a suggestion is offered, with the full knowledge that ApJL is not the place
714: where there is room to do this. And again, it's a stalling tactic.
715:
716: {\it The second, even more
717: severe problem is that we know from the analysis of the
718: supernova ejecta that the core of the star that exploded had a
719: H-deficient core of at least 5 Msun (see, e.g. the work by
720: Thielemann 1990, ApJ, 349, 222, but also many [!] other people
721: like Arnett, Woosley). This is not compatible with a
722: double-degenerate merger that can produce at most 1.5 Msun of
723: non-H ejecta (assuming that 1.5 Msun went into a neutron
724: star).}
725:
726: A 1990 paper is pretty much out of date. Woosley, Burrows and others
727: at the Aspen conference made no attempt to eliminate, or discredit DD
728: as a possible hypothesis for SN 1987A. Tom Janka paid tribute to Philipp's
729: and Morris's work on the SN 1987A rings, and its implications supporting
730: binary merger (and he still went on to use an Fe core, because no one's
731: {\bf ready} to calculate DD).
732:
733: {\it Again, if the author had good scientific reasons to
734: challenge the other studies, it would be up to him to
735: demonstrate why these detailed studies are wrong or at least,
736: at the very minimum, show that his model can produce the
737: basic, observed characteristics of the SN 1987A ejecta.
738: Anything else only qualifies as a fantasy product, not
739: science.}
740:
741: The reviewer is trying to draw the line here about DD for 87A, but
742: with most or all Ia's DD, it just doesn't wash. In Iabc's the
743: dominant mechanisms will be evolution- or collision-induced mergers.
744: In IIs, evolution-induced merger will dominate. So what? With the
745: rings, the bipolar explosion, the mixing of the elements, the blue SG,
746: the Mystery Spot and its coincidence with the early light curve, and,
747: YES, the 2.14 pulsar (see below). If SN 1987A wasn't a DD SN, I don't
748: know any more clues about it a SN can possibly have. A full treatment
749: of SN 1987A ejecta under the DD paradigm is a huge task, and will take
750: a few years, and is homework for the modelers.
751:
752: {\it GRBs:
753:
754: The author also tries to link SN 1987A to GRBs more generally.
755: He points out, correctly, that the DD process must dominate by
756: a large factor over NS-NS mergers in early-type galaxies and
757: then continues that this ``leads to the inescapable conclusion
758: that the DD process produces sGRBs''. I am sorry, but this is a
759: simple non-sequitur, since it would first need to be
760: demonstrated that DD mergers can produce a GRB in the first
761: place. Again the author ignores detailed work on
762: double-degenerate mergers (e.g. by Rosswog, Janka and others)
763: and how this can lead to a truly relativistic
764: event. Nevertheless, in the area of GRBs the uncertainties are
765: large enough that a DD merger can probably not be ruled out
766: (the author may want to look at the work by Todd Thompson and
767: collaborators since that could potentially support some of his
768: suggestions), but the logic as presented is not really
769: tenable.}
770:
771: THIS is the argument that drove Rejean Dupuis out of LIGO and into
772: a banking career! And also where the screaming gets loudest (see the
773: appendix to astro-ph/0608386). See above for 87A being due to a DD
774: merger -- it's credible enough, certainly by the standards of a
775: subfield where collapsars get accepted where there is no compelling
776: evidence for them whatsoever. Events (Lorimer et al. 2007) have
777: proven me correct on this account, as NS-NS mergers have a
778: different signature than GRBs.
779:
780: This reviewer just says he doesn't like the logic, but really never
781: says why. Much of this is just a version of name-calling. Tom Janka
782: was in the audience when I gave this talk that Tuesday morning at Aspen.
783: He didn't challenge it. We were both around all the rest of that long
784: day, looking at each other. Tom never engaged me on these issues.
785: The logic of Horvath et al. 2006 applies BOTH ways -- they did not see
786: the need for any other subclass of sGRBs on the low T90 side.
787: So $>$90\% of them are WD-WD mergers, or DD. Who really believes there
788: could be that many NS-NS mergers? Aside from that, the 30-Jy, $\sim$5 ms,
789: DM=375 radio burst, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5851/777,
790: is an obvious candidate for a NS-NS merger, the $\sim$100/day/Gpc$^3$ rate
791: being consistent with Kalogera's estimate of ~3/day/Gpc$63$ when
792: inspiraling DTN NS-NS pairs are counted.
793:
794: {\it SNe Ia:
795:
796: The logic gets even more mangled in the next section, since
797: all of a sudden the same DD mergers are also invoked to
798: account for SNe Ia and normal SNe Ic. The author does not
799: really explain how DD mergers produce this diversity, except
800: to vaguely refer to BJs, PEs, MSs and other abbreviations the
801: author introduces, which mainly serve to obfuscate the logic
802: of the paper. The author postulates further that the
803: difference between a SN Ia and Ic is one of viewing
804: angle. While at early times this might be a possible
805: interpretation, it is not at late times; in the late nebular
806: phase the ejecta are transparent, and it is straightforward to
807: measure the total amount of Ni produced in the supernova from
808: the nebular Fe lines, irrespective of viewing angle. This has
809: been done extensively for nearby supernovae (e.g. the work by
810: Meikle, also Mazzali et al.), demonstrating that the
811: differences of these supernova types cannot just be due to
812: viewing angle. This example illustrates quite blatantly that
813: the author does not really know much about supernova research.}
814:
815: At late times the spectra of Ia's and Ic's are nearly identical. Again,
816: interpretations assuming spherical geometry for bipolar explosions may
817: be seriously in error. Mazzali may have made the claim that Ia's can't
818: be Ic's when viewed from the poles, but he's also one of the number who
819: stated about Ic's in abstracts that they ``must be massive stars,'' a
820: claim that has not held up, and one which Craig Wheeler has also cautioned
821: against. Mazzali should be praised for his observations, and {\bf beaten}
822: for his abstracts. Aside from that, Ia's are DD, NOT thermonuclear
823: disruption.
824:
825: {\it Are all NSs formed as ms pulsars?
826:
827: The author's model implies that most neutron stars are born as
828: millisecond pulsars. Indeed, I remember that in an earlier
829: version of this paper (on astro-ph) the author claimed that
830: this was the case. Even though this section has been removed
831: (for good reasons), this implication does not appear
832: consistent with what we know about radio pulsars. Again the
833: author would have to ignore a whole wealth of literature on
834: this topic, in particular from the recent Parkes multi-beam
835: survey. In this context, the author claims that the standard
836: recycling scenario for ms pulsars does not work. Here he
837: ignores recent discoveries of ms pulsars in X-ray binaries,
838: i.e. in the process of being recycled (see in particular the
839: work by Bhattacharya), which has quite impressively confirmed
840: the basic recycling paradigm. The only thing the author could
841: challenge is the recycling + evaporation scenario for the
842: production of *single* ms pulsars for which a DD collapse
843: provides a respectable alternative.}
844:
845: The point X-ray source in Cas A is radio quiet. So much for radio
846: pulsars and the logic of the lamppost. TeraGauss NSs appear to be
847: a rare minority, and this is supported by the lack of hot centers in
848: recent nearby SNe, where SN 1986J is so far the only known exception
849: (and we will know soon enough for the case of SN 2006gy).
850:
851: The recycling scenario has been on the ropes since I found the 1st
852: MSP in a gobular cluster two decades ago, and X-ray MSPs don't save
853: it. I asked Fred Lamb whether we knew these pulsars were recycled
854: or born fast, and his answer was the we don't know, and I don't
855: think his mind has changed since. There's no way of telling how an
856: MSP was formed, whether born that way, most likely in a
857: binary-binary merger-induced core-collapse, or recycled from a
858: companion acquired after it has died as regular TeraGauss pulsar.
859: However this last possibility requires field decay, or at least
860: effective dipole reduction, because its magnetic poles have migrated
861: to opposite sides of one of the magnetic poles ala Chen and Ruderman
862: (1993), but it's not clear whether such a geometry can be as easily
863: recycled as a truly weak magnetic field. The binary-binary
864: collision-produced MSP can inherit a companion from the process, no
865: need to go looking, and field decay is not required. And THESE can
866: be recycled from such companions, and there's no way to tell the
867: difference.
868:
869: This paragraph also ignores the implications of two recycled pulsars
870: in binaries in Ter 5, with the fastest at 10 ms and change, both of which
871: weighed in at 1.7 solar (a similar situation holds for M5). Also from
872: Chen, Middleditch, and Ruderman 1993, the pulsars in the core-collapsed
873: GCs and non core-collapsed GCs also indicate that recycling can't get
874: TeraGauss pulsars into the true ms range. With injection from 2 ms DD
875: PSRs, which already have weak magnetic fields, recycling can reduce
876: their periods below 2 ms, a validation for Ghosh and Lamb 1979, without
877: requiring field decay.
878:
879: {\it Logic of Presentation:
880:
881:
882: I have already indicated some serious problems of logic
883: in the paper, but there are many more instances where
884: the author makes claims without any substantiation of the
885: claim (or valid reference). In several cases, the author
886: gives references, but seriously mis-quotes the papers he
887: is referring to. This in itself is scientifically
888: unacceptable.
889:
890:
891: Here are a few examples:
892:
893:
894: o Introduction: claim that the beaming factor of GRBs is 10$^5$.
895: The only reference given is to a paper by Meszaros who does
896: not claim this. Reasonable estimates are 100 to 10$^3$.
897: I believe there is one paper by Don Lamb suggesting a much
898: larger beaming factor but that claim has not survived further
899: scrutiny, as even Don Lamb has implicitly admitted in later
900: papers.}
901:
902: The behavior of the light curve of 87A around days 7-10 indicates that
903: the beam spot and particle jet spot on the polar ejecta must be smaller
904: than 1 lt-day. The distance is $\sim$20 lt-days, so the beaming factor
905: for 87A was higher than 10,000. The paper was so modified, and there
906: is no need to solicit anyone's opinion. Anyway, one suspects that the
907: motivation to revise the beaming factor downward, at least for lGRBs,
908: is just to substantiate the claim that they result from exotic, hence
909: rare (or vice-versa), events, thus keeping the hyperbole flowing.
910:
911: {\it o Footnote 1: claim that the ``discovery'' of a 2.14 ms pulsar
912: in the SN 87A remnant ``is no longer controversial''. I beg
913: to differ. It has not been seen by other groups who should
914: have been able to see it since they were looking at similar
915: times.}
916:
917: The story of high time resolution observations of 87A made by others is a is
918: sorry tale of incompetence and inadequate effort.
919:
920: The object was found in data from many telescopes and observatories. Sure, I
921: did the first pass analyses, but reputable collaborators have also verified the
922: signals, and the data have been offered to {\it anyone} who requests it. The
923: probabilities in Middleditch et al. 2000 are generous enough. They are not off
924: EIGHT orders of magnitude. The Tassies didn't hallucinate their data. Who is
925: this reviewer that he thinks he can ignore OUR publised observations, while
926: claiming that I can't ignore flawed and/or inadequate/non-existent observations
927: of others?
928:
929: We've even had a night in common with another group, with an agreement to share
930: the data (I have a {\bf slide} of the guy with Jerry Kristian on the afternoon
931: of 1992, Nov. 6, in the Las Campanas 2.5-m control room). The promised data was
932: never delivered, even though we did ask for it. (WHY? Written over inside the
933: laptop? Lost? Absolute verification of the signal too damaging to astronomers?
934: Ergo decades of work down the drain? Likely written over )
935:
936: The guy said ``I don't see much.'' Kristian said ``That's not real helpful.''
937:
938: By those standards, we didn't see MUCH, but there was {\bf something} there,
939: and a common observation night, even with a less restrictive filter would have
940: told us a LOT. We used a Wratten 87A (basically the I band, 800-900 nm).
941: The guy used a GG495, basically a 500 nm longpass. There is a factor of 10
942: difference in
943: count rate on 87A between these two on the same telescope. If the signal
944: were present for the entire GG495 band, he would have seen 20 times the power
945: that we saw. If it were restricted to the Wratten 87, we would have seen a
946: factor of 5 times more power than he saw. We never could convince ourselves
947: that including the 500-800 nm band {\bf ever} did anyone any good. But isn't
948: that what simultaneous observations CAN do for us? What an unforgivable waste!
949:
950: I also pointed the HST/HSP collaboration to candidate frequencies for which we
951: found a signal in their data on June 2, 1992, and March 6, 1993. For whatever
952: reason they did not respond then, wrote a paper claiming an upper limit of 27th
953: magnitude, which Kristian and I refereed. We informed them that it was really
954: 22nd (100 times brighter). The HSP count rate on any object of known magnitude
955: will verify that the instrumental throughput is 1\% at best, and from this, limits
956: can be set from the total number of counts in ANY observation. We told ApJ
957: that we'd like to see the paper again before it got published. Next time we saw
958: the paper it {\bf was} published with a limit of 24.5 (still exaggerated 10 times too
959: dim). A representative of the collaboration showed up at the SN 1987A -- 10 Years
960: After conference in La Serena, Chile, and tried to argue for this limit, at least
961: until he showed a power spectrum of his calibration object. When I informed him that
962: the object had 10 times less background than SN 1987A, and was also integrated over a
963: 50\% longer time interval, he could only leave the stage, muttering. Also, a total
964: of 160 minutes of observations of SN 1987A in a couple or YEARS? It's like
965: they planned to FAIL!
966:
967: Manchester and Peterson published on not seeing a signal in Dec. of `94. I looked at
968: their data, they {\bf really} didn't see anything. But they spent only part of the
969: two nights on 87A. In fact, at the Aspen SN 1987 \& GRBs Conference during Feb. 19-23,
970: over a dozen YEARS after this observation (with none in between as far and I know),
971: Manchester made a whole contributed talk on the basis of this observation, plus the
972: published times 10 exaggerated faint limit (24.5) from the HSP. As I had done a
973: decade earlier in La Serena, I had to correct the exaggeration on the spot. Mark
974: Phillips remarked to me afterward, ``I thought he was there!'' So did I! The kindest
975: thing which can be said is that he went off somewhere for that part (he was
976: certainly there prior to that). Also clearly, Manchester had never {\bf looked} at HSP
977: data, much like a lot of other people who THINK they know what the answer is about SN
978: 1987A. This was not even corrected in Manchester's proceedings contribution to the
979: Aspen Conference. It quotes the HSP limit as ``$\sim$ 24'' -- 24 to 22 is quite a
980: stretch even for a '$\sim$'! He also quotes his limit on 87A from 4 100-minute segments
981: during his and Peterson's 2 nights on the AAT in 1994, early Dec., the last time he ever
982: observed 87A, at 24.6. We observed 87A with the CTIO 4-m for 18.6 hours in 1993, late
983: Dec., and achieved a limit of 24.0, detecting the 2.14 ms signal on all three nights at
984: 24.77(0.2), 24.44(0.3), and 24.78(0.2) in the V, R, and I combined bands (using a gold
985: secondary) about 2/3rds of the count rate of an aluminized secondary. So his 24.6 limit
986: is likely exaggerated by at least a magnitude.
987:
988: Aside from that, it's not like there {\it aren't} 10 solar masses of starguts moving around
989: (also no guarantee that the pulsar remnant isn't precessing and potentially changing its
990: beaming). As far as I know, they also had no observations during the interval from Feb.
991: of `92 through Sep. of `93 (they tried on September 15, 1993, but were clouded out --
992: signals were seen from Tasmania on the 12th and 24th), when we were detecting the signal
993: most consistently. Remember, HST was still nearsighted during that interval.
994:
995: So THAT was our competition.
996:
997: {\it o Section 2. ``PBF - the prime suspect for the r-process'';
998: not necessarily wrong, but a statement without reference
999: or explanation.}
1000:
1001: OK, fine. `` ... (PBF -- a needed candidate for the r-process, e.g., Arnould et al. 2007) ... ''
1002: Arnould, Goriely, \& Takahashi 2007: ``After some fifty years of research on this subject, the
1003: identification of a fully convincing r-process astrophysical site remains an elusive dream.''
1004:
1005: {\it o Footnote 8: Claim that NS-NS mergers occur within a few ms.
1006: A reference is given, but this one is outdated. Recent
1007: detailed simulations by Ruffert, Janka, Rosswog et al. have
1008: shown that this is not the case.}
1009:
1010: Hard numbers are remarkably absent from the abstract of their latest paper
1011: (III) on NS-NS mergers. Tom Janka was in the audience at Aspen when I gave
1012: my talk, including the bit about sGRBs being predominantly DD events. He
1013: did not comment then, and has not commented since.
1014:
1015: {\it o Footnote 12: ``What else could they be?'' plus ``there is
1016: not need to invoke exotica...'' This sounds like desperation
1017: rather than well-founded scientific argumentation. Indeed,
1018: what is exotic to one person may not be exotic to another
1019: person.}
1020:
1021: Not desperation, but Occam's Razor, a principle which, unfortunately, has been
1022: absent from much of the garbage that astronomers are promulgating in this subfield,
1023: PLUS the fundamental principles of astronomy itself -- sources, parents,
1024: offspring, etc. Occam's Razor cuts both ways. What DO Ia's look like when viewed
1025: from their merger poles? If the MS of SN 1987A wasn't related to GRBs, then what
1026: WAS it? It HAS to look pretty impressive when viewed from either pole, likely
1027: visible at cosmological distances. Where are THESE events in such samples?
1028:
1029: {\it In summary, I do not believe that the author presented a
1030: consistent and coherent case that all supernovae are
1031: related to DD mergers. Considering how much he has ignored
1032: the published literature, I do not think this paper should
1033: be published in a respectable journal.
1034:
1035: Could the paper be modified to make it publishable? In
1036: principle, the author could revise the paper by removing some
1037: of its logical inconsistencies and addressing the relevant
1038: published literature. However, it would not be enough to just
1039: point out that there are numerous unresolved uncertainties in
1040: these models (which is definitely true). But since it is this
1041: author who it going out on the limb, it would be up to him to
1042: demonstrate by performing reasonable model calculations that
1043: DD mergers can account for the phenomena he is invoking them
1044: for. These would not have to be state-of-the-art
1045: multi-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, but at least
1046: have to contain enough reasonable physics to support the
1047: author's claims. Without these, the paper falls more in the
1048: category of a phantasy novel than a piece of respectable
1049: science. Considering that I judge many of the author's key
1050: claims to be false, I doubt that he would be able to satisfy
1051: these requirements.}
1052:
1053: It is not I who is living in a ``phantasy'' world, but this reviewer
1054: and his/her brethren. Collapsars, SCMWDs, Dark Energy, pair instability
1055: SNe, and likely even Dark Matter and will all be found to be garbage
1056: (there is a still a chance that collapsars have something to do with
1057: black hole formation, but because DD can make, and extreme energetics are
1058: no longer required for, GRBs, collapsars are no longer needed to
1059: make GRBs), and SN 1987A provides the leverage through which this will
1060: be accomplished. If not now, then when? If not by me, then by whom?
1061: I was right about the GRBs, I am being found right about MSPs,
1062: and I will be found to be right about SNe, and the pulsars they
1063: leave. And all this simply because I am rational, when many are
1064: not, and have a sense of what is garbage, and what is not.
1065:
1066: Do these people care what the truth is, or have they abandoned that
1067: concept so that they can make their lives easier by doing things they
1068: are used to doing, instead of those that really need doing, but are much
1069: more challenging? At this level, the effects of academia mixed with a
1070: defunct grant system is {\bf preventing} progress from being made in astronomy.
1071: Again ``What they should be doing is studying the nearby SNe, on the
1072: smaller telescopes, but they don't want to do that.'' -- a colleague.
1073: The revelations of this work show that much of astronomy has to
1074: be rebuilt from the ground up, and I can think of no better use
1075: for today's graduate students.
1076: These folks have monopolized the big telescopes for the last decade or so,
1077: and think that hard work alone is enough to merit a continuance of this
1078: state of affairs, NO MATTER how the science breaks.
1079:
1080: Like the DD issue for Ia's, their paradigm(s) have/are crumbled/crumbling
1081: beneath their feet. The leaders of this crowd are getting around to
1082: admitting it -- they wouldn't have survived the last few conferences
1083: if they hadn't. However, the message apparently has not filtered down to
1084: their followers (and this referee is among them), who act as if their
1085: audacious, and scientifically unsound assertions haven't already been
1086: seriously challenged. They wouldn't be so afraid of one dissenting
1087: paper if their own case weren't already toppling around their ears like
1088: a house of cards.
1089:
1090: When {\bf I} knew I had a spurious result, I retracted it. After Dark Energy
1091: and a lot of other stuff is found to be garbage, these folks will likely
1092: just slink back to the halls of academe. Tom Siegfried's take on the Santa
1093: Barbara SN meeting:
1094:
1095: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/194,
1096: is likely all that will happen. Support to do this bad astronomy amounts to
1097: WPA for astronomers. After all of this hullabaloo, astronomers will be lucky
1098: if anyone is still willing to give them funding. If they take yet another decade
1099: to get around to admitting their problems, then likely no one will give ANY of us
1100: funding EVER again.
1101:
1102: \eject
1103: \section{Appendix II: The One Paragraph Diss Rejection}
1104:
1105: Dear John,
1106:
1107: I have received a report from the referee on your revised
1108: ApJL paper cited above. A copy of the report is appended below.
1109:
1110: The referee finds significant problems with your paper and
1111: recommends against publication. In view of the referee's
1112: assessment of your paper, and the negative report of the
1113: previous version of the paper, we will not be able to accept
1114: this paper for publication in the ApJ.
1115:
1116: I am sorry that the revisions did not lead to an acceptable
1117: paper. The referee is a very experienced, and also a very
1118: objective person (willing to go some distance on topics that
1119: are ``out of the box'' or ``non-mainstream''), but the assesment
1120: was still negative - with very strong words regarding the
1121: impossibility of a further revision leading to an acceptable
1122: paper.
1123:
1124: I hope you can find another appropriate venue to promote (as
1125: in publish) the ideas presented in your manuscript.
1126:
1127: With best wishes: Dieter
1128:
1129: --------------------------------------------------
1130:
1131: It is easy to sit there and contend that the assertions are
1132: unsupported, the logic is vague and elusive, and that there
1133: is little evidence. It is easy to sit there and claim the
1134: arguments are too tenuous, knowing full well that this is
1135: the most developed possible set which still fits within the
1136: space alloted for an ApJ letter.
1137:
1138: In fact the review itself is what is vague, elusive, and
1139: presents unsupported arguments, a classic case of the pot
1140: calling the kettle black. And oh my! How tired one
1141: must get when encountering the dread `SCMWD' for the 2nd time!
1142: (SCM means something else to me.)
1143: We don't know how this beam/jet from Hell was formed, we
1144: only have that picture of 87A, its early light curve, and
1145: data on the Mystery Spot. Most of us don't know yet how
1146: pulsars shine. So what? That comes later, in a bigger
1147: paper. Requesting an explicit mechanism is just another
1148: way of stalling.
1149:
1150: As vague and indefinite as it is, it correctly predicted
1151: that NS-NS mergers do not make GRBs (see above and Lorimer et
1152: al.~2007), the bimodality of the masses of MSPs in globular
1153: clusters (Freire et al. arXiv:0712.3826), the offsets of sGRBs
1154: from the centers of their host elliptical galaxies, the details
1155: of Ia's, including their two faint subclasses,
1156: high velocity features, inverse relation between polarization
1157: and luminosity, and also makes a explicit prediction as to the
1158: cause and outcome of SN 2006gy. This pile of vague, unsupported
1159: objections, disguised (poorly) as a review, is a symptom of what
1160: this branch of astronomy has become -- a disengenuous exercise
1161: perpetrated on the American taxpayers so that astronomers can
1162: pretend their paradigms haven't crumbled, and BS until the end of
1163: the Universe, allowing tiny little dollops of progress only when
1164: everyone has covered their behind about having been so utterly
1165: clueless about SNe, GRBs, and MSPs. They can't argue these
1166: points in public, outside of the cloak of anonymity provided
1167: by the journal, as there really is no rebuttal to them.
1168:
1169: {\it I have read this paper three times with good will and a generous
1170: approach to lively scientific discussion. I reluctantly conclude
1171: that this paper does not meet the standards of the Astrophysical
1172: Journal. Although it refers to many interesting astronomical
1173: phenomena, the conclusions do not follow from the evidence and
1174: there is precious little evidence. If this paper contained a cogent
1175: and quantitative physical discussion of the way in which the
1176: observed phenomena in SN 1987A shown in Figure 1 are plausibly the
1177: result of the mass loss followed by beamed ejections from that
1178: object, it might possibly be suitable for the ApJ, but the present
1179: discussion is a series of qualitative unsupported assertions,
1180: followed by unjustified leaps to unrelated phenomena. The paper is
1181: almost impossible to read, due to a propensity to use novel
1182: abbreviations (SCMWD) for phrases repeated only a few times. There
1183: is a nugget of a scientific idea here, trying to unite a wide
1184: variety of phenomena with the notion of double degenerate mergers.
1185: But the evidence presented is so fragmentary and allusive that it
1186: does not constitute a scientific case for any of the proposals made
1187: here. It would be a mistake to publish this paper in the
1188: Astrophysical Journal. It would be a mistake to impose further on
1189: the editorial processes of the Journal and the goodwill of the
1190: scientific community by offering a revised version of this paper.
1191: I will not serve again as a referee for this paper.}
1192:
1193: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1194: \bibitem[Arnould et al.\ 2007]{Ar07} Arnould, M., Goriely, S., \&
1195: Takahashi, K. 2007, preprint, arXiv/0705.4512
1196: \bibitem[Barrett 1988]{Ba88} Barrett, P. 1988, \mnras, 234, 937
1197: %\bibitem[Benetti et al.\ 2004]{Be04} Benetti, S., et al. 2004, \mnras, 348, 261
1198: \bibitem[Benetti et al.\ 2005]{Be05} Benetti, S., et al. 2005, \apj, 623, 1011 (B05)
1199: \bibitem[Bietenholz et al.\ 2004]{Bie04} Bietenholz, M. F.,
1200: Bartel, N., \& Rupen, M. P. 2004, Science, 304, 1947
1201: %\bibitem[Blondin et al.\ 2005]{Bl05} Blondin, S., Walsh, J. R., Leibundgut, B.,
1202: % \& Sainton, G. 2004, \aap, 431, 757
1203: %\bibitem[Brown et al.\ 2005]{Br05} Brown, E. F., Calder, A. C.,
1204: % Plewa, T., Ricker, P. M., Robinson, K, \& Gallagher, J. B. 2005,
1205: % \nphysa, 758, 451
1206: %\bibitem[Burrows et al.\ 1995]{Bu95} Burrows, C. J., et al. 1995, \apj, 452, 680
1207: %\bibitem[Cappellaro et al.\ 1997]{Ca97} Cappellaro, K., Turatto, M., Tsvetkov, D.
1208: % Yu., Bartunov, O. S., Pollas, C, Evens, R., \& Hamuy, M. 1997, \aap, 322, 431
1209: \bibitem[Cen 1999]{Cen99} Cen, R. 1999, \apjl, 524, L51
1210: \bibitem[Champion 2007]{Ch07} Champion, D. 2007, NAIC Arecibo Obs. News., No. 41, 17
1211: %\bibitem[Chen \& Ruderman 1993]{CR93} Chen, K., \& Ruderman, M. 1993, \apj, 208, 179
1212: \bibitem[Chen et al.\ 1993]{CMR93} Chen, K., Middleditch, J., \& Ruderman, M. 1993,
1213: \apj, 408, L17
1214: %\bibitem[Chevalier 1992a,b]{Chev92a}Chevalier, R.~A. 1992a, \nat, 355, 691.
1215: %Supernova 1987 A at five years of age,
1216: \bibitem[Chevalier 1992]{Chev92b}Chevalier, R.~A. 1992, \nat, 360, 628
1217: %\bibitem[Chevalier 1992b]{Chev92b} Chevalier, R.~A. 1992b, \nat, 360, 628
1218: %Supernova 1987 A -- and still there is no pulsar,
1219: %\bibitem[Chornock et al.\ 2005]{Ch05} Chornock, R., Filippenko, A. V., Branch, D.,
1220: % Foley, R. J., Jha, S., \& Li, W. 2006, \pasp, 118, 722
1221: %\bibitem[Clocchiatti et al.\ 2006]{Cl06} Clocchiatti, A., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 1
1222: %\bibitem[Conley et al.\ 2006]{Co06} Conley, A., et al. 2006, \apj, 644, 1
1223: \bibitem[Conselice et al.\ 2005]{Con05} Conselice, C. J., et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 29
1224: %\bibitem[Cook et al.\ 1988]{Co88} Cook, W. R., Palmer, D., Prince, T., Schindler, S.,
1225: % Starr, C., \& Stone, E. 1988, \iaucirc, No. 4527, 1
1226: %\bibitem[Della Valle et al.\ 2006a]{DV06} Della Valle, M., et al. 2006a, \apjl, 642,
1227: % L103
1228: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.\ 2006]{MDV6} Della Valle, M., et al. 2006, \nat, 444, 1050
1229: \bibitem[DeMarco et al.\ 2003]{De03} DeMarco, O., Sandquist, E. L., Low, M-M M.,
1230: Herwig, F., \& Taam, R. E. 2003, RMxAC, 18, 24
1231: %\bibitem[Eichler et al.\ 1989]{Ei89} Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., \& Schramm,
1232: % D. N. 1989, \nat, 340, 126
1233: %\bibitem[Eisenstein et al.\ 2005]{Ei05} Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 560
1234: %\bibitem[Filippenko 1997]{Fi97} Filippenko, A. 1997, \araa, 35, 309
1235: %\bibitem[Evans 1981]{E81} Evans, R. 1981, \iaucirc, No. 3624, 1
1236: \bibitem[Fransson et al.\ 1989]{Fr89}Fransson, C., Cassatella,
1237: A., Gilmozzi, R., Kirshner, R.~P., Panagia, N., Sonneborn, G., \&
1238: Wamsteker, W. 1989, \apj, 336, 429.
1239: %Narrow ultraviolet emission lines from SN 1987A --
1240: %Evidence for CNO processing in the progenitor,
1241: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.\ 2006]{Fyb6} Fynbo, J., et al. 2006, \nat, 444, 1047
1242: (astro-ph/0608313)
1243: %\bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.\ 2005]{GY05} Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2005, \apjl, 630, L29
1244: \bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.\ 2006]{GY6} Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2006, preprint
1245: (astro-ph/0608257)
1246: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.\ 2005]{Gh5} Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, \nat, 437, 851
1247: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.\ 2006]{Gh6} Gehrels, N., et al. 2006, \nat, 444, 1044
1248: \bibitem[G\'orny \& Tylenda 2000]{GT00} G\'orny, S. K., \& Tylenda, R. 2000, \aap, 362,
1249: 1008
1250: %\bibitem[Hachinger et al.\ 2006]{Ha06} Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., \&
1251: % Benetti, S. 2006, \mnras, 370, 299
1252: \bibitem[Hamuy \& Suntzeff 1990]{HS90} Hamuy, M., \& Suntzeff, N. B. 1990, \aj,
1253: 99, 1146
1254: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.\ 2000]{Ha00} Hamuy, M., Trager, S. C., Pinto, P. A.,
1255: Phillips, M. M., Schommer, R. A., Ivanov, V., \& Suntzeff, N. B., 2000,
1256: \aj, 120, 1479
1257: \bibitem[Hansen \& Lyutikov 2001]{Ha01} Hansen, B. M. S., \& Lyutikov, M. 2001,
1258: \mnras, 322, 695
1259: \bibitem[Hessels et al.\ 2006]{He06} Hessels, J. W. T., Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I.
1260: H., Freire, C. C., Kaspi, V. M., \& Camilo, F. 2006, Science, 311, 1901
1261: % Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A., \& Avil\'es, R. 1995, \aj, 109, 1
1262: %\bibitem[Hamuy et al.\ 1996]{Ha96} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B.,
1263: % Schommer, R. A., Maza, J., \& Avil\'es, R. 1996, \aj, 112, 2398
1264: %\bibitem[H$\ddot{\rm o}$flich et al.\ 2001]{Hof01} H$\ddot{\rm o}$flich, P., Staniero,
1265: % O., Limongi, M., Dominguez, I., \& Chieffi, A. 2001, RMxAC, 10, 157
1266: %\bibitem[Homeier 2005]{Hom05} Homeier, N. L. 2005, \apj, 620, 12
1267: \bibitem[Horv\'ath et al.\ 2006]{Hor06} Horv\'ath, I., Bal\'azs, L. G., Bagoly,
1268: Z, F. Ryde, \& A M\'ez\'aros, A. 2006, \aap, 447, 23
1269: \bibitem[Howell et al.\ 2001]{Ho01} Howell, D. A., H$\ddot{\rm o}$flich, P, Wang,
1270: L., \& Wheeler, J. C. 2001, \apj, 556, 302
1271: \bibitem[Howell et al.\ 2006]{Ho06} Howell, D. A., et al. 2006, \nat, 443, 308
1272: \bibitem[Immler et al.\ 2006]{Im06} Immler, S., Gehrels, N. F., \&
1273: Nousek, J. A. 2006, http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Swift11-2006.htm
1274: %\bibitem[James et al.\ 2006]{Ja06} James, J. B., Davis, T., Schmidt, B. P.,
1275: % \& Kent, A. 2006, \mnras, in press, (astro-ph/0605147)
1276: %\bibitem[Jensen 2004]{Je04} Jensen, J. W. 2004, preprint (astro-ph/0404207)
1277: %\bibitem[Kasen \& Plewa 2005]{KP05} Kasen, D., \& Plewa, T. 2005, \apj, 622, L41
1278: %\bibitem[Kasen et al.\ 2003]{Ka03} Kasen, D., et al. 2003, \apj, 593, 788
1279: \bibitem[Khokhlov 1991]{Kh91} Khokhlov, A. M. 1991, \aap, 245, 114
1280: \bibitem[Kobayashi et al.\ 2006]{Ko06} Kobayashi, C., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K.,
1281: Tominaga, N, \& Ohkubo, T. 2006, \apj, 653 1145
1282: \bibitem[Lentz et al.\ 2002]{Lz02} Lentz, E. J., Baron, E., Hauschildt, P. H.,
1283: \& Branch, D. 2002, \apj, 580, 374
1284: %\bibitem[Leonard et al.\ 2001]{Le01} Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V.,
1285: % Ardila, D. R., \& Brotherton, M. S. 2001, \apj, 553, 861
1286: %\bibitem[Leonard et al.\ 2002]{Le02} Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V.,
1287: % Chornock, R., \& Foley, R. J. 2002, \pasp, 114, 1333
1288: %\bibitem[Leonard et al.\ 2005]{Le05} Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V.,
1289: % Foley, R. J., \& Chornock, R. 2005, \apj, 632, 450
1290: \bibitem[Lorimer et al.\ 2007]{Lo07} Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A.,
1291: Narkevic, D. J., \& Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777
1292: \bibitem[Lyne et al.\ 1987]{Ly87} Lyne, A. G., Brinklow, A., Middleditch, J.,
1293: Kulkarni, S. R., \& Backer, D. C. 1987, \nat, 328, 399
1294: \bibitem[MacFadyen \& Woosley 1999]{MW99} MacFadyen, A., I., \& Woosley, S. E. 1999,
1295: \apj, 524, 262
1296: %\bibitem[Malesani et al.\ 2004]{Mal04} Malesani, D., et al. 2004, \apjl, 609, L5
1297: %\bibitem[Mannucci et al.\ 2006]{Man06} Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., \& Panagia,
1298: % N. 2006, \mnras, 370, 773
1299: \bibitem[Marietta et al.\ 2000]{Ma00} Marietta, E., Burrows, A., \& Fryxell, B.
1300: 2002, \apjs, 128, 615
1301: %\bibitem[Mattila et al.\ 2005]{Mat05} Mattila, S., Lundqvist, P., Sollerman, J.,
1302: % Kozma, C., Baron, E., Fransson, C., Leibundgut, B., \& Nomoto, K. 2006,
1303: % \aap, 443, 649
1304: %\bibitem[Matz et al.\ 1987]{Ma87} Matz, S. M., Share, G. H., Leising, M. D.,
1305: % Chupp, E. L., \& Vestrand, W. T. 1987, \iaucirc, No. 4510, 1
1306: %\bibitem[Maund et al.\ 2005]{Mau05} Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., \& Schweizer, F.
1307: % 2005, \apjl, 630, L33
1308: %\bibitem[Maza \& Wischnjewsky 1980]{M80} Maza, J., \& Wischnjewsky, M. 1980, \iaucirc,
1309: No. 3548, 1
1310: %\bibitem[Mazzali et al.\ 2002]{Maz02} Mazzali, P., et al. 2002, \apjl, 572, L61
1311: %\bibitem[Mazzali et al.\ 2003]{Maz03} Mazzali, P., et al. 2003, \apjl, 599, L95
1312: \bibitem[Mazzali et al.\ 2005a]{Maz05a} Mazzali, P., et al. 2005a, \apjl, 623, L37
1313: \bibitem[Mazzali et al.\ 2005b]{Maz05b} Mazzali, P., et al. 2005b, Science, 308, 1284
1314: \bibitem[Meikle et al.\ 1987]{Me87} Meikle, W. P. S., Matcher, S. J., \& Morgan, B. L.
1315: 1987, \nat, 329, 608
1316: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros 2006]{Mz06}M\'esz\'aros, P. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69,
1317: 2259
1318: \bibitem[Middleditch 2004]{M04}Middleditch, J. 2004, \apjl, 601, L167 (M04)
1319: \bibitem[Middleditch 2006]{M06}Middleditch, J. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0608386)
1320: \bibitem[Middleditch 2007]{M07}Middleditch, J. 2007, in Supernova 1987A: 20 Years
1321: After, Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. S. Immler, K. W. Weiler,
1322: \& R. McCray (New York:AIP) 107, also preprint, arXiv/0705.3846
1323: \bibitem[Middleditch et al.\ 2000a]{M00a}Middleditch, J., et al. 2000a, preprint
1324: (astro-ph/0010044)
1325: \bibitem[Middleditch et al.\ 2000b]{M00b}Middleditch, J., et al. 2000b, \na, 5, 243
1326: \bibitem[Morris \& Podsiadlowski 2007]{MP07} Morris, T., \& Podsiadlowski, Ph. 2007,
1327: Science, 315, 1103
1328: \bibitem[Nakar \& Piran 2002]{NP02} Nakar, E., \& Piran, T. 2002, \mnras, 331, 40
1329: %\bibitem[NASA et al.\ 2003]{Ki03} NASA, Challis, P., Kirshner, R. P., \& Sugerman, B.
1330: % 2003, http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire\_collection/pr2004009a/
1331: \bibitem[NASA et al.\ 2007]{NASA07} NASA et al.~2007,
1332: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/\_collection/pr2007010a.
1333: %\bibitem[Monard 2006]{M06} Monard, L. A. G. 1981, CBET, 553, 1
1334: %\bibitem[Monard \& Folatelli 2006]{MF06} Monard, L. A. G., \& Folatelli, G. 2006, CBET ,
1335: % 723, 1
1336: \bibitem[Nelson \& Petrillo 2007]{NP07}Nelson, E., \& Petrillo, K. 2007, \baas, 39,
1337: 1, 184
1338: %\bibitem[Nisenson \& Papaliolios 1999]{NP99}Nisenson, P., \& Papaliolios, C. 1999,
1339: % \apjl, 518, L29
1340: \bibitem[Nisenson et al.\ 1987]{Ni87}Nisenson, P., Papaliolios, C., Karovska, M.,
1341: \& Noyes, R. 1987, \apjl, 320, L15
1342: \bibitem[Norris \& Bonnell 2006]{NB06} Norris, J. P., \& Bonnell, J. T. 2006, \apj,
1343: 643, 266
1344: %\bibitem[Nugent et al.\ 2006]{Nu06}Nugent, P., et al. 2006, \apj, 645, 841
1345: %\bibitem[Paczynski 1997]{P97} Paczynski, B. 1997, preprint (astro-ph/9712123)
1346: \bibitem[Palmer et al.\ 2005]{Pa05} Palmer, D., et al. 2005, \nat, 434, 1107
1347: \bibitem[Panagia et al.\ 2006]{Pa06} Panagia, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Weiler,
1348: K. W., Sramek, R. A., Stockdale, C. J., \& Murata, K. P.. 2006, \apj,
1349: 646, 959
1350: %\bibitem[Perlmutter et al.\ 1999]{Pe99} Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
1351: %\bibitem[Phillips et al.\ 1999]{Ph99} Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B.,
1352: % Schommer, R. A., Hamuy, M., \& Maza, J. 1999, \aj, 118, 1766
1353: \bibitem[Pinto \& Eastman 2001]{PE01} Pinto, P. A., \& Eastman, R. G. 2001, \na, 6, 307
1354: \bibitem[Plewa et al.\ 2004]{Pl04} Plewa, T., Calder, A. C., \& Lamb, D. Q. 2004,
1355: \apjl, 612, L37
1356: \bibitem[Podsiadlowski et al.\ 1993]{Po93} Podsiadlowski, Ph., Hsu, J. J. L., Joss,
1357: P. C., \& Ross, R. R. 1993, \nat, 364, 509
1358: \bibitem[Podsiadlowski \& Joss 1989]{Pod89}Podsiadlowski, Ph., \& Joss, P.~C.
1359: 1989, \nat, 338, 401
1360: \bibitem[Ransom et al.\ 2005]{Ra05} Ransom, S. M., Hessels, J. W. T., Stairs,
1361: I. H., Freire, P. C. C., Camilo, F., Kaspi, V. M., \& Kaplan, D. L. 2005,
1362: Science, 307, 892
1363: %\bibitem[Richardson et al.\ 2002]{Ri02} Richardson, D., Branch, D., Casebeer,
1364: % D., Millard, J., Thomas, R. C., \& Baron 2002, \aj, 123, 745
1365: %\bibitem[Riess et al.\ 1998]{Ri98} Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
1366: %\bibitem[R$\ddot{\rm o}$pke et al.\ 2006]{Ro06} R$\ddot{\rm o}$pke, F. K., Hillebrandt,
1367: % W., Niemeyer, J. C., \& Woosley, S. E. 2006, \aap, 448, 1
1368: %\bibitem[Sanduleak 1969]{Sa69} Sanduleak, N. 1969, Contr. CTIO, 1969
1369: \bibitem[Schwarz \& Mundt 1987]{Sc87} Schwarz, H. E., \& Mundt, R. 1987, \aap, 177, L4
1370: \bibitem[Scannapieco \& Bildsten 2005]{SB05} Scannapieco, E., \& Bildsten, L. 2005,
1371: \apjl, 629, L85
1372: \bibitem[Siegfried 2007]{Sieg07} Siegfried, T. 2005, Science, 316, 195
1373: \bibitem[Smith et al.\ 2006]{Sm06}Smith, N. et al. 2006, preprint, astro-ph/0612617
1374: \bibitem[Stairs et al.\ 2000]{St00} Stairs, I. H., Lyne, A. G., \& Shemar, S. L.
1375: 2000, \nat, 406, 484
1376: %\bibitem[Sugerman et al.\ 2005]{Su05} Sugerman, B. E. K., Crotts, A. P. S.,
1377: % Kunkel, W. E., Heathcote, S. R., \& Lawrence, S. S. 2005, \apj, 627, 888
1378: \bibitem[Sullivan et al.\ 2006]{Su06} Sullivan, M., et al. 2006, \apj, 648, 868
1379: \bibitem[Tananbaum et al.\ 1999]{Ta99} Tananbaum, H., \& The Chandra Observing
1380: Team 1999, \iaucirc, No. 7246, 1
1381: \bibitem[Trammell et al.\ 1993]{Tr93} Trammell, S. R., Hines, D. C.,
1382: \& Wheeler, J. C. 1993, \apjl, 414, L21
1383: %\bibitem[Tsvetkov et al.\ 2005]{Tsv05} Tsvetkov, D. Yu., Pavlyuk, N. N.,
1384: % Bartunov, O. S., Pskovskii, Yu. P. 2005, http://www.sai.msu.su/sn/sncat
1385: %\bibitem[van den Bergh et al.\ 2005]{vdb05} van den Bergh, S., Li, W., \&
1386: % Filippenko, A. V. 2005, \pasp, 117, 773
1387: %\bibitem[Vietri \& Stella 1998]{VS98} Vietri, M., \& Stella, L. 1998, \apjl, 507, L45
1388: \bibitem[Vishwakarma 2005]{Vi05} Vishwakarma, R. G. 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0511628)
1389: \bibitem[Wamsteker et al.\ 1987]{Wa87} Wamsteker, W., et al. 1987, \aap, 177, L21
1390: %\bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2004]{Wa04} Wang, L., Baade, D., H$\ddot{\rm o}$flich, P.,
1391: % Wheeler, J. C., Kawabata, K. Khokhlov, A., Nomoto, K., \& Patat, F. 2004,
1392: % preprint (astro-ph/0409593)
1393: \bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2006]{Wa06} Wang, L., Baade, D., \& Patat, P. 2006, Science,
1394: 315, 212
1395: %\bibitem[Wang et al.\ 1997]{Wa97} Wang, L., Wheeler, J. C., \& H$\ddot{\rm o}$flich,
1396: % P. 1997, \apj, 476, L27
1397: %\bibitem[Wang et al.\ 1996]{Wa96} Wang, L., Wheeler, J. C., Li, Z., \& Clocchiatti,
1398: % A. 1996, \apj, 467, 435
1399: %\bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2002]{Wa02} Wang, L., et al. 2002, \apj, 579, 671
1400: \bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2003]{Wa03} Wang, L., et al. 2003, \apj, 591, 1110
1401: %\bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2006a]{Wa06a} Wang, X., Wang, L., Pain, R., Zhou, X., \&
1402: % Li, Z. 2006a, \apj, 645, 488
1403: %\bibitem[Weinberg 1989]{We89} Weinberg, S. 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1, 1
1404: %\bibitem[Woosley 1988]{Wo88} Woosley, S. E. 1988, \apj, 330, 218
1405: \end{thebibliography}
1406:
1407: \begin{figure}
1408: \vskip 7 in
1409: \special{psfile=f1.eps vsize=600
1410: hoffset=-40 voffset=-110 angle=0
1411: hscale=90 vscale=90 }
1412: %\epsscale{0.02}
1413: %\plotone{f1.eps}
1414: %\caption{The very early luminosity history of SN 1987A as observed
1415: \figcaption{The very early luminosity history of SN 1987A as observed
1416: with the Fine Error Sensor of IUE and the 0.41-m at CTIO. Data
1417: points taken at Goddard Space Flight Center by Sonneborn \& Kirshner,
1418: the Villafranca Station in Madrid, Spain, are marked (see
1419: $\S$\ref{sec:early}).
1420: %Various stages of beam/jet breakout and
1421: %interaction with polar ejecta are labeled
1422: %\figcaption{The very early luminosity history of SN 1987A as observed
1423: %with the Fine Error Sensor of IUE. Data points taken at Goddard Space
1424: %Flight Center by Sonneborn \& Kirshner, and the Villafranca Station in
1425: %Madrid, Spain, are marked. Various stages of beam/jet breakout and
1426: %interaction with polar ejecta are labeled see $\S$\ref{sec:early}.
1427: %The fit to the six points
1428: %from day 854.5 to 857 is a
1429: %parabola, consistent with optically thin thermal radiative cooling.
1430: %The decrement near day 20 is actually preceded by a {\it spike}
1431: %with strange colors (B, R, \& I, but little U or V -- see the previous
1432: %viewgraph -- a reverse shock? pulsar?).
1433: }
1434: \label{fig:FES}
1435: \end{figure}
1436:
1437: %\begin{figure}
1438: %\vskip 7 in
1439: %\special{psfile=f2.eps vsize=600
1440: % hoffset=-35 voffset=-116 angle=0
1441: % hscale=85 vscale=85 }
1442: %\figcaption{The maximum drop in magnitude from exposure of the PBF
1443: %footprint(s) on the TNBs (see Fig.~3, left, of Middleditch 2007) to an
1444: %observer as a function of co-inclination (co-i) for PBF half angles of
1445: %25-55$^{\circ}$ in 5$^{\circ}$ steps (curves without dots),
1446: %%assuming no contribution to the change in luminosity from the PBFs
1447: %%themselves. The curves with
1448: %%disks represent the {\it changes} in the drops
1449: %and the excess drops over 0$^{\circ}$ for co-i's of
1450: %20$^{\circ}$, 30$^{\circ}$, 45$^{\circ}$, 60$^{\circ}$, and
1451: %90$^{\circ}$ (curves with dots), plotted at the abscissa values
1452: %equal to their PBF half angles (see $\S$\ref{sec:Ia/c}).
1453: %%in magnitude between
1454: %%the co-inclination labeled at their right hand ends, and the drops
1455: %%at 0$^{\circ}$ co-inclination, and the points are plotted on the
1456: %%abscissa at the co-inclinations corresponding to their PBF half
1457: %%angles.
1458: %%The dashed lines represent the effect needed to
1459: %%spuriously produce $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7 (see $\S$\ref{sec:Ia/c}).
1460: % }
1461: %\label{fig:drop}
1462: %\end{figure}
1463:
1464: %\begin{figure}
1465: % \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{ssma3msgeoms.eps}
1466: %\includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{drop.eps}
1467: %\special{psfile=drop.eps vsize=600
1468: % hoffset=-12 voffset=-00 angle=0
1469: % hscale=90 vscale=90 }
1470: %\caption{The geometry for type Ia/c SNe, as viewed 30$^{\circ}$
1471: %off the merger equator, with PBFs sketched as cones of half-angle
1472: %45$^{\circ}$. The two circles at the right/lower right show
1473: %the maximum PBF footprints on the much brighter TNBs, which can be
1474: %exposed as the PBFs quickly depart, for merger co-inclinations
1475: %(co-i's) of 0$^{\circ}$ (square) and 30$^{\circ}$ (diamond). These
1476: %effects are compounded with a parabolic $\Delta$M$_{B{_{15}}}$
1477: %of 0.5 m in 15 days (inset). (Right) The maximum drop in magnitude
1478: %from exposure of PBF footprints on the TNB as a function of
1479: %co-i for PBF half angles of 25$^{\circ}$-55$^{\circ}$
1480: %in 5$^{\circ}$ steps (curves without dots), and the excess
1481: %drops over 0$^{\circ}$ for co-i's of 20$^{\circ}$, 30$^{\circ}$, 45$^{\circ}$,
1482: %60$^{\circ}$, and 90$^{\circ}$ (curves with dots), plotted at
1483: %the abscissa values equal to their PBF half angles
1484: %The dashed lines represent the effect needed to spuriously produce
1485: %$\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7
1486: %(see$\S$ \ref{sec:Ia/c}). }
1487: %\label{fig:TNB}
1488: %\end{figure}
1489:
1490: \end{document}
1491: