1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass[aasms4]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{color}
6: %\definecolor{brown}{rgb}{0.6,0.4,0.2}
7: %\definecolor{purple}{rgb}{0.5,0,0.5}
8:
9: %\usepackage{psfig,graphics,graphicx}
10: %THIS IS FOR PREPRINT
11: %\topmargin=-1.1in
12: %\setlength{\textheight}{10.3in}
13: %THIS IS FOR EMULATEAPJ
14: %\topmargin=-0.7in
15: %\setlength{\textheight}{10.2in}%{10.3in}
16: %\def\baselinestretch{2.2}
17:
18:
19: %\usepackage{psfig,graphics,graphicx}
20:
21: %\textheight=10.5in
22: %\received{}
23:
24: %\revised{}
25: %\accepted{}
26: %\ccc{}
27: %\cpright{}{}
28:
29: %\slugcomment{}
30:
31: \shorttitle{Dust Formation in Cas A}
32: \shortauthors{}
33:
34: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
35: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\odot}$}}
36: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.\/~}}
37: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{eff}$}
38: \newcommand{\grav}{log($g$)}
39: \newcommand{\mtv}{$\xi$}
40: \newcommand{\ew}{$W_{\lambda}$}
41: \newcommand{\um}{$\mu$m}
42: \newcommand{\spitzer}{\textit{Spitzer}}
43: %\newcommand{\micron}{$\mu$m }
44: \newcommand{\Ha}{H~$\alpha$}
45: %\setlength{\textwidth}{6.6in}
46: %\setlength{\textheight}{9.5in}
47: \def\lowermass{0.020}
48: \def\uppermass{0.054}
49:
50: \begin{document}
51: \title{Freshly Formed Dust in the Cassiopeia A Supernova Remnant
52: as Revealed by the {\it Spitzer} Space Telescope}
53:
54: \author{
55: J. Rho\altaffilmark{1}, T. Kozasa\altaffilmark{2}, W. T. Reach\altaffilmark{1},
56: J. D. Smith\altaffilmark{3}, L. Rudnick\altaffilmark{4}, T. DeLaney\altaffilmark{5},
57: J. A. Ennis\altaffilmark{4}, H. Gomez\altaffilmark{6}, A. Tappe\altaffilmark{1,7}
58: }
59: \altaffiltext{1}{{\it Spitzer} Science Center, California
60: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; rho, reach@ipac.caltech.edu}
61: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Cosmosciences, Graduate School of Science, Hokkaido University,
62: Sapporo 060-0810, Japan}
63: \altaffiltext{3}{Steward Observatory,
64: 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85712}
65: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, University of Minnesota, 116 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455}
66: \altaffiltext{5}{MIT Kavli Institute, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Room NE80-6079,
67: Cambridge, MA 02139}
68: \altaffiltext{6}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wales,
69: Cardiff, Wales, UK}
70: \altaffiltext{7}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
71:
72:
73:
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76:
77: We performed {\it Spitzer} Infrared Spectrograph mapping observations
78: covering nearly the entire extent of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant
79: (SNR), producing mid-infrared (5.5-35 $\mu$m) spectra every
80: 5$\arcsec$-10$\arcsec$. Gas lines of Ar, Ne, O, Si, S and Fe, and
81: dust continua were strong for most positions. We identify three
82: distinct ejecta dust populations based on their continuum shapes. The
83: dominant dust continuum shape exhibits a strong peak at 21 $\mu$m. A
84: line-free map of 21 $\mu$m-peak dust made from the 19-23 $\mu$m range
85: closely resembles the [Ar~II], [O~IV], and [Ne~II] ejecta-line maps
86: implying that dust is freshly formed in the ejecta. Spectral fitting
87: implies the presence of SiO$_2$, Mg protosilicates, and FeO grains in
88: these regions. The second dust type exhibits a rising continuum up
89: to 21 $\mu$m and then flattens thereafter. This ``weak 21 $\mu$m''
90: dust is likely composed of Al$_2$O$_3$ and C grains. The third dust
91: continuum shape is featureless with a gently rising spectrum and is
92: likely composed of MgSiO$_3$ and either Al$_2$O$_3$ or Fe grains.
93: Using the least massive composition for each of the three dust classes
94: yields a total mass of \lowermass\ M$_\odot$. Using the most-massive
95: composition yields a total mass of \uppermass\ M$_\odot$. The primary
96: uncertainty in the total dust mass stems from the selection of the
97: dust composition necessary for fitting the featureless dust as well
98: as 70 $\mu$m flux. The freshly formed dust mass derived from Cas A
99: is sufficient from SNe to explain the lower limit on the dust masses in
100: high redshift galaxies.
101:
102: \end{abstract}
103: \keywords{supernovae:general- dust:ISM - supernova remnants:Cas A}
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106:
107:
108: The recent discovery of huge quantities of dust
109: ($10^8-10^9\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$) in very high--redshifted galaxies and
110: quasars (Isaak et al. 2002; Bertoldi et al. 2003) suggests that dust
111: was produced efficiently in the first generation of supernovae (SNe).
112: Theoretical studies (Kozasa et al. 1991; Todini \& Ferrara 2001,
113: hereafter TF; Nozawa etal. 2003, N03) predicted the formation of a
114: significant quantity of dust ($\sim 0.1-1.0$ $M_{\odot}$) in the
115: ejecta of Type II SNe, and the predicted dust mass is believed to be
116: sufficient to account for the quantity of dust observed at high
117: redshifts (Maiolino et al. 2006; Meikle et al. 2007). Recently, a
118: model of dust evolution in high--redshift galaxies (Dwek et al. 2007)
119: indicates that at least 1 $M_{\odot}$ of dust per SN is necessary for
120: reproducing the observed dust mass in one hyperluminous quasar at
121: $z=6.4$. Observationally, the presence of freshly formed dust has been
122: confirmed in a few core-collapsed SNe, such as SN1987A, which clearly
123: have showed several signs of dust formation in the ejecta (see McCray
124: 1993 for details). The highest dust mass obtained so far for SN
125: 1987A is $7.5 \times 10^{-4}$ $M_{\odot}$ \citep{erc07}. Recent {\it
126: Spitzer} and {\it HST} observations (Sugerman et al. 2006) showed
127: that up to 0.02 $M_{\odot}$ of dust formed in the ejecta of SN2003gd
128: with the progenitor mass of 6--12 $M_{\odot}$, and the authors
129: concluded that SNe are major dust factories. However, from the
130: detailed analysis of the late--time mid--infrared observations,
131: Meikle et al. (2007) found that the mass of freshly formed dust in the
132: same SN is only $4 \times 10^{-5} M_{\odot}$, and failed to confirm the
133: presence 0.02 $M_{\odot}$ dust in the ejecta. The aforementioned
134: results show that the derived dust mass is model-dependent, and
135: that the amount of dust that really condenses in the ejecta of
136: core-collapsed SNe is unknown.
137:
138:
139: Cassiopeia A (Cas A) is the only Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) that
140: exhibits clear evidence of dust formed in ejecta (Lagage \etal 1996;
141: Arendt \etal 1999, hereafter ADM). The amount of dust that forms in
142: the ejecta of young SNR is still controversial. Previous
143: observations inferred only $<3\times 10^{-3}\, \rm{M_{\odot}}$ of dust
144: at temperatures between 90 and 350 K (ADM; Douvion et al. 2001,
145: hereafter D01) ; this estimate is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude too little
146: to explain the dust observed in the early Universe. Recent
147: submillimeter observations of Cas\,A and Kepler with SCUBA
148: \citep{dun03, mor03a} revealed the presence of large amounts of cold
149: dust ($\sim 0.3-2\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ at 15--20 K) missed by previous
150: IRAS/ISO observations. On the other hand, highly elongated
151: conductive needles with mass of only 10$^{-4}$ to 10$^{-3}$
152: $M_{\odot}$ could also explain a high sub-mm flux of Cas A, when
153: including grain destruction by sputtering (Dwek 2004), though the
154: physicality of such needles is doubtful \citep{gom05}. While
155: \cite{kra04} showed that much of the 160$\mu$m emission observed with
156: Multiband Imaging Photometer for {\it Spitzer} (MIPS) is foreground
157: material, suggesting there is no cold dust in Cas A, \cite{wil05} used
158: CO emission towards the remnant to show that up to about a solar mass
159: of dust could still be associated with the ejecta, not with the
160: foreground material. These controversial scenarios of dust mass
161: highlight the importance of correctly identifying the features and
162: masses of dust freshly formed in Cas A. The Galactic young SNR Cas A
163: allows us to study in detail the distribution and the compositions of
164: the dust relative to the ejecta and forward shock with infrared
165: Spectrograph onboard the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}.
166:
167: Cas A is one of the youngest Galactic SNRs with an age of 335 yr
168: attributed to a SN explosion in AD 1671. The progenitor of Cas A is
169: believed to be a Wolf-Rayet star with high nitrogen abundance
170: \citep{fes01} and to have a mass of 15-25 M$_{\odot}$
171: \citep{kif01,you06} or 29-30 M$_{\odot}$ \citep{per02}. The predicted
172: dust mass formed in SNe depends on the progenitor mass; for a
173: progenitor mass of 15 to 30 M$_{\odot}$, the predicted dust mass is
174: from 0.3 to 1.1 M$_{\odot}$ (NO3) and from 0.08 to 1.0 M$_{\odot}$
175: (TF), respectively. In this paper, we present {\it Spitzer} Infrared
176: Spectrograph (IRS) mapping observations of Cas A, and identify three
177: distinct classes of dust associated with the ejecta and discuss dust
178: formation and composition with an estimate of the total mass of freshly
179: formed dust.
180:
181:
182: %\section{Observations and Results}
183:
184:
185: \section{The IRS Spectra and Dust Maps} We performed {\it Spitzer} IRS
186: mapping observations covering nearly the entire extent of Cas A on 2005
187: January 13 with a total exposure time of 11.3 hr. The Short Low (SL:
188: 5-15 $\mu$m) and Long Low (LL: 15-40 $\mu$m) IRS mapping involved
189: $\sim$16$\times 360$ and $4\times 91$ pointings, producing spectra
190: every 5$\arcsec$ and 10$\arcsec$, respectively. The spectra were
191: processed with the S12 version of the IRS pipeline using the CUBISM
192: package (Kennicutt et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2007), whereby
193: backgrounds were subtracted and an extended emission correction was
194: applied. The spectral resolving power of the IRS SL and LL modules
195: ranges from 62 to 124.
196:
197: The IRS spectra of Cas A show bright ejecta emission lines from Ar, Ne,
198: S, Si, O, and Fe and various continuum shapes as indicated by the
199: representative spectra in Figure 1. The most common continuum shape
200: exhibits a large bump peaking at 21 $\mu$m as shown by spectrum ``a''
201: in Figure \ref{sixspec}. This ``21 $\mu$m-peak'' dust is often
202: accompanied by the silicate emission feature at 9.8 $\mu$m which
203: corresponds to the stretching mode. A second class of continuum
204: shapes exhibits a rather sharp rise up to 21 $\mu$m and then stays
205: flat thereafter. This ``weak-21 $\mu$m dust'' is often associated
206: with relatively strong Ne lines (in comparison with Ar lines) and is
207: indicated by spectrum ``b'' in Figure \ref{sixspec}. The third type of
208: dust continuum is characterized by a smooth and featureless, gently
209: rising spectrum with strong [\ion{O}{4}]+[\ion{Fe}{2}] and
210: [\ion{Si}{2}] emission lines as shown by spectra ``c'' and ``d'' in
211: Figure \ref{sixspec}. The spectrum ``d'' shows double line structures
212: that may be due to doppler-resolved lines of [\ion{O}{4}] at 26 $\mu$m
213: and [\ion{Si}{2}] at 35 $\mu$m. Note that the ``featureless'' dust
214: (spectrum ``d'' in Fig. \ref{sixspec}) is a class of dust, separate
215: from the interstellar/circumstellar dust (spectrum ``e'' in Fig.
216: \ref{sixspec}) heated by the forward shock. The
217: interstellar/circumstellar dust spectrum in Cas A has no associated gas
218: line emission. The ``broad'' continuum (see Figure 7b of Ennis et
219: al. 2006) is a combination of the spectra ``c'' and ``e''. The
220: spectrum ``c'' has contamination from the shock heated dust in
221: projection, and for simplicity it is excluded in estimating the masses
222: of the freshly formed dust (see \S5). The ``featureless'' dust lacks
223: the gentle peak around 26 $\mu$m and also lacks the interstellar
224: silicate-emission feature between 9 $\mu$m and 11 $\mu$m observed in
225: the spectra from the forward shock region. Most importantly, the
226: ``featureless'' dust accompanies relatively strong Si and S ejecta
227: lines and mostly from the interior of the remnant (blue region in Fig.
228: \ref{images}f).
229:
230: We generated a map of the 21 $\mu$m-peak dust by summing the emission
231: over 19-23 $\mu$m after subtracting a baseline between 18-19 $\mu$m and
232: 23-24 $\mu$m. The line-free dust map (Fig. ~\ref{images}a) resembles
233: the [Ar~II] and [O~IV]+[Fe~II] ejecta-line maps, as shown in Figures
234: ~\ref{images}b and ~\ref{images}c, and we also find that the [Ne~II]
235: map is very similar to the [Ar~II] map. The [\ion{Ar}{2}] map shows a
236: remarkable similarity to the 21 $\mu$m-peak dust map (Fig.
237: \ref{images}a and \ref{images}b), thereby confirming this dust is
238: freshly formed in the ejecta. Maps of [\ion{Si}{2}] (Fig.
239: \ref{images}d) and [O~IV]+[Fe~II] (Fig. ~\ref{images}c) shows
240: significant emission at the center revealing ejecta that have not yet
241: been overrun by the reverse shock (unshocked ejecta). There is also
242: [\ion{Si}{2}] and [O~IV]+[Fe~II] emission at the bright ring
243: indicating that some of the Si and O+Fe ejecta have recently
244: encountered the reverse shock. While the bright O+Fe emission outlines
245: the same bright ring structure as the [Ar~II] and 21 $\mu$m-peak dust
246: maps, the bright part of the Si shell shows a different morphology from
247: the other ejecta maps.
248:
249:
250:
251: We can characterize the spectra of our three dust classes by using the flux
252: ratios between 17 $\mu$m and 21 $\mu$m and between 21 $\mu$m and
253: 24 $\mu$m. Although the spectra in Cas A show continuous changes in
254: continuum shape from strong 21 $\mu$m peak to weak 21 $\mu$m peak and to
255: featureless, we can locate regions where each of the three classes dominates.
256: Figure \ref{images}f shows the spatial distribution of our three dust classes
257: where red, green, and blue indicate 21 $\mu$m-peak dust, weak-21 $\mu$m dust,
258: and featureless dust, respectively. The flux ratios used to identify the
259: three dust classes are as follows where $I_\lambda$ is the flux
260: density in the extracted spectrum at wavelength $\lambda$ ($\mu$m):
261:
262: 1) 21 $\mu$m-peak dust: we use the ratio $I_{21}/I_{24} > 1+\sigma_{21/24}$,
263: where $\sigma_{21/24}$ is the dispersion in $I_{21}/I_{24}$ over the remnant, which
264: is equivalent to $I_{21}/I_{17} \geq 3.4$. The regions
265: with 21 $\mu$m-peak dust coincide with the brightest ejecta.
266:
267: 2) Weak-21 $\mu$m dust: we use the ratio $1-\sigma_{21/24} < I_{21}/I_{24} <
268: 1 + \sigma_{21/24}$, which is equivalent to $2.3 <I_{21}/I_{17} < 3.4$. The
269: regions showing the weak-21 $\mu$m continuum shape mostly coincide with faint
270: ejecta emission, but not always.
271:
272: 3) Featureless dust map: we use the ratio $I_{21}/I_{24}< 1 - \sigma_{21/24}$,
273: which is equivalent to $I_{21}/I_{17} < 2.3$. This ratio also picks
274: out circumstellar dust heated by the forward shock, so we used several
275: methods to exclude and mitigate contamination from circumstellar dust
276: emission. First, using X-ray and radio maps, we excluded the forward
277: shock regions at the edge of the radio plateau \citep{got01}. Second,
278: there are highly structured ``continuum-dominated'' X-ray filaments
279: across the face of the remnant which are similar to the exterior
280: forward shock filaments and may be projected forward shock emission
281: \citep{del04}. For our analysis, we excluded regions where there were
282: infrared counterparts to the projected forward shock filaments. Third,
283: for simplicity we excluded regions with gently rising spectra
284: identified by curve ``c'' (the spectra which continues to rise to longer
285: wavelengths) in Figure \ref{sixspec}. This type of spectrum is mainly
286: found on the eastern side of Cas A where there is an H$\alpha$ region,
287: the northeast jet, and other exterior optical ejecta \citep{fes01}
288: making it difficult to determine if the continuum emission is due to
289: ejecta dust or circumstellar dust. However, note that some portion of
290: the continuum in the spectra, ``c'', is freshly formed dust. We finally
291: excluded regions where there was a noticeable correlation to optical
292: quasi-stationary flocculi \citep{van71} which are dense circumstellar knots from the
293: progenitor wind.
294:
295: The featureless dust emission appears primarily across the center of
296: the remnant, as shown in Figure \ref{images}d (blue). The featureless
297: dust is accompanied by relatively strong [\ion{Si}{2}] and [\ion{S}{3}]
298: and [\ion{O}{4}+\ion{Fe}{2}] lines, as shown by the spectrum ``d'' of
299: Figure \ref{sixspec}. The [\ion{O}{4}]+[\ion{Fe}{2}] line map (Fig.
300: ~\ref{images}c) shows significant emission at the center as well as
301: at the bright ring of the reverse shocked material. The [\ion{Si}{2}]
302: line map shows different morphology than other line maps and the 21
303: $\mu$m-peak dust map; depicting center-filled emission with a partial
304: shell, as shown in Figure \ref{images}. This poses the following
305: important question: why is the Si map more center-filled than the
306: Ar map? The answer is unclear because Si and Ar are both expected at
307: similar depths in the nucleosynthetic layer (e.g. Woosley, Heger \&
308: Weaver 2002). The relatively faint infrared emission of Si and S at the
309: reverse shock may imply relatively less Si and S in the reverse
310: shock. We suspect it is because the Si and S have condensed to solid
311: form such as Mg protosilicate, MgSiO$_3$, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ and FeS. In
312: contrast, Ar remains always in the gas and does not condense to dust,
313: so it should be infrared or X-ray emitting gas. Alternate explanation
314: is that the ionization in the interior is due to photoionization from
315: the X-ray shell (see Hamilton \& Fesen 1988); in this case, the lack
316: of interior \ion{Ar}{2} relative to \ion{Si}{2} might be due to its
317: much higher ionization potential (16 eV compared to 8 eV). Theoretical
318: models of nucleosynthesis, accounting for heating, photoionization, and
319: column density of each element would be helpful for understanding the
320: distribution of nucleosynthetic elements.
321:
322:
323: The Si and S emission detected at the interior, is most likely
324: unshocked ejecta where the revere shock has not yet overtaken the ejecta.
325: The radial profile of unshocked ejecta is centrally peaked at the time
326: of explosion, as shown by \cite{che89}. The radial profile of unshocked
327: Fe ejecta is also expected to be center-filled for $\sim$1000 yr old
328: Type Ia SNR of SN 1006 \citep{ham88}. The morphology of the
329: featureless dust resembles that of unshocked ejecta, supporting the
330: conclusion that the featureless dust is also freshly formed dust. The
331: spectrum in Figure \ref{sixspec} (curve ``d''), shows the resolved two
332: lines at 26 $\mu$m and at 35 $\mu$m. The two respective lines at
333: $\sim$26 $\mu$m may be resolved lines of [\ion{O}{4}] and
334: [\ion{Fe}{2}], and at $\sim$35 $\mu$m [\ion{Si}{2}] and [\ion{Fe}{2}]
335: (as expected that the unshocked ejecta near the explosion center have a
336: low velocity); alternatively, they could be highly doppler-shifted
337: lines (in this case the two lines at 26 $\mu$m are both [\ion{O}{4}],
338: and the two lines at 35 $\mu$m are both [\ion{Si}{2}]). The newly
339: revealed unshocked ejecta deserves extensive studies; preliminary
340: doppler-shifted maps were presented in \cite{del06} and the detailed
341: analysis of velocities and abundances of unshocked and shocked ejecta
342: will be presented in future papers \citep{del07, smi07}.
343:
344:
345:
346:
347: \section{Spectral Fitting and Dust Composition}
348:
349: We performed spectral fitting to the IRS continua using our example
350: regions in Figure \ref{sixspec}. Included in the fitting are MIPS 24
351: $\mu$m and 70 $\mu$m fluxes \citep{hin04}, and the contribution of
352: synchrotron emission (Figs. \ref{21umpeakspec} and \ref{weak21umspec}),
353: estimated from the radio fluxes \citep{del04} and Infrared Array Camera
354: (IRAC) 3.6 $\mu$m fluxes \citep{enn06}. We measured synchrotron
355: radiation components for each position using radio maps and assuming
356: the spectral index $\alpha$=-0.71 \citep{rho03} where log S $\propto$
357: $\alpha$ log $\nu$. Because the full-width-half-maximum of 24 $\mu$m
358: is smaller than the IRS extracted region, the surface brightnesses for
359: 24 $\mu$m were measured using a 15$\arcsec$ box, the same size as the
360: area used for the extracted IRS LL spectra. We also made color
361: corrections to each MIPS 24 $\mu$m data point based on each IRS
362: spectrum and band-filter shape; the correction was as high as 25\% for
363: some positions. While the uncertainty of calibration errors in IRAC is
364: 3-4\%, that of MIPS 24 $\mu$m is better than 10\%. The MIPS 70 $\mu$m
365: image \citep{hin04}, shown in Figure \ref{images}e, clearly resolves
366: Cas A from background emission, unlike the 160 $\mu$m image
367: \citep{kra04}. Most of the bright 70 $\mu$m emission appears at the
368: bright ring and corresponds to the 21 $\mu$m dust map and the shocked
369: ejecta, particularly [\ion{Ar}{2}], indicating that the 70 $\mu$m
370: emission is primarily from freshly formed dust in the ejecta. The 70
371: $\mu$m emission also appears at the interior as shown in Figure
372: \ref{images}e. We measured the brightness for 70 $\mu$m within a
373: circle of radius 20$\arcsec$ for each position, accounting for the
374: point-spread function (note that when the emission is uniform, the
375: aperture size does not affect the surface brightness). We estimated
376: the uncertainties of the 70 $\mu$m fluxes to be as large as 30\%. The
377: largest uncertainty comes from background variation due to cirrus
378: structures based on our selection of two background areas, 5$\arcmin$
379: to the northwest and south of the Cas A.
380:
381: The dust continuum is fit with the Planck function (B$_{\nu}(T)$)
382: multiplied by the absorption efficiency ($Q_{abs}$) for various dust
383: compositions, varying the amplitude and temperature of each component.
384: To determine the dust composition, we consider not only the grain
385: species predicted by the model of dust formation in SNe (TF, N03), but
386: also Mg protosilicates (ADM) and FeO \citep{hen95} as possible
387: contributors to the 21 $\mu$m feature. The optical constants of the
388: grain species used in the calculation are the same as those of \cite{hir05},
389: except for amorphous Si \citep{pil85}, amorphous SiO$_2$ \citep{phi85},
390: amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ \citep{beg97}, FeO \citep{hen95}, and we apply
391: Mie theory \citep{boh83} to calculate the absorption efficiencies,
392: Q$_{abs}$, assuming the grains are spheres of radii $a=0.01$ $\mu$m.
393: We fit both amorphous and crystalline grains for each composition, but
394: it turned out that the fit results in Cas A (see \S3) favor amorphous
395: over crystalline grains. Thus, default grain composition indicates
396: amorphous, hereafter. For Mg protosilicate, the absorption
397: coefficients are evaluated from the mass absorption coefficients
398: tabulated in \cite{dor80}, and we assume that the absorption
399: coefficient varies as $\lambda^{-2}$ for $\lambda >$ 40 $\mu$m, typical
400: for silicates. We fit the flux density for each spectral type using
401: scale factors $C_i$ for each grain type $i$, such that F$_{\nu}^i$ =
402: $\Sigma_i \, C_i \, B_\nu \, Q_{abs,i} / a$. Note that the calculated
403: values of Q$_{abs}$/$a$ are independent of the grain size as long as
404: 2$\pi |m| a/\lambda$ $<<$1 where $m$ is the complex refractive index.
405: Thus the derived scale factor C$_i$ as well as the estimated dust mass
406: (see \S4) are independent of the radius of the dust. The dust
407: compositions of the best fits are summarized in Table 1.
408:
409: The strong 21 $\mu$m-peak dust is best fit by Mg proto-silicate,
410: amorphous SiO$_2$ and FeO grains (with temperatures of 60-120 K) as
411: shown in Figure \ref{21umpeakspec}. These provide a good match to the
412: 21 $\mu$m feature. ADM suggested that the 21 $\mu$m feature is best
413: fit by Mg proto-silicate while D01 suggested it is best fit by
414: SiO$_2$ instead. We found, however, that SiO$_2$ produced a 21 $\mu$m
415: feature that was too sharp. We also fit the observations using
416: Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, which exhibits a feature around 20 $\mu$m and the
417: overall variation of absorption coefficients of Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ with
418: wavelength might be similar to that of Mg protosilicate \citep{dor80,
419: jag03}. However, with Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, the fit is not as good as that
420: of Mg protosilicate, not only at the 21-$\mu$m peak, but also at
421: shorter (10-20 $\mu$m) and longer (70 $\mu$m) wavelengths. Thus, we
422: use Mg protosilicate and SiO$_2$ as silicates to fit the 21
423: $\mu$m-peak dust feature. The fit with Mg protosilicate, SiO$_2$ and
424: FeO is improved by adding aluminum oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$, 83 K) and FeS
425: (150 K), where Al$_2$O$_3$ improved the overall continuum shape between
426: 10-70 $\mu$m and FeS improved the continuum between 30-40 $\mu$m
427: (underneath the lines of Si, S and Fe), as shown Figure
428: \ref{21umpeakspec}. The silicate composition is responsible for the 21
429: $\mu$m peak, suggesting that the dust forms around the inner-oxygen and
430: S-Si layers and is consistent with Ar being one of the oxygen burning
431: products. We also include amorphous MgSiO$_3$ (480 K) and SiO$_2$
432: (300 K) to account for the emission feature around the 9.8 $\mu$m.
433: The composition of the low temperature (40-90 K) dust component
434: necessary for reproducing 70 $\mu$m is rather unclear. Either
435: Al$_2$O$_3$ (80 K) (Model A in Table 1) or Fe (100 K) (Model B in
436: Table 1 and Figure ~\ref{modelBspec}) can fit equally well, as listed
437: in Table 1. We could use carbon instead of Al$_2$O$_3$ or Fe, but the
438: line and dust compositions suggest the emission is from inner O, S-Si
439: layers, where carbon dust is not expected. There are still residuals
440: in the fit from the feature peaking at 21 $\mu$m (20-23 $\mu$m), and
441: an unknown dust feature at 11-12.5 $\mu$m (it is not a part of typical
442: PAH feature), as shown in Figure \ref{21umpeakspec}. The former may
443: be due to non-spherical grains or different sizes of grains.
444:
445: The weak 21 $\mu$m continuum is fit by FeO and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ or Mg
446: protosilicate (Models C and D in Table 1) since the curvature of the
447: continuum changes at 20-21 $\mu$m as shown in Figure
448: \ref{weak21umspec}. To fit the rest of the spectrum, we use glassy
449: carbon dust and Al$_2$O$_3$ grains. The glassy carbon grains (220 K)
450: can account for the smooth curvature in the continuum between 8-14
451: $\mu$m. Carbon dust (80 K) and Al$_2$O$_3$ (100 K) contribute to the
452: continuum between 15-25 $\mu$m. We could use Fe dust instead, but we
453: suspect carbon dust because of the presence of relatively strong Ne
454: line emission with the weak 21 $\mu$m dust class. Ne, Mg, and Al are
455: all carbon burning products. We cannot fit the spectrum replacing
456: carbon by Al$_2$O$_3$ with a single or two temperatures because
457: $Q_{abs}/a$ of Al$_2$O$_3$ has a shallow bump around 27 $\mu$m, thus
458: the fit requires three temperature components of Al$_3$O$_2$ or a
459: combination of two temperature components of Al$_3$O$_2$ and a
460: temperature component of carbon. The continuum between 33-40 $\mu$m
461: (underneath the lines of Si, S and Fe) can be optimally fit by FeS
462: grains.
463:
464: The 70 $\mu$m image shown in Figure \ref{images}e shows interior
465: emission similar to the unshocked ejecta but that may also be due to
466: projected circumstellar dust at the forward shock. In order to fit
467: the featureless spectrum out to 70 $\mu$m, we must first correct for
468: possible projected circumstellar dust emission. The exterior forward
469: shock emission is most evident in the northern and northwestern
470: shell. Taking the typical brightness in the NW shell ($\sim$20
471: MJy~sr$^{-1}$), and assuming the forward shock is a shell with 12\%
472: radial thickness, the projected brightness is less than 4-10\% of the
473: interior emission ($\sim$40 MJy~sr$^{-1}$ after background
474: subtraction). We assume that the remaining wide-spread interior 70
475: $\mu$m emission is from relatively cold, unshocked ejecta. Using the
476: ``corrected'' 70 $\mu$m flux, the featureless spectra are equally
477: reproduced by three models (Models E, F, and G) in Table 1 and Figures
478: \ref{modelEspec} and \ref{flessspec}. All fits include MgSiO$_3$, FeO
479: and Si, and either aluminum oxide, Fe, or a combination of the two are
480: required at long wavelength. Carbon dust can also produce featureless
481: spectra at low temperature but we exclude this composition because of
482: the lack of Ne (produced from carbon burning). Aluminum oxide and Fe
483: dust are far more likely to be associated with the unshocked ejecta
484: because they result from O-burning and Si-burning, respectively and
485: the unshocked ejecta exhibit Si, S, and O+Fe line emission. However,
486: one of the key challenges in SN ejecta dust is to understand
487: featureless dust such as Fe, C, and aluminum oxide, and to link it to
488: the associated nucleosynthetic products.
489:
490:
491: \section{Dust Mass}
492: We estimated the amount of freshly formed dust in Cas A based on our
493: dust model fit to each of the representative 21 $\mu$m-peak, weak-21
494: $\mu$m, and featureless spectra (Fig. \ref{sixspec}). The dust mass of
495: $i$-grain type is given by: $$ M_{dust,i} = {F_\nu^i \, d^2 \over
496: {B_\nu (T_{d,i}) \, \kappa_i } }= {F_\nu^i d^2 \over {B_\nu(T_{d,i})}}
497: { 4 \, \rho_i \, a \over {3 \,Q_{abs, i}}} $$ where $F_\nu^i$ is the
498: flux from $i$-grain species, $d$ is the distance, $B_\nu$ is the
499: Planck function, $\rho_i$ is the bulk density, and $a$ is the dust
500: particle size. By employing the scale factor $C_i$ and the dust
501: temperature $T_{d,i}$ derived from the spectral fit, the total dust
502: mass is given by $M_{dust} = \sum_i \rho_{i} \Omega d^2 C_i/3$, where
503: {\it $\Omega$} is the solid angle of the source. The total mass of
504: the 21 $\mu$m-peak dust is then determined by summing the flux of all
505: the pixels in the 21 $\mu$m-peak dust region (red region in Fig.
506: ~\ref{images}f) and assuming each pixel in this region has the same
507: dust composition as the spectrum in Fig.~\ref{21umpeakspec}. We took
508: the same steps for the weak-21 $\mu$m dust and the featureless dust.
509:
510: The estimated total masses for each type of dust using a distance of
511: 3.4 kpc (Reed et al. 1995) are listed in Table 1. Using the least
512: massive composition in Table 1 for each of the three dust classes
513: yields a total mass of \lowermass\ M$_\odot$ (the sum of masses from
514: Models A, D, and F). Using the most-massive composition for each of the
515: three dust classes yields a total mass of \uppermass\ M$_\odot$ (the
516: sum of masses from Models B, C, and E). The primary uncertainty in the
517: total dust mass between \lowermass\ and \uppermass\ M$_\odot$ is due to
518: the selection of the dust composition, in particular for the
519: featureless dust.
520:
521: We also extracted a global spectrum of Cas A , but excluding most of
522: the exterior forward shock regions. The spectrum is well fit with
523: the combination of our three types of dust (including all
524: compositions from Models A-G), as shown in Figure \ref{totalspec}. We
525: used the dust composition of Models A-G as a guideline in fitting the
526: global spectrum, because the dust features (which were noticeable in
527: representative spectra) were smeared out. Our goal in fitting the
528: global spectrum is to confirm consistency between the mass derived
529: from global spectrum and that derived from representative spectra
530: described above. The total estimated mass from the global spectrum
531: fit is $\sim$0.028 M$_\odot$, being consistent to the mass determined
532: from the individual fits to each dust class. The respective dust mass
533: for each grain composition is listed in Table 3. The masses of
534: MgSiO$_3$, SiO$_2$, FeS and Si are more than a factor of ten to
535: hundred smaller than the predictions; the predictions (N03 and TF)
536: also have the dust features at 9 $\mu$m for MgSiO$_3$, 21 $\mu$m for
537: SiO$_2$, and 30-40 $\mu$m for FeS stronger than the observed spectra
538: if the dust mass is increased. The carbon mass is also a factor of 10
539: lower than the predictions. We were not able to fit the data with as
540: much carbon dust mass as expected, even if we use the maximum carbon
541: contribution allowed from the spectral fits.
542:
543:
544: \section{Discussion}
545:
546:
547:
548: We find an estimated total freshly-formed dust mass of
549: \lowermass-\uppermass\ M$_\odot$ is required to produce the
550: mid-infrared continuum up to 70 $\mu$m. The dust mass we derive is
551: orders of magnitude higher than the two previous infrared estimates of
552: 3.5$\times$10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ and 7.7$\times$ 10$^{-5}$ M$_\odot$,
553: which are derived by extrapolation from 1.6$\times$10$^{-4}$ M$_\odot$
554: (D01) and 2.8$\times$ 10$^{-6}$ M$_\odot$ (ADM) for selected knots,
555: respectively. One of the primary reasons for our higher mass estimate
556: is that we include fluxes up to 70 $\mu$m while the fits in D01 and
557: ADM accounted for dust emission only up to 30 and $\sim$40 $\mu$m,
558: respectively. The cold dust (40-150 K) has much more mass than the
559: warmer ($>$150 K) dust. In addition, our IRS mapping over nearly the
560: entire extent of Cas A with higher spatial and spectral resolutions
561: provides more accurate measurements, while D01 and ADM covered only a
562: portion of the remnant. In addition, ADM use only Mg protosilicate
563: dust; the absorption coefficient for Mg protosilicate is a few times
564: larger than those of other compositions.
565:
566:
567:
568: Our dust mass estimate is also at least one order of magnitude higher
569: than the estimate of 3$\times$ 10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ by \cite{hin04}.
570: They fitted MSX and \spitzer\ MIPS data with Mg protosilicate. Note
571: that they used only one composition. They derived a freshly
572: synthesized dust mass of 3$\times$10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ at a temperature
573: of 79-82 K and a smaller dust mass of 5$\times$10$^{-6}$ M$_\odot$ at
574: a higher temperature of 226-268 K, and they explained that the mass
575: estimate depends on the chosen dust temperature. As ADM mentioned, the
576: absorption coefficient for Mg protosilicate is a few times larger than
577: those of other compositions. Therefore, even including the
578: long-wavelength data, the estimated mass was small since only Mg
579: protosilicate was modeled. With the photometry in \cite{hin04}, one
580: could easily fit the data with only Mg protosilicate and would not
581: need additional grain compositions. However, with the accurate IRS
582: data, many dust features and the detailed continnum shape could not be
583: fit solely with the Mg protosilicate. Note that the continuum shapes
584: of weak 21 $\mu$m dust and ``featureless" dust are very different from
585: the shape of protosilicate absorption coefficient. Therefore, it was
586: necessary to include many other compositions in order to reproduce the
587: observed IRS spectra.
588:
589:
590: It should be noted here that, in contrast with the previous works, we
591: introduced Si and Fe--bearing materials such as Si, Fe, FeS and FeO. We
592: explain why we included such dust in our model fitting as follows.
593: Firstly, we included Si and Fe dust because these elements are
594: significant outputs of nucleosynthesis; indeed \cite{woo95} show that
595: Si and Fe are primary products in the innermost layers of the ejecta.
596: Secondly, we observed strong Si and Fe lines in the infrared and X-ray
597: spectra; strong Si lines were detected in the \spitzer\ spectra, as
598: shown in Figure \ref{sixspec} (also see D01), and the Fe line detection
599: at 17.9 $\mu$m is also shown in Figure \ref{weak21umspec}. (The Fe maps
600: at 17.9 $\mu$m and at 1.64 $\mu$m were presented in \cite{enn06} and
601: \cite{rho03}, respectively.) Si and Fe lines from ejecta are also
602: bright in X-ray emission \citep{hwa00}. Thirdly, dust such as Si, Fe,
603: FeO and FeS is predicted to form in the ejecta of Population III
604: supernovae (N03). TF and N03 predict Fe$_3$O$_4$ instead of FeO in the
605: uniformly mixed ejecta where the elemental composition is oxygen-rich,
606: but the kind of iron-bearing grains in oxygen-rich layers of the ejecta
607: is still uncertain, partly because the surface energy of iron is very
608: sensitive to the concentration of impurities such as O and S (as was
609: discussed by \cite{koz88}), and partly because the chemical reactions
610: at the condensation of Fe-bearing dust is not well understood.
611: Depending on the elemental composition and the physical conditions in
612: the ejecta, it is possible that Fe, FeO and/or FeS form in the
613: oxygen-rich layers of Galactic SNe. The observations of Cas A favor FeO
614: dust over Fe$_3$O$_4$, in order to match the spectral shape of the 21
615: $\mu$m-peak dust and the weak-21 $\mu$m dust. This aspect should be
616: explored theoretically in comparison with the observations in the
617: future.
618:
619:
620:
621: Our total mass estimate is also about one order of magnitude higher
622: than the estimate of 6.9$\times$10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ by \cite{dwek87},
623: who used IRAS fluxes (possibly confused by background cirrus) and
624: assumed a silicate--type dust as stellar or supernova condensates
625: being present in supernova cavity and heated up by the reverse shock.
626: Our estimated mass is much less than 1 M$_\odot$, which \cite{wil05}
627: suggested may still be associated with the ejecta, after accounting
628: for results of high-resolution CO observations. Our estimated mass of
629: \lowermass\ to \uppermass\ M$_{\odot}$ is only derived for
630: wavelengths up to 70 $\mu$m, so it is still possible that the total
631: freshly-formed dust mass in Cas A is higher than our estimate because
632: there may be colder dust present. Future longer-wavelength
633: observations with Herschel, SCUBA-2 and ALMA are required to determine
634: if this is the case. Also note that we did not include any mass from
635: fast moving knots projected into the same positions as the forward
636: shock, such as in the northeast and southwest jets, and the eastern
637: portions of the SNR outside the 21 $\mu$m-peak dust region (see Fig.
638: \ref{images}e), because such dust could not be cleanly separated from
639: the interstellar/circumstellar dust.
640:
641:
642:
643:
644: We can use our dust mass estimate in conjunction with the models of N03
645: and TF to understand the dust observed in the early universe. If the
646: progenitor of Cas A was 15 M$_\odot$, our estimated dust mass
647: (\lowermass\--\uppermass\ M$_{\odot}$) is 7--18\% of the 0.3
648: M$_{\odot}$ predicted by the models. If the progenitor mass was 30
649: M$_\odot$, then the dust mass is 2--5\% of the 1.1 M$_{\odot}$
650: predicted by the models. One reason our dust mass is lower than
651: predicted by the models is that we cannot evaluate the mass of very
652: cold dust residing in the remnant from the observered spectra up to 70
653: $\mu$m as described above, unless the predicted mass is overestimated.
654: Another reason is that when and how much dust in the remnant is swept
655: up by the reverse shock is highly dependent on the thickness of the
656: hydrogen envelope at the time of explosion and that the evolution and
657: destruction of dust grains formed in SNe strongly depend not only on
658: their initial sizes but also the density of ambient interstellar
659: medium (Nozawa et al. 2007). Dust formation occurs within a few hundred
660: days after the SN explosion (Kozasa et al. 1989; TF; N03). Without a
661: thick hydrogen envelope, given an age for Cas A of $\sim$300 years, a
662: significant component of dust may have already been destroyed if dust
663: grains formed in the ejecta were populated by very small-sized grains;
664: otherwise, it is possible that some grain types may be larger, which
665: would increase the inferred mass.
666:
667:
668: We observed most of the dust compositions predicted by SN Type II
669: models, and the global ejecta composition is consistent with the
670: unmixed-case N03 model than mixed-case model; however, note that
671: different morphologies of Ar and Si maps imply that some degree of
672: mixing has occurred. Our estimated dust mass with {\it Spitzer}
673: data is one order of magnitude smaller than the predicted models of
674: dust formation in SNe ejecta by N03 and TF, but one to two orders of
675: magnitude higher than the previous estimations. We now compare the
676: dust mass in high-redshift galaxies with the observed dust mass of Cas
677: A based on the chemical evolution model of Morgan \& Edmunds (2001).
678: By a redshift of 4, SNe have been injecting dust in galaxies for over 2
679: billion years and there is enough dust from SNe to explain the lower
680: limit on the dust masses ($\sim$7$\times$10$^7$ M$_\odot$) inferred in
681: submm galaxies and distant quasars \citep{chi94, isa02}. It should be
682: noted with the dust mass per SN implied by our results for Cas A
683: alone, the interpretation of dust injection from SNe is limited,
684: because the amount of dust built up over time is strongly dependent on
685: the initial mass function, stellar evolution models and star formation
686: rates \citep{mor03}, and destruction rates in supernova are believed to
687: be important at timescales greater than a few billion years.
688: Additional infrared/submm observations of other young supernova
689: remnants and supernovae are crucial to measure physical processes of
690: dust formation in SNe including the dust size distribution, composition
691: and dependence on nucleosynthetic products and environment, and to
692: understand the dust in the early Universe in terms of dust injection
693: from SNe.
694:
695:
696:
697:
698: \section{Conclusion}
699: 1. We presented \spitzer\ IRS mapping covering nearly the entire extent
700: of Cas A and examined if SNe are primary dust formation sites that can
701: be used to explain the high quantity of dust observed in the early
702: Universe.
703:
704: 2. The ejecta maps, show a remarkable similarity to the dust maps,
705: thereby confirming that dust formation occurs in the SN ejecta.
706:
707: 3. The IRS spectra of Cas A show a few dust features such as an unique
708: 21 $\mu$m peak in the continuum from Mg protosilicate, SiO$_2$, and
709: FeO. We observed most of the dust compositions predicted by SN Type
710: II dust models. However, the dust features in Cas A favour Mg
711: protosilicate rather than Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, and FeO rather than
712: Fe$_3$O$_4$. The composition infers that the ejecta are unmixed.
713:
714: 4. Our total estimated dust mass with {\it Spitzer} observations
715: ranging from 5.5 - 70 $\mu$m is \lowermass-\uppermass\ M$_{\odot}$, one
716: order of magnitude smaller than the predicted models of dust formation
717: in SNe ejecta by N03 and TF, but one or more orders of magnitude
718: higher than the previous estimations. The freshly formed dust mass
719: derived from Cas A is sufficient from SNe to explain the lower limit on
720: the dust masses in high redshift galaxies.
721:
722:
723: \acknowledgements
724: J. Rho thanks U. Hwang for helpful discussion of X-ray emission of Cas
725: A. This work is based on observations made with the \spitzer\ {\it
726: Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
727: California Institute of Technology, under NASA contract 1407. Partial
728: support for this work was provided by NASA through an GO award issued
729: by JPL/Caltech.
730:
731: %\newline
732: \begin{thebibliography}{}
733:
734: \bibitem[Arendt et al.(1999)]{are99} Arendt,
735: %\bibitem[Arendt, Dwek \& Moseley(1999)]{are99} Arendt,
736: R.~G., Dwek, E., \& Moseley, S.~H.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 234 (ADM)
737: \bibitem[Begemann (1997)]{beg97}
738: Begemann, B. et al., 1997, ApJ, 476, 1991
739: %\bibitem[Begemann (1997)]{beg97}
740: %Begemann, B., Dorschner, J., Henning, Th., Mutschke, H.,
741: %Guertler, J., Koempe, C., Nass, R., 1997, ApJ, 476, 199
742: \bibitem[Bertoldi et al.(2003)]{ber03}
743: Bertoldi, F., Carilli, C. L., Cox, P., Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Beelen, A.,
744: Omont, A., Zylka, R.,
745: 2003, \aa,406, 55
746: %\bibitem[Borkowski, Lyerly, \& Reynolds(2001)]{2001ApJ...548..820B}
747: %Borkowski, K.~J., Lyerly, W.~J., \& Reynolds, S.~P.\ 2001, \apj, 548, 820
748: %\vspace{-0.6 cm}
749:
750: \bibitem[Bohren \& Huffman(1983)]{boh83}Bohren, C. F., Huffman, D. R.,
751: 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles,
752: New York %:Wiley,
753: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Soker(1989)]{che89} Chevalier, R. \& Soker1989, ApJ, 341, 867
754: \bibitem[Chini \& Kruegel (1994)]{chi94} Chini, R. \& Kruegel, E., 1994, A\&A, 288, L33
755: \bibitem[Clayton et al.(2001)]{cla01} Clayton, D.D., Deneault, E. A.-N., Meyer, B.S., 2001, ApJ, 562, 480
756:
757:
758: \bibitem[DeLaney(2004)]{del04} DeLaney T., 2004, PhD thesis, U. Of Minnesota
759: \bibitem[DeLaney et al.(2006)]{del06}DeLaney, T., Smith, J., Rudnick, L.,
760: Ennis, J., Rho, J., Reach, W., Kozasa, T., Gomez, H., 2006, BAAS, 208, 59.03
761: \bibitem[DeLaney et al.(2007)]{del07}DeLaney, T., Smith, J., Rudnick, L.,
762: Ennis, J., Rho, J., Reach, W., Kozasa, T., Gomez, H., 2007, in preparation
763: \bibitem[Dorschner et al.(1980)]{dor80}
764: Dorschner, J., Friedmann, C., G\"utler, J., \& Duley, W. W. 1980, Ap\&SS, 68 159
765:
766: \bibitem[Douvion et al.(2001)]{dou01} Douvion,
767: T., Lagage, P.~O. \& Pantin, E.\ 2001, \aap, 369, 589 (D01)
768: %\bibitem[Duley \& McCullough (1977)]{dul77} Duley, W. W. \& McCullough,
769: %J.D., 1977, 211, L145
770: \bibitem[Dunne et al.(2003)]{dun03} Dunne, L., Eales, S.,
771: Ivison, R., Morgan, H., \& Edmunds, M.\ 2003, \nat, 424, 285
772: \bibitem[Dwek(1987)]{dwek87}Dwek, E., Hauser, M. G., Dinerstein, H. L.,
773: Gillett, F. C., Rice, W. 1987, \apj, 315, 571
774: \bibitem[Dwek(2004)]{dwek04} Dwek, E.\ 2004, \apj, 607, 848
775: \bibitem[Dwek(2007)]{dwek07}Dwek, E., Galliano, F. \& Jones, A. P. 2007, ApJ 662, 927
776: %\bibitem[Ennis et al.(2006)]{enn06}
777: %Ennis, J, Rudnick, L, Reach, W., Smith, J., Rho, J., DeLaney, T., Gomez,
778: %H., Kazasa, T. 2006, ApJ, 652, 376
779: \bibitem[Ennis et al.(2006)]{enn06} Ennis, J. et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 376
780: \bibitem[Ercolano et al.(2007)]{erc07} Ercolano, B., Barlow, M. J., \&
781: Sugerman B. E. K., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 753
782: \bibitem[Fesen(2001)]{fes01} Fesen, R.~A.\ 2001, \apjs, 133,
783: 161
784:
785: \bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(2001)]{got01}Gotthelf, E. V. et al., 2001, ApJL, 552, 39
786: %\bibitem[Gotthelf et al.(2001)]{got01}Gotthelf, E. V., Koralesky,
787: %B., Rudnick, L., Jones, T. W., Hwang, U., Petre, R., 2001, ApJL, 552, 39
788: \bibitem[Gomez et al.(2005)]{gom05}Gomez H., Dunne L., Eales S., Gomez E., Edmunds M., 2005,
789: MNRAS, 361, 1012
790: \bibitem[Gao et al(2007)]{gao07}
791: Gao, Y., Carilli, C.L., Solomon, P.M., Vanden Bout, P.A., 2007, ApJ, 660, L93
792: \bibitem[Hamilton \& Fesen(1988)]{ham88} Hamilton, A. J. \& Fesen, R. 1988, ApJ, 327, 178.
793: \bibitem[Henning et al.(1995)]{hen95} Henning, Th., Begemann, B., Mutschke, H., Dorschner, J,
794: 1995, A\&A Suppl. Ser. 112, 143
795:
796: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2004)]{hin04} Hines, D. C. et al.\, 2004, ApJS, 154, 333
797: \bibitem[Hirashita et al.(2005)]{hir05}Hirashita, H., et al.,
798: 2005, MNRAS 357, 1077
799: \bibitem[Hwang, Holt \& Petre(2000)]{hwa00} Hwang, U., Holt, S. S., \& Petre, R. 2000, 537, L119
800: \bibitem[Hwang et al.(2004)]{hwa04} Hwang, U., et al., 2004, \apjl, 615, 117
801:
802: \bibitem[Isaak et al.(2002)]{isa02} Isaak, K.~G., Priddey,
803: R.~S., McMahon, R.~G., Omont, A. et al.\ 2002, \mnras, 329, 149
804: \bibitem[J\"ager et al.(2003)]{jag03} J\"ager, C., Dorschner, J., Mutschke, H., Posch, Th., Henning, Th.
805: 2003, A\&A, 408, 193
806: \bibitem[Kennicutt et al.(2003)]{ken03} Kennicutt, R.C., Jr. et al.,
807: 2003, PASP, 115, 928
808:
809:
810: \bibitem[Kifonidis et al.(2000)]{kif01} KifonidisK., Plewa, T.,
811: Janka, H.-T., \& M\"uller, E. 2000, ApJ, 531, L123
812:
813: \bibitem[Kozasa \& Hasegawa(1988)]{koz88} Kozasa,
814: T., \& Hasegawa, H. 1988, Icarus, 73, 180
815:
816: \bibitem[Kozasa et al.(1989)]{kz89}Kozasa, T.,
817: Hasegawa, H. \& Nomoto, K. 1989, ApJ, 334, 325
818:
819: \bibitem[Kozasa et al.(1991)]{koz91} Kozasa,
820: T., Hasegawa, H., \& Nomoto, K.\ 1991, A\&A, 249, 474
821:
822: \bibitem[Krause et al.(2005)]{kra04} Krause, O., et al., 2004, Nature, 432, 596
823:
824: %\bibitem[Lagage et al.(1996)]{lag96} Lagage, P.~O., Claret,
825: %A., Ballet, J., Boulanger, F., Cesarsky, C.~J., Cesarsky, D., Fransson, C.,
826: %\& Pollock, A.\ 1996, \aap, 315, L273 (L96)
827:
828: \bibitem[Lagage et al.(1996)]{lag96} Lagage, P.~O. et al., 1996, \aap,
829: 315, L273
830:
831:
832: \bibitem[Maiolino(2006)]{maiolino06} Maiolino et al. 2006,
833: Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 77, 643
834:
835: \bibitem[McCray(1993)]{mcr93} McCray, R. 1993, ARA\&A, 31, 175
836:
837: \bibitem[Meikle(2007)]{miekl07} Meikle, W. P. S. et al. 2007, ApJ, 665,
838:
839: \bibitem[Morgan et al.(2003)]{mor03a} Morgan, H.~L., Dunne,
840: L., Eales, S.~A., Ivison, R.~J., \& Edmunds, M.~G.\ 2003, \apjl, 597, L33
841:
842: \bibitem[Morgan \& Edmunds(2003)]{mor03} Morgan, H.~L.~\&
843: Edmunds, M.~G.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 427
844:
845: \bibitem[Nozawa et al.(2003)]{noz03} Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T.,
846: Umeda, H., Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 785 (N03)
847:
848: \bibitem[Nozawa et al.(2007)]{noz07}Nozawa, T. et al.
849: 2007, ApJ preprint, arXIv:0706.0383 % doi:10.1086/''520621''
850:
851: \bibitem[Pei \& Fall (1995)]{pei95} Pei, Y. C. \& Fall, S. M., 1995,
852: ApJ, 454, 69
853:
854: \bibitem[P\'{e}rez-Rend\'on et al.(2002)]{per02}
855: P\'{e}rez-Rend\'on B., Garc\'ia-Segura, G., \& Langer, N.,
856: 2002, Ionized Gaseous Nebulae, Eds. W. J. Henney, J. Franco, M. Martos,
857: \& M. P\"ena, Revista Mexicana de Astronom\'ia y Astrof\'ica, 12, 94
858:
859: \bibitem[Philipp (1985)]{phi85} Philipp, H. 1985,
860: {\it Handbook of Optical Constamts of Solids}, ed. E.
861: D. Palik, Academic Press, San Diego,749
862: \bibitem[Piller (1985)]{pil85} Piller, H. 1985, {\it Handbook of Optical Constamts of Solids}, ed. E. D.
863: Palik, Academic Press, 571
864: %Palik, Academic Press, San Diego, p. 571
865: \bibitem[Reed et al.(1995)]{reed95}
866: Reed, J.E., Hester, J.J., Fabian, A.C., \& Winkler, P.F., 1995, ApJ, 440, 706
867: \bibitem[Rho et al.(2003)]{rho03}
868: Rho, J., Reynolds, S.P., Reach, W.T., Jarrett, T.H., Allen, G.E., \& Wilson, J.C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 299
869: \bibitem[Smail et al(1997)]{sma97}
870: Smail I., Ivison R.J., Blain A.W., 1997, ApJ, 490, L5
871: %\bibitem[Smith et al.(2006)]{smi06} Smith, J. D., et al. 2006, http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/archanaly/contributed/cubism/
872: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2007)]{smi07} Smith, J. D. T., Armus, L., Dale, D.A.,
873: Roussel, H., Sheth, K., Buckalew, B.A., Jarrett, T. H., Helou, G., \&
874: Kennicutt, R. C., 2007, PASJ, submitted
875: %\bibitem[Stanimirovic et al.(2005)]{sta05} Stanimirovic, S. et al., 2006, Science, 313, 196
876: %\bibitem[Stanimirovic et al.(2005)]{sta05} Stanimirovic, S.,
877: % Bolatto, A. D., Sandstrom, K., Leroy, A. K., Simon, J.
878: % D., Gaensler, B. M., S., Ronak Y., Jackson, J. M., 2005, ApJ, 632, 103
879: \bibitem[Sugerman et al.(2006)]{sug06} Sugerman, Ben E. K. et al., 2006,
880: Science, 313, 196
881: \bibitem[Todini \& Ferrara(2001)]{tod01}Todini, P. \& Ferrara, A., 2001,
882: MNRAS, 325, 726 (TF)
883:
884: \bibitem[van den Bergh (1971)]{van71} van den Bergh, S., 1971, ApJ, 165, 457
885: \bibitem[Wilson \& Batrla (2005)]{wil05} Wilson T.L., \& Batrla W., 2005, A \& A, 430, 561
886:
887: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{woo95} Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver, T. A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
888:
889: \bibitem[Woosley, Heger, \& Weaver(2002)]{woo02} Woosley, S. E., A. Heger, \& Weaver, T. A
890: 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015
891: \bibitem[Young et al.(2006)]{you06} Young, P. A. et al.\, 2006, ApJ, 640, 891
892: \bibitem[Whittet (2003)]{whi03}
893: Whittet D.C.B., 2003, Dust in the Galactic Environment, Second Edition, IOP, Cambridge University Press, UK
894:
895: \end{thebibliography}{}
896:
897: \clearpage
898:
899: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccccccccclll}
900: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
901: \rotate
902: %\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
903: \tablewidth{0pt}
904: \tablecaption{Properties of Freshly Formed Dust in Cas A}
905: \label{catalog}
906: \tablehead{
907: \colhead{Dust Type} &
908: \colhead{Model} &
909: \colhead{Compositions\tablenotemark{a}} &
910: \colhead{Strong} &
911: \colhead{Nucleosynthesis} &
912: \colhead{ Mass } \\
913: \colhead{(spectrum in Fig. \ref{sixspec})} &
914: \colhead{} &
915: \colhead{} &
916: \colhead{ Lines} &
917: \colhead{Layers} &
918: \colhead{(M$_{\odot}$)} \\
919: }
920: \startdata
921: 21$\mu$m-peak (a) &A& {\bf Mg protosilicate}, {\bf MgSiO$_3$}, SiO$_2$,
922: FeO, FeS, Si,
923: {\it Al$_2$O$_3$} & Ar & Inner-O, S-Si & 0.0030 \\
924: 21$\mu$m-peak &B& {\bf Mg protosilicate}, {\bf MgSiO$_3$}, FeO, SiO$_2$, FeO, FeS, Si,
925: {\it Fe} & Ar & Inner-O, S-Si & 0.0120 \\
926: weak-21$\mu$m (b) & C & {\bf C-glass}, {\bf FeO}, Al$_2$O$_3$, Si, {\it Mg$_2$SiO$_4$}
927: & Ne, Si, Ar (S, O+Fe) & C-burning & 0.0180 \\
928: weak-21$\mu$m & D & {\bf C-glass}, {\bf FeO}, Al$_2$O$_3$, Si, FeS,
929: {\it Mg protosilicate}
930: & Ne, Si, Ar (S, O+Fe) & C-burning & 0.0157 \\
931: Featureless (d) & E & {\bf MgSiO$_3$}, {\bf Si}, FeS, {\it Fe, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$} & Si, S, (O+Fe) & O, Al burning (Fe-Si-S) & 0.0245 \\
932: Featureless & F & {\bf MgSiO$_3$}, {\bf Si}, FeS, {\it Fe, Al$_2$O$_3$} & Si, S, (O+Fe) & O, Al burning (Fe-Si-S) & 0.0171\\
933: Featureless & G & {\bf MgSiO$_3$}, {\bf Si}, FeS, {\it Al$_2$O$_3$, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$} & Si,
934: S, (O+Fe) & O, Al burning (Fe-Si-S) & 0.0009\\
935: \enddata
936: \tablenotetext{a}{Compositions in the best fit, where
937: a few primary compositions are written in bold, and
938: alternative dust compositions are in italics.
939: }
940: %\tablenotetext{1}{ Compositions in the best fit, where
941: %dominant dust grains are listed in order of dominant grains.
942: %One or two primary compositions are written in bold, and
943: %alternative dust compositions are in italics.
944: %}
945: \end{deluxetable}
946:
947:
948: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllllllll}
949: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
950: \rotate
951: %\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
952: \tablewidth{0pt}
953: \tablecaption{Mass of dust with each composition}
954: \label{dustmasstab}
955: \tablehead{
956: \colhead{Composition} &
957: \colhead{Model A\tablenotemark{a}} &
958: \colhead{ Model B} &
959: \colhead{Model C} &
960: \colhead{Model D} &
961: \colhead{Model E } &
962: \colhead{Model F} &
963: \colhead{Model G} & \\
964: }
965: \startdata
966: Al$_2$O$_3$ & 6.66E-05 (083) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 5.13E-05 (105) & 1.03E-04 (100) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 8.13E-04 (050) & 6.50E-04 (060) &\\
967: C glass & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 2.08E-03 (80/180) & 1.07E-03 (80/220) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) &\\
968: MgSiO$_3$ & 1.19E-08 (480) & 1.19E-08 (480) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 2.55E-05 (110) & 3.19E-05 (110) & 2.55E-05 (110) &\\
969: Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 7.89E-05 (120) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 1.72E-06 (130) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 3.00E-06 (130) &\\
970: Mg protosilicate & 5.00E-05 (120) & 4.67E-05 (120) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 3.77E-05 (120) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) &\\
971: SiO$_2$ & 2.23E-03 (060/300) & 1.40E-03 (065/300) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) &\\
972: Si & 4.34E-04 (096) & 4.34E-04 (100) & 1.63E-03 (090) & 8.17E-03 (080) & 9.32E-04 (090) & 1.24E-04 (120) & 6.21E-05 (120) &\\
973: Fe & 0.00E+00 (075) & 9.82E-03 (110) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 2.16E-02 (95/135) & 1.36E-02 (100/150) & 0.00E+00 (000) &\\
974: FeO & 1.13E-04 (105) & 2.11E-04 (095) & 1.39E-02 (060) & 5.97E-03 (065) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 0.00E+00 (000) &\\
975: FeS & 1.20E-04 (150) & 2.11E-04 (150) & 0.00E+00 (000) & 3.40E-04 (120) & 1.94E-03 (055) & 2.59E-03 (055) & 1.29E-04 (100) &\\
976: \enddata
977: \tablenotetext{a}{The numbers in parentheses are
978: dust temperatures, and two numbers indicate two temperatures.}
979: \end{deluxetable}
980:
981: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllll}
982: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
983: \tablewidth{0pt}
984: \tablecaption{Mass of dust with each composition}
985: \label{dustmasstab}
986: \tablehead{
987: \colhead{Composition} &
988: \colhead{Predicted ($M_\odot$)} &
989: \colhead{Model (A+D+G)\tablenotemark{a}} &
990: \colhead{Model (B+C+E)\tablenotemark{b}} &
991: \colhead{Mass (global)\tablenotemark{c}}
992: }
993: \startdata
994: Al$_2$O$_3$ & 2.40E-04 $\sim$ 9.00E-03 &8.20E-04 &5.1300E-05 &1.22E-04 (105) \\
995: carbon & 7.00E-02 $\sim$ 3.00E-01 &1.07E-03 &2.0767E-03 &2.04E-03 (070/265) \\
996: MgSiO$_3$ & 2.00E-03 $\sim$ 7.00E-3 &2.55E-05 &2.5500E-05 &1.65E-04 (110) \\
997: Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ & 3.70E-02 $\sim$ 4.40E-1 &3.00E-06 &8.0620E-05 &3.21E-05 (120) \\
998: Mg protosilicate & \tablenotemark{d}none &8.77E-05 &4.6710E-05 &6.70E-05 (110) \\
999: SiO$_2$ & 2.50E-02 $\sim$ 1.400E-01 &2.23E-03 &1.3964E-03 &1.35E-03 (065) \\
1000: Si & 7.00E-02 $\sim$ 3.00E-01 &8.66E-03 &2.9989E-03 &4.42E-03 (080) \\
1001: Fe & 2.00E-02 $\sim$ 4.00E-02 &0.00E+00 &3.1459E-02 &1.03E-02 (090) \\
1002: FeO & \tablenotemark{d}none &6.08E-03 &1.4136E-02 &6.23E-03 (070) \\
1003: FeS & 4.00E-02 $\sim$ 1.10E-01 &5.90E-04 &2.1501E-03 &2.90E-03 (090) \\
1004: \enddata
1005: \tablenotetext{a}{The sum of the masses using the least massive composition among models.}
1006: \tablenotetext{b}{The sum of the masses using the most-massive compositions.}
1007: \tablenotetext{c}{The mass using the global spectrum.}
1008: \tablenotetext{d}{see the text for details.}
1009: \end{deluxetable}
1010:
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014: \clearpage
1015:
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \epsscale{0.9}
1018: \plotone{f1.ps}
1019: \caption{Representative Set of {\it Spitzer} IRS spectra of Cas A. The
1020: contrast between continuum shape and line emission is noticeable. Many
1021: of the strong ejecta lines are seen including [Ar~II] (7 $\mu$m), [Ar~
1022: III] (8.9 $\mu$m), [Si~IV] (10.5 $\mu$m), [Ne~ II] (12.8 $\mu$m), [Ne~
1023: III] (15.5 $\mu$m), [S~III](18.7 $\mu$m), [O~IV] and [Fe~II]
1024: (26 $\mu$m), [S~III] (33.5 $\mu$m), [Si~II] (34.8 $\mu$m), and [Fe~ II]
1025: (35.3 $\mu$m). The dominant continuum shapes are 21 $\mu$m-peak dust
1026: showing a dust feature at 21 $\mu$m often accompanied by a silicate
1027: emission feature at 9.8 $\mu$m with strong Ar lines (red, curve a) and
1028: weak-21 $\mu$m dust with relatively strong Ne lines compared with Ar (green curve, b). Featureless
1029: spectra include the continuous rising spectra (yellow, c), and the
1030: gently rising spectra (blue, d) with strong O+Fe or Si lines.
1031: The positions of RA. and Dec. are 350.900, 58.8356 (a), 350.812, 58.8075 (b), and
1032: 350.879 58.7911 (c), 350.857,
1033: 58.815 (d), and 350.862 58.8550 9 (e).
1034: For illustration, the spectra were multiplied by 1.4 (curve a), 2.8 (b), 0.8 (c),
1035: 1.5 (d), and 2 (e), respectively.
1036: ``Broad" continuum spectra arise from interstellar/circumstellar medium (orange, e).
1037: }
1038: \label{sixspec}
1039: \end{figure}
1040:
1041: \clearpage
1042:
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: %\includegraphics[height=17.1truecm]{f2.ps}
1045: %\includegraphics[height=17.1truecm]{f4.ps}
1046: \caption{ (a) 21 $\mu$m dust map; a continuum map of 19-23 $\mu$m
1047: subtracted by the baselines of neighboring wavelengths. This dust map
1048: is remarkably similar to the [Ar II] map (b) the resolutions are
1049: convolved to match to each other). The image is centered at R.A.\
1050: $23^{\rm h} 23^{\rm m} 25.86^{\rm s}$ and Dec.\ $+58^\circ$49$^{\prime}
1051: 14^{\prime \prime}$ (J2000), and covers an 7.87$'$ by 5$'$ field
1052: of view. (c) A combination of [O~IV] and [Fe~II] line map at 26 $\mu$m.
1053: (d) [Si~II] (34.8 $\mu$m) map. (e) MIPS 70 $\mu$m map from \cite{hin04}.
1054: The locations of the forward and reverse shock boundaries are marked as
1055: ellipses where we adjusted for elongation from \cite{got01} using
1056: long-exposure {\it Chandra} archival data \citep{hwa04}.
1057: (f) Distributions of three major groups of dust types :
1058: 21$\mu$m-peak dust regions are in red (spectrum (a)), weak-21$\mu$m
1059: dust regions are in green (spectrum (b)), and featureless-dust
1060: regions are in blue ((d) spectrum in Fig.~\ref{sixspec}).
1061: {\it (Fig. 2 is a jpeg file)} }
1062: \label{images}
1063: \end{figure}
1064:
1065:
1066: \begin{figure}
1067: %\plotone{jun9modelA.ps}
1068: \plotone{f3.ps}
1069: \caption{21 $\mu$m-peak dust spectrum superposed on the dust fit of
1070: Model A: A {\it Spitzer} IRS spectrum towards a bright part of the
1071: northern shell fitted with dust compositions of Mg proto-silicate,
1072: MgSiO$_3$, SiO$_2$, FeO, and Al$_2$O$_3$. The compositions suggest
1073: that the dust forms around inner-oxygen and S-Si layers. The data and
1074: the total fit are shown in blue and thick red lines, respectively, and
1075: MIPS fluxes are marked with squares. The dust temperatures are shown
1076: in parentheses, and the dotted lines are from the second temperature
1077: components. Synchrotron continuum contribution (green dashed line) is
1078: estimated based on the radio fluxes and IRAC 3.6$\mu$m image.}
1079: \label{21umpeakspec}
1080: \end{figure}
1081:
1082:
1083: \begin{figure}
1084: %\plotone{jun9modelB.ps}
1085: \plotone{f4.ps}
1086: \caption{21 $\mu$m-peak dust superposed on the dust fit of Model B. }
1087: \label{modelBspec}
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}
1092: %\plotone{jun9modelD.ps}
1093: \plotone{f5.ps}
1094: \caption{Weak-21 $\mu$m dust superposed on the dust fit of Model D: A
1095: second type of dust continuum in Cas A. The distribution of this type
1096: of dust is shown in Fig.~\ref{images}f, in green. }
1097: \label{weak21umspec}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: \clearpage
1101:
1102:
1103: \begin{figure}
1104: %\plotone{jun9modelE.ps}
1105: \plotone{f6.ps}
1106: \caption{
1107: Featureless Dust Spectrum:
1108: the continuum can be fit with MgSiO$_3$ and Fe (Model E).
1109: The featureless spectra accompanies with S, Si, and O/Fe lines.
1110: The green dashed line is predicted synchrotron
1111: emission model.}
1112: \label{modelEspec}
1113: \end{figure}
1114:
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118: \begin{figure}
1119: %\plotone{jun9modelG.ps}
1120: \plotone{f7.ps}
1121: \caption{
1122: Featureless Dust Spectrum:
1123: The continuum can be fit with Al$_2$O$_3$,
1124: and MgSiO$_3$ (Model G).
1125: }
1126: \label{flessspec}
1127: \end{figure}
1128:
1129:
1130: \begin{figure}
1131: %\plotone{jun9total.ps}
1132: \plotone{f8.ps}
1133: \caption{Total spectrum of Cas A and the dust fit of grains with a few
1134: primary contributions of grain models.
1135: The dark green and brown lines are MgSiO$_3$ (100 K) and SiO$_2$ (65K), respectively.
1136: The green dashed line is predicted synchrotron
1137: emission model.}
1138: \label{totalspec}
1139: \end{figure}
1140:
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144: \end{document}
1145:
1146: