1: % Use only LaTeX2e, calling the article.cls class and 12-point type.
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4:
5: % Users of the {thebibliography} environment or BibTeX should use the
6: % scicite.sty package, downloadable from *Science* at
7: % www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/TeX_help/ .
8: % This package should properly format in-text
9: % reference calls and reference-list numbers.
10:
11: % \usepackage{scicite}
12:
13: % Use times if you have the font installed; otherwise, comment out the
14: % following line.
15:
16: \usepackage{times}
17: \usepackage{graphics}
18:
19: % The preamble here sets up a lot of new/revised commands and
20: % environments. It's annoying, but please do *not* try to strip these
21: % out into a separate .sty file (which could lead to the loss of some
22: % information when we convert the file to other formats). Instead, keep
23: % them in the preamble of your main LaTeX source file.
24:
25:
26: % The following parameters seem to provide a reasonable page setup.
27:
28: \topmargin 0.0cm
29: \oddsidemargin 0.2cm
30: \textwidth 16cm
31: \textheight 21cm
32: \footskip 1.0cm
33:
34:
35: %The next command sets up an environment for the abstract to your paper.
36:
37: \newenvironment{sciabstract}{%
38: \begin{quote} \bf}
39: {\end{quote}}
40:
41:
42: % If your reference list includes text notes as well as references,
43: % include the following line; otherwise, comment it out.
44:
45: %\renewcommand\refname{References and Notes}
46:
47: % The following lines set up an environment for the last note in the
48: % reference list, which commonly includes acknowledgments of funding,
49: % help, etc. It's intended for users of BibTeX or the {thebibliography}
50: % environment. Users who are hand-coding their references at the end
51: % using a list environment such as {enumerate} can simply add another
52: % item at the end, and it will be numbered automatically.
53:
54:
55:
56: % Include your paper's title here
57:
58: \title{ A Supernova Riddle}
59:
60:
61: % Place the author information here. Please hand-code the contact
62: % information and notecalls; do *not* use \footnote commands. Let the
63: % author contact information appear immediately below the author names
64: % as shown. We would also prefer that you don't change the type-size
65: % settings shown here.
66:
67: \author {Douglas C. Leonard$^{1}$\\
68: \\
69: \normalsize {$^{1}$ The author is in the Department of Astronomy, San Diego
70: State University, 5500 Campanile}\\
71: \normalsize{Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1221, USA. E-mail:leonard@sciences.sdsu.edu}}
72:
73: % Include the date command, but leave its argument blank.
74:
75: \date{}
76:
77:
78:
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PREAMBLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81:
82:
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: % Double-space the manuscript.
86:
87: \baselineskip20pt
88:
89: % Make the title.
90:
91: \maketitle
92:
93:
94:
95: % Place your abstract within the special {sciabstract} environment.
96:
97: \begin{sciabstract}
98:
99: Analysis of the polarization of light from supernovae can reveal the shape and
100: distribution of matter ejected from exploding stars. In this ``Perspectives''
101: commentary (published: 2007, {\it Science}, 315, 193), we review the young
102: field of Type Ia supernova spectropolarimetry and critically evaluate the
103: recent work of Wang et al. (2007, {\it Science}, 315, 212), in which a
104: suggestive trend is found in data from 17 Type Ia events.
105:
106:
107: \end{sciabstract}
108:
109:
110:
111: % In setting up this template for *Science* papers, we've used both
112: % the \section* command and the \paragraph* command for topical
113: % divisions. Which you use will of course depend on the type of paper
114: % you're writing. Review Articles tend to have displayed headings, for
115: % which \section* is more appropriate; Research Articles, when they have
116: % formal topical divisions at all, tend to signal them with bold text
117: % that runs into the paragraph, for which \paragraph* is the right
118: % choice. Either way, use the asterisk (*) modifier, as shown, to
119: % suppress numbering.
120:
121: \section*{}
122:
123: Roughly once per second in the observable universe, a star explodes and
124: announces its death with an optical display that for weeks rivals the
125: brilliance of its parent galaxy. These supernova events are classified into
126: several types, but among the most interesting are those called type Ia
127: supernovae (SNe Ia). Astronomers' love affair with these beacons began in
128: earnest about a decade ago when two groups put them to work as distance
129: indicators and precisely mapped the expansion history of the universe well into
130: the regime that gravity was expected to have imprinted its decelerating
131: signature. Instead, the data revealed a universe presently accelerating in its
132: expansion rate, a finding heralded by {\it Science} as the ``Scientific
133: Breakthrough of the Year'' in 1998 ({\it 1}), and one that has since survived
134: intense scrutiny and complementary experimental checks. Yet for all the
135: fanfare and empirical success, it must be acknowledged that we are
136: fundamentally ignorant: We do not know how these stars explode. On page 212 of
137: this issue, Wang {\it et al.} ({\it 2}) identify a suggestive trend in an
138: impressive set of SN~Ia data that may point the way towards a deeper
139: understanding of these enigmatic cosmic blasts.
140:
141: Despite an embarrassing dearth of direct observational evidence, the first part
142: of the story of SNe Ia is largely considered settled. Each future SN Ia begins
143: as a carbon-oxygen white dwarf -- the compact corpse of a low-mass star like
144: our Sun after its nuclear-burning life is over -- accreting matter through some
145: mechanism (mass flow from the envelope of a close companion star seems most
146: likely) until a critical central density is achieved and a thermonuclear
147: runaway is triggered. There is general agreement that, once initiated, the
148: burning front progresses through the star for a time as a subsonic
149: deflagration. But at this point in the story, harmony ends and pitched battles
150: begin, with some favoring an enduring deflagration front and others insisting
151: on a transition to a supersonic detonation.
152:
153: The most recent ``delayed detonation'' models appear to better match observed
154: SNe~Ia: The events produced in these simulations are bright enough (a perennial
155: problem for deflagration models) and have the proper ejecta composition and
156: stratification ({\it 3}). The mechanism that triggers the
157: deflagration-detonation transition remains a mystery, however, and so the pure
158: deflagration model still retains its share of adherents. In any event, a
159: complete comparison of the observable distinctions predicted by the two
160: scenarios still awaits full, three-dimensional radiation transport simulations
161: carried out at high enough resolution to resolve physical processes at very
162: small scales. Into this fray, Wang {\it et al.} now step, armed with an
163: upstart and potentially powerful observational tool: The ability to study the
164: {\it geometry} of the supernova ejecta by analyzing the polarization properties
165: of the light coming from the star shortly after explosion.
166:
167: Are supernovae round? Simple to pose, this question belies a menacing
168: observational challenge, given that all extragalactic supernovae remain
169: point-like in the night sky throughout the critical early phases of their
170: evolution. Fortunately, geometric information is encoded in the polarization
171: properties of supernova light. The essential idea is that photons become
172: polarized when they scatter off of free electrons, and hot, young supernova
173: atmospheres contain an abundance of free electrons. Indeed, if we {\it could}
174: view such an atmosphere as an extended source, rather than as an unresolvable
175: point of light, we would expect to measure changes in both the direction and
176: strength of the polarization as a function of position in the atmosphere. For
177: a spherical, unresolved source, the directional polarization components cancel
178: exactly and yield zero net polarization. Any deviation from perfect symmetry
179: or roundness of the source in the plane of the sky, however, gives rise to a
180: net polarization (see the figure).
181:
182: There are two basic causes of supernova polarization. One is asphericity of
183: the electron-scattering atmosphere; because electron scattering is independent
184: of wavelength, it generally produces a uniform increase in the overall
185: polarization level across the spectrum. In the other mechanism, asymmetry in
186: the distribution of material (``clumpy ejecta'') above the electron-scattering
187: photosphere unevenly screens the underlying light. Unlike global asphericity,
188: this polarization mechanism is strongly dependent on wavelength, because only
189: those spectral regions corresponding to line transitions of the chemical
190: elements that make up optically thick clumps will be polarized.
191:
192: From spectropolarimetry gathered on seven events, previous work in this young
193: field has found SNe~Ia to have low overall polarizations but occasionally
194: strong line polarization features ({\it 4 --- 7}). The emerging picture is thus
195: one of a globally spherical photosphere with clumpy (or otherwise
196: asymmetrically distributed) ejecta overlying it. How can such studies shed
197: light on the Type Ia flame-propagation mystery? The latest models indicate
198: that pure deflagrations leave behind lumpier ejecta than delayed detonations do
199: ({\it 3, 8}).
200:
201: Spotting trends in SNe Ia data has a long tradition of bearing rich fruit. In
202: 1936, Walter Baade pointed out that the substantial homogeneity and
203: extraordinary brightness of these objects could make them powerful cosmological
204: tools. By the early 1990s, however, it became clear that the dispersion in
205: peak intrinsic luminosity (by more than a factor of ten), complicated their use
206: as ``standard candles''. The fix came in 1993, when Phillips ({\it 9})
207: quantified a trend first noticed by Pskovskii ({\it 10}) that intrinsically
208: bright SNe Ia rise and decline in brightness more slowly than dim ones do.
209: Various versions of the ``light curve-width'' relation have since provided the
210: edifice upon which the entire SN~Ia cosmology enterprise has been built, and
211: served as touchstones for theoretical models of the explosions.
212:
213: It is just such a trend that Wang {\it et al.} now identify in
214: spectropolarimetry of 17 SNe~Ia: Bright events show systematically weaker line
215: polarization than dim ones do. This trend is consistent with the idea that
216: different SNe~Ia make the transition from deflagration to detonation at
217: different times. The sooner it happens, the brighter the supernova and the
218: more completely scoured the ejecta will be of the clumps left behind by the
219: deflagration front. The agreement between model predictions and observations
220: strengthens the case for a detonation phase.
221:
222: Will all debate now end on the subject? It is doubtful. Critics will point
223: out that the trend identified by Wang {\it et al}. specifically excludes all
224: spectroscopically ``peculiar'' SNe~Ia, which may comprise upwards of 30\% of
225: the total population ({\it 11}). Fundamental advances often come from
226: consideration of the differences seen in a sample, rather than from the
227: similarities alone. And some are likely to withhold any judgment until full
228: three-dimensional models capable of resolving the clumps and quantitatively
229: tracking the resulting polarization become available. Simply put, too many
230: mysteries still surround SNe~Ia for anyone to grow complacent. An important
231: clue appears to have been wrested from nature, but we are not ready to resolve
232: the riddle of SNe~Ia just yet.
233:
234:
235: \begin{quote}
236: {\bf References and Notes}
237:
238: \begin{enumerate}
239: \item J. Glanz, {\it Science}, {\bf 282}, 2156 (1998).
240: \item L. Wang, D. Baade, F. Patat, {\it Science}, {\bf 315}, 212 (2007);
241: published online 30 November 2006 (10.1126/science.1121656).
242: \item V. N. Gamezo, A. M. Khokhlov, E. S. Oran, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 632},
243: 337 (2005).
244: \item D. C. Leonard {\it et al.}, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 632}, 450 (2005).
245: \item L. Wang {\it et al.}, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 591}, 1110 (2003).
246: \item D. A. Howell, P. H{\" o}flich, L. Wang, J. C. Wheeler, {\it
247: Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 556}, 302 (2001).
248: \item L. Wang {\it et al.}, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 653}, 490 (2006).
249: \item M. Reinecke, W. Hillebrandt, J. C. Niemeyer, {\it Astron. Astrophys.},
250: {\bf 391}, 1167 (2002).
251: \item M. M. Phillips, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 413}, 105 (1993).
252: \item Y. P. Pskovskii, {\it Soviet Astron.}, {\bf 21}, 675 (1977).
253: \item W. Li {\it et al.}, {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 546}, 734 (2001).
254: \end{enumerate}
255: \end{quote}
256: \newpage
257:
258: % For your review copy (i.e., the file you initially send in for
259: % evaluation), you can use the {figure} environment and the
260: % \includegraphics command to stream your figures into the text, placing
261: % all figures at the end. For the final, revised manuscript for
262: % acceptance and production, however, PostScript or other graphics
263: % should not be streamed into your compliled file. Instead, set
264: % captions as simple paragraphs (with a \noindent tag), setting them
265: % off from the rest of the text with a \clearpage as shown below, and
266: % submit figures as separate files according to the Art Department's
267: % instructions.
268:
269: \begin{figure}[h!]
270:
271: \begin{center}
272: \scalebox{0.6}{
273: \rotatebox{-90}{
274: \includegraphics{fig1.ps}}}
275: \end{center}
276: \end{figure}
277:
278: \noindent {\bf Producing supernova polarization.} A spherical, unresolved
279: supernova atmosphere produces zero {\it net} polarization ({\bf left}), whereas
280: a non-spherical atmosphere does not ({\bf center}). Clumps of material that
281: unevenly block the photosphere's light can also produce a net supernova
282: polarization ({\bf right}), and it is this mechanism that is thought to be
283: responsible for the majority of the observed polarization of SNe~Ia.
284:
285: \end{document}
286:
287:
288:
289:
290:
291:
292:
293:
294:
295:
296:
297:
298:
299:
300:
301:
302:
303:
304:
305:
306: