1: % gqmus06let1.tex -- AASTeX
2:
3: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
4: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
5:
6: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
7: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
8: %% any data that comes before this command.
9:
10: %% The command below calls the preprint style
11: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
12: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
13: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
14:
15: % \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
16:
17: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
18:
19: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
20:
21: \documentclass[manuscript]{emulateapj}
22:
23: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
24:
25: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
26:
27: % \usepackage{emulateapj5}
28:
29: \usepackage{apjfonts}
30:
31: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
32: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
33: %% the \begin{document} command.
34: %%
35: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
36: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
37: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
38: %% for information.
39:
40: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
41: \newcommand{\myemail}{hachisu@chianti.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
42:
43: %%%%%\newcommand{\object}[1]{#1}
44:
45: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
46:
47: % \slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
48: % \slugcomment{submitted to the Astrophysical Journal}
49: \slugcomment{to appear in the Astrophysical Journal}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
56: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{Light Curve of GQ Muscae}
59: \shortauthors{Hachisu et al.}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: \title{A Universal Decline Law of Classical Novae. III. GQ Mus 1983}
67:
68: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
69: %% author and affiliation information.
70: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
71: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
72: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
73: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
74:
75: \author{Izumi Hachisu}
76: \affil{Department of Earth Science and Astronomy,
77: College of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo,
78: Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan}
79: \email{hachisu@ea.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
80:
81: %%%\and
82:
83: \author{Mariko Kato}
84: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Keio University,
85: Hiyoshi, Kouhoku-ku, Yokohama 223-8521, Japan}
86: \email{mariko@educ.cc.keio.ac.jp}
87:
88: \and
89:
90: \author{Angelo Cassatella}
91: \affil{INAF, Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario,
92: Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133 Rome, Italy}
93: \email{cassatella@fis.uniroma3.it}
94:
95: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
96: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
97: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
98: %% affiliation.
99:
100: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
101: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science
102: %Foundation.}
103: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}
104: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,
105: % 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
106: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}
107: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
108:
109:
110: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
111: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
112: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
113: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
114: %% editorial office after submission.
115:
116: \begin{abstract}
117: We present a unified model of infrared (IR), optical, ultraviolet (UV), and
118: X-ray light curves for the 1983 outburst of GQ Muscae (Nova Muscae 1983)
119: and estimate its white dwarf (WD) mass. Based on an optically thick
120: wind model of nova outbursts, we model the optical and IR light curves
121: with free-free emission, and the UV 1455 \AA\ and supersoft X-ray light
122: curves with blackbody emission. The best fit model that reproduces
123: simultaneously the IR, optical, UV 1455 \AA, and supersoft X-ray
124: observations is a $0.7 \pm 0.05~M_\sun$ WD for an assumed chemical
125: composition of the envelope, $X=0.35-0.55$, $X_{\rm CNO} =0.2-0.35$,
126: and $Z = 0.02$, by mass weight. The mass lost by the wind is
127: estimated to be $\Delta M_{\rm wind} \sim 2 \times 10^{-5} M_\odot$.
128: We provide a new determination of the reddening, $E(B-V) = 0.55 \pm 0.05$,
129: and of the distance, $\sim 5$~kpc. Finally, we discuss the
130: strong UV flash that took place on JD 2,445,499 (151 days after the
131: outburst).
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134:
135: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
136: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
137: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
138: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
139:
140: \keywords{novae, cataclysmic variables ---
141: stars: individual (GQ Muscae) --- stars: mass loss ---
142: ultraviolet: stars --- white dwarfs --- X-rays: binaries}
143:
144: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
145: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
146: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
147: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
148: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
149: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
150: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
151: %% each reference.
152:
153: \section{Introduction}
154: Despite their overall similarity, the optical light curves of classical
155: novae show a wide variety of timescales and shapes
156: \citep[e.g.,][]{pay57}. Various empirical time-scaling laws have been
157: proposed in the attempt to recognize common patterns and to unify
158: the nova light curves. For example, \citet{mcl42} proposed
159: a compression of the time scale obtained by normalizing the time to
160: $t_m$, the time for the brightness to decrease by $m$ magnitudes
161: (usually $m=2$ or 3). The results were however unsatisfactory
162: because slow novae reached their late stages relatively earlier
163: than faster novae. A different approach was adopted by \citet{vor48}
164: who, based on a large collection of nova light curves,
165: found that $m(t)$, the visual magnitude at time $t$, is
166: conveniently represented, on average, by $m(t)= m_0 + b_1
167: \log (t-t_0)$ at early stages and $m(t)= m_1 + b_2 \log (t-t_0)$
168: at later stages with $b_1 = 2.5$ and $b_2 > b_1$.
169:
170: The underlying problem of both the above approaches is that, during the
171: decline phase from maximum, the flux in the visual band, initially dominated
172: by free--free emission, becomes more and more affected by the increasing
173: contribution from the emission lines, which finally dominates. The presence
174: of these two competing and heterogeneous emission mechanisms is most likely
175: the main cause for the difficulty to find a suitable normalization parameter
176: for the nova light curves. A more appropriate way to monitor the evolution of
177: the visual continuum is to use the Str\"omgren $y$ filter, which is
178: designed to avoid strong emission lines and, in particular, the [\ion{O}{3}]
179: line \citep[e.g.,][]{kal86, loc76}. In the case of V1668 Cyg, \citet{kal86}
180: has indeed shown that the continuum $y$ flux declines much faster than the
181: H$\beta+$[\ion{O}{3}] fluxes. Consequently, the decline rate is much faster
182: in the $y$ band than in the visual band. This was demonstrated by
183: \citet{kal86}, who showed that the $y$ magnitude of V1668 Cyg declines with a
184: slope of $b_1= 3.5$ at early stages and it then changes to $b_2= 6.5$ at later
185: stages, values that are sensibly larger than those reported by \citet{vor48}.
186:
187: The observations of V1500 Cyg by \citet{gal76} suggest that the visual and
188: infrared continua are well represented by free-free emission during the early
189: decay phase. The same applies to GQ Mus: \citet{kra84} reported that, during
190: the early 40 days (diffuse enhanced and Orion-phases), the energy spectrum of
191: $0.3 - 10\mu$ was well represented by optically thin free-free emission
192: \citep[see also][]{din86}. The flux in the optical and infrared
193: appears to decay with time as $F_\lambda \propto t^{-\alpha}$
194: in various speed classes of novae
195: \citep[e.g.,][for V1500 Cyg]{enn77, woo97}.
196:
197: An interesting attempt to unify the light curves of novae was proposed
198: by \citet{ros99a, ros99b}, who suggested that the main parameter
199: determining the shape of the light curve is the radius of the ejected shell,
200: $\log R_{\rm shell} = \log(t) + \log (v)$, where $t$ is the time from
201: optical maximum, and $v$ is the velocity of the ejecta. He plotted various
202: nova light curves in the $m-\log R_{\rm shell}$ diagram and found that light
203: curves overlapped each other. The rather large scatter of the data in
204: that diagram is probably due to the fact that the expansion
205: velocity of novae varies with time \citep[see][]{cas05}.
206:
207: \citet{cas02} studied the time evolution of the UV continuum flux
208: in twelve CO and ONeMg novae and found a strong correlation between
209: the $t_3$ time and the time of maximum flux in the 1455 \AA\ continuum
210: (see Fig. 4 in their paper). In a subsequent paper, \citet{cas05}
211: studied the time evolution of the UV emission lines in seven CO novae
212: and found a strong correlation between the line ionization potential
213: and the time of maximum emission normalized to the $t_3$ (Fig. 5
214: in their paper). These results strongly suggest that novae do
215: indeed evolve following a common pattern being time-normalized
216: by the $t_3$ time, which mainly depends on the white dwarf mass
217: \citep[e.g.,][]{liv92}.
218:
219: Recently, \citet[][hereafter referred as Paper I]{hac06kb} found that
220: the visual and IR light curves of several novae follow a universal
221: decline law, and interpreted that in terms of free-free emission
222: \citep[Paper I;][hereafter referred as Paper II]{hac07k};
223: in particular, the time-normalized light curves were found to be
224: independent of the white dwarf mass, the chemical composition
225: of ejecta, and wavelength. They also showed that the UV 1455 \AA\
226: light curve, interpreted as blackbody continuum,
227: can also be time-normalized by the same factor as in the optical
228: and IR. The authors, in the above quoted papers, determined the
229: white dwarf mass and other parameters for a number of relatively
230: well-observed classical novae.
231:
232: In the present paper, we apply the above universal decline law to
233: the classical nova GQ Muscae 1983.
234: GQ Mus is the first classical nova in which the
235: supersoft X-ray turnoff was detected with the X-ray satellite
236: {\it ROSAT} \citep{oge93, bal98, ori01}. This object was also well
237: observed by the UV satellite {\it IUE} \citep[e.g.,][]{kra84}
238: and in near-IR bands of {\it JHKL} \citep[e.g.,][]{whi84}.
239:
240: The next section summarizes the basic observational characteristics
241: of GQ Mus. In \S 3, we revisit the UV light curves of
242: GQ Mus obtained with the {\it IUE} satellite. In \S 4, we briefly
243: introduce our method based on our optically thick wind model.
244: Light curve fittings of GQ Mus in the X-ray, UV, optical, and
245: near IR bands are shown in \S 5. Discussion and conclusions follow
246: in \S\S 6 and 7, respectively. Finally, in the Appendix,
247: we assess the problem of the contribution of the emission
248: lines to the visual and infrared photometric bands for GQ Mus
249: and for other well known novae: V1500 Cyg, V1668 Cyg, and V1974 Cyg.
250:
251:
252: \section{Basic observational summary of GQ Muscae 1983}
253: \label{light-curve}
254: GQ Mus was discovered by Liller on 1983 January 18.14 UT
255: (JD 2,445,352.64) at $m_V \approx 7.2$ \citep{lil83}.
256: %%% 2445352.5 + 0.14 = 2445352.64
257: \citet{bat83} reported two pre-discovery magnitudes, i.e.,
258: $m_V \approx 7.6$ obtained by Gainsford on 1983 January 15.597 UT
259: (2,445,350.097) and $m_V \approx 7.9$ obtained by Pattie
260: on 1983 January 15.628 UT (2,445,350.128).
261: \citet{kra84} suggested that the outburst took place 3--4 days
262: before the discovery. In absence of precise estimates,
263: we assume that the outburst took place at $t_{\rm OB} =$
264: ~JD~ 2,445,348.0 (1983 January 13.5 UT), i.e., 4.6 days
265: before the discovery by Liller on January 18.14, and adopt
266: $t_{\rm OB}=$ JD 2,445,348.0 as day zero in the following analysis.
267:
268: Early optical {\it UBVRI} and near infrared {\it JHKL} observations
269: of GQ Mus show a fast evolution with $t_2 \sim 18$ days and
270: $t_3 = 48$ days \citep{whi84}. \citet{kra84} observed GQ Mus over
271: a wide wavelength range from 0.12 -- 10 $\mu$ during the early 40 days
272: (diffuse enhanced and Orion-phases). These authors reported
273: an extraordinary large amplitude brightening by $\Delta m_V
274: \sim 14$ mag, with respect to the prenova magnitude of $m_V
275: \gtrsim 21$. After about 4 months of slow decline, the brightness
276: stabilized in the range $m_V \sim 10-11$ for about 400 days.
277: After that, the nova gradually declined to $m_V \sim 14$
278: for another 400 days (see figures below).
279:
280: In this paper we will use the optical and IR photometric data from
281: \citet{whi84} and \citet{kra84}, which cover about 300 days after discovery.
282: No other systematic photometric observations are available at later stages
283: except for the visual magnitude measurements ($V_{\rm FES}$) obtained with
284: the Fine Error Sensor (FES) monitor on board {\it IUE}, which cover 500 days
285: after discovery, and the visual photometric data collected by RASNZ (Royal
286: Astronomical Society of New Zealand) and by AAVSO (American Association of
287: Variable Star Observers), which cover 1000 days after discovery.
288:
289: \citet{dia89} determined a photometric orbital period of
290: 0.0594 days for GQ Mus, the shortest known for a classical nova.
291: Later on, \citet{dia94} revised the ephemeris of GQ Mus based
292: on the 1989 and 1990 photometric observations, i.e.,
293: \begin{equation}
294: {\rm HJD}_{\rm min} = 2,447,843.4721 + 0.0593650 \times E .
295: \end{equation}
296: We have adopted this ephemeris for our binary model.
297: \citet{dia89, dia94} also suggested that GQ Mus is a polar system
298: because of the presence of X-ray emission and high
299: (\ion{He}{2} $\lambda 4686$)/H$\beta$ ratio.
300:
301: Based on the optical observation from 1984 March to 1988 March
302: (400 -- 1800 days after the outburst), \citet{kra89} suggested
303: that the observed progressive increase in the ionization level
304: of the nova shell was due to a very hot radiation source with
305: a temperature of $ > 4 \times 10^5$~K, increasing with time
306: while the bolometric luminosity remained constant.
307: \citet{oge87} studied the soft X-ray {\it EXOSAT} light curve
308: from optical maximum to about 900 days after it, and suggested
309: a model of a very hot white dwarf remnant with a maximum
310: temperature of $(2-4) \times 10^5$~K evolving at constant
311: bolometric luminosity.
312:
313: {\it ROSAT} observations clearly show that the supersoft X-ray flux decayed
314: about 10 yr after the outburst \citep{oge93, sha95, ori01, bal01}. This
315: information is very important because, compared with our model predictions, it
316: allows one to determine the white dwarf mass quite accurately (see, e.g.,
317: Paper I).
318:
319:
320: %%%Fig.1
321: %\placefigure{ebvplot}
322:
323:
324: \begin{figure}
325: \epsscale{1.0}
326: %\epsscale{0.7}
327: %\includegraphics[width=13cm]{ebvplot.ps}
328: \plotone{f1.eps}
329: %\plotone{ebvplot.ps}
330: %\plotone{ebvplot55.ps}
331: \caption{ {\it IUE} spectra of GQ Mus obtained at four epochs,
332: i.e., 108, 151, 202, and 538 days after the outburst.
333: The spectra have been corrected for reddening using
334: $E(B-V) =0.55$. The vertical dotted lines represent the
335: wavelengths $\lambda\lambda$ 1512, 1878 and 2386 \AA\
336: at which the extinction law takes the same value.
337: With the adopted value of reddening, the stellar continuum
338: underlying the many emission lines is well represented
339: by a straight line all over the full spectral range
340: except for the spectrum of day 538 above 2700 \AA,
341: due to the increased contribution from hydrogen Balmer
342: continuum. Saturated points in the emission lines are
343: denoted by pluses. Note the comparably harder spectrum
344: at the time of the secondary outburst on day 151.}
345: \label{ebvplot}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348:
349: \section{UV observations}
350: \label{uv_observations}
351: One of the most puzzling features of GQ Mus is its long lasting brightness in
352: the UV range, which made possible its regular monitoring by {\it IUE} over as
353: much as 11.5 yr. Because of satellite constraints, the {\it IUE} observations
354: could not start before JD 2,445,385.07, i.e., 32.4 days after discovery. The
355: early {\it IUE} observations of GQ Mus are discussed in detail by
356: \citet{kra84}. In the following we revisit the problem of the color excess
357: $E(B-V)$ of GQ Mus and describe the long term evolution of the ultraviolet
358: continuum and of the emission lines, as well as the secondary outburst
359: which took place about 151 days after the main one. The ultraviolet spectra
360: were retrieved from the {\it IUE} archive through the INES ({\it IUE} Newly
361: Extracted Spectra) system\footnote{http://ines.laeff.esa.es}, which also
362: provides details of the observations. The use of {\it IUE} INES data is
363: particularly important for the determination of the reddening correction
364: because of the implementation of upgraded spectral extraction and flux
365: calibration procedures compared to previously published UV spectra.
366:
367:
368: %%%Fig.2
369: %\placefigure{plotcont}
370:
371: \begin{figure}
372: %\epsscale{1.15}
373: %\plotone{plotcont.ps}
374: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
375: \plotone{f2.eps}
376: %\plotone{plotcont55.ps}
377: \caption{Time evolution of the continuum fluxes at 1455 \AA\
378: and 2885 \AA, of the ultraviolet color index $C(1455 - 2885)$,
379: and of the visual flux. Fluxes are in units of
380: $10^{-13}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$~\AA\ $^{-1}$, not
381: corrected for reddening. Only the color index has been
382: corrected for reddening using $E(B-V) = 0.55$.
383: The vertical dotted and dashed lines indicate the date of
384: discovery and that of the secondary outburst, respectively.}
385: \label{plotcont}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388:
389:
390: \subsection{The reddening correction}
391: The color excess of GQ Mus has been determined from the hydrogen Balmer lines
392: by \citet{pac85} and \citet{peq93}, who found $E(B-V) = 0.43$ and $0.50 \pm
393: 0.05$, respectively. About the same range of values has been reported by
394: \citet{kra84} and \citet{has90}, who found $E(B-V) = 0.45$ and 0.50,
395: respectively, based on the strength of the dust absorption band around 2175
396: \AA\ in the early {\it IUE} spectra. Given the criticality of the
397: reddening correction, we have attempted to improve its
398: accuracy by using two independent methods based on the shape of the UV
399: continuum and on the emission line intensities.
400:
401:
402: The Galactic extinction curve \citep{sea79} shows a pronounced broad maximum
403: around 2175 \AA\ due to dust absorption, but it takes the same value
404: $X(\lambda) = A(\lambda)/E(B-V) \approx 8$ at $\lambda = 1512$, 1878,
405: and 2386 \AA, so that the slope of the straight line passing through the
406: continuum points at these wavelengths is insensitive to $E(B-V)$ in a
407: $(\lambda , \log F(\lambda))$ plot. This circumstance can be used to get a
408: reliable estimate of $E(B-V)$ as that in which the stellar continuum becomes
409: closely linear in the 1512--2386 \AA\ region, and passes through the continuum
410: points at the above wavelengths. From 8 pairs of short and long wavelength
411: {\it IUE} spectra taken during the nebular phase we have in this way found
412: $E(B-V) = 0.58 \pm 0.04$.
413:
414: A different way to estimate the $E(B-V)$ color excess
415: consists in using the observed relative intensities
416: of the \ion{He}{2} 1640 \AA\ Balmer line,
417: and the 2734 and 3203 \AA\ Paschen recombination lines, and
418: compare these with theoretical ratios \citep{hum87}.
419: The intensity ratios $I(1640)/I(2734)$ and $I(1640)/I(3203)$
420: were measured in 8 pairs of short and long wavelength
421: {\it IUE} low resolution
422: spectra obtained during the nebular phase. From a comparison with the
423: theoretical values for an electron temperature and density of ($T_e$,
424: $N_e$)=(20,000 K, 10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$) we have obtained 22 independent
425: determinations of the color excess leading to
426: a mean value of $E(B-V) = 0.51 \pm 0.06$.
427: In the following we will adopt the error--weighted mean of the
428: two above determinations, i.e. $E(B-V) = 0.55 \pm 0.05$.
429: Examples of {\it IUE} spectra of GQ Mus corrected
430: with $E(B-V) = 0.55$ are reported in Figure \ref{ebvplot} for the following
431: days (after the outburst): 108, 151 (secondary outburst; see later), 202 and
432: 538.
433:
434:
435: %%%Fig.3
436: %\placefigure{plotlines}
437:
438: \begin{figure}
439: %\epsscale{1.15}
440: \plotone{f3.eps}
441: %\plotone{plotlines.ps}
442: \caption{Time evolution of the observed fluxes in the most
443: prominent permitted emission lines of GQ Mus, in units of
444: $10^{-12}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.
445: The vertical dotted and dashed lines indicate the date of
446: discovery and that of the secondary outburst, respectively.}
447: \label{plotlines}
448: \end{figure}
449:
450:
451:
452:
453: %%%Fig.4
454: %\placefigure{pcygni}
455:
456: \begin{figure}
457: %\epsscale{1.15}
458: \plotone{f4.eps}
459: %\plotone{pcygni.ps}
460: \caption{The figure shows the P Cygni profile of the Si IV
461: doublet $\lambda\lambda$ 1393.74, 1402.77 \AA\ of GQ Mus
462: at the time of the secondary outburst on day 150.64 (upper panel)
463: and, for comparison, that of the Neon nova V1974 Cyg obtained
464: on day 45 after discovery (lower panel): the IUE images used
465: are SWP 20211 and SWP44390, respectively. The observed
466: profiles have been fitted with theoretical P Cygni
467: profiles obtained through the SEI method \citep{lam87, gro89}.
468: Fluxes are normalized to the local continuum. The wind terminal
469: velocity derived from the observed profiles is 3200 km~s$^{-1}$
470: in both cases. The laboratory wavelengths of the doublet
471: are indicated as vertical dotted lines. The figure indicates
472: also the position of the violet shifted absorption components
473: from the principal system at 1725 and 2850 km~s$^{-1}$ in
474: V 1974 Cygni \citep{cas04}. Such components cannot be clearly
475: distinguished in GQ Mus due to the poor signal quality (the
476: spectrum is the result of a 11--point running smoothing
477: average).}
478: \label{pcygni}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481:
482:
483: \subsection{Evolution of the UV continuum}
484: \label{uv_evolution_cont}
485: We have measured the mean flux in two narrow bands 20 \AA\ wide centered at
486: 1455 \AA\ and 2855 \AA, selected to best represent the UV continuum because
487: little affected by emission lines (Cassatella et al. 2002). Figure
488: \ref{plotcont} shows the time evolution of the $F(1455$~\AA) and $F(2885$ \AA)
489: fluxes and of the UV color index $C(1455-2885) = -2.5
490: \log[F(1455$~\AA)$/F(2885$~\AA)]. The measurements were made on well exposed
491: low resolution large aperture spectra. Unfortunately, the {\it IUE} spectrum
492: of day 37 (SWP19299), very important because it was the first obtained, was
493: heavily saturated around 1455 \AA. To make a crude estimate of the
494: corresponding flux we have determined the scaling factor between this and the
495: next spectrum obtained on day 49 (SWP 19383), in a region where both were well
496: exposed (1520-1620\AA), and assumed that the spectral slope remained the same
497: in the two spectra. The value so obtained, reported as an open circle in
498: Figure \ref{plotcont}, likely represents an upper limit to the true value
499: because, as shown in the same figure, the UV color was comparatively cooler in
500: the first observations.
501: Figure \ref{plotcont} reports also, for comparison,
502: the visual light curve obtained from the Fine Error Sensor (FES) counts on
503: board {\it IUE}, once corrected for FES time dependent sensitivity degradation
504: (see Cassatella et al. 2004 for details on the FES calibration).
505:
506:
507: It appears from Figure \ref{plotcont} that the gradual fading of the UV and
508: visual fluxes was interrupted, around JD 2,445,499 (day 151), by a secondary
509: outburst, as also noticed by \citet{has90}.
510: The secondary outburst had actually
511: the appearance of a ``UV flash'' because of its especially large amplitude
512: at short wavelengths. Indeed, compared with the {\it IUE} low resolution
513: observations obtained just before and after this event (days 108 and 202),
514: the UV flux increased by a factor of 9 at 1455 \AA\ and by a factor 2.2 at
515: 2885 \AA, while the visual flux increased only by a factor of 1.5. The
516: consequent hardening of the UV continuum is also reflected by the upturn of
517: the $C(1455-2885)$ color index, as shown in the same figure.
518:
519:
520: %\placetable{gqmus_chemical_abundance}
521: %Table 1
522:
523: \begin{deluxetable*}{llllll}
524: %%%\begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
525: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
526: \tablecaption{Chemical Abundance by Weight
527: \label{gqmus_chemical_abundance}}
528: \tablewidth{0pt}
529: \tablehead{
530: \colhead{object} &
531: \colhead{H} &
532: \colhead{CNO} &
533: \colhead{Ne} &
534: \colhead{Na-Fe} &
535: \colhead{reference}
536: %%%%\tablenote{a}
537: %\colhead{} &
538: %\colhead{} &
539: %\colhead{} &
540: %\colhead{} &
541: %\colhead{} &
542: %\colhead{}
543: }
544: \startdata
545: Solar composition & 0.7068 & 0.0140 & 0.0018 & 0.0034 & \citet{gre89} \\
546: GQ Mus 1983 & 0.37 & 0.24 & 0.0023 & 0.0039 & \citet{mor96a} \\
547: GQ Mus 1983 & 0.27 & 0.40 & 0.0034 & 0.023 & \citet{has90} \\
548: GQ Mus 1983 & 0.43 & 0.19 & \nodata & \nodata & \citet{and90}
549: \enddata
550: %%%\tablenotetext{a}{references.--: (1) \citet{geh98}, (2) \citet{van05},
551: %%%(3) , (30) \citet{peq93}, (31) \citet{has90}, (32) \citet{and90},
552: %%%(40) \citet{sch02}}
553: %%%\tablenotetext{b}{\citet{hac05k}}
554: %%%\tablenotetext{c}{\citet{ret97}}
555: %%%\tablenotetext{d}{\citet{sch95}}
556: %%%\end{deluxetable}
557: \end{deluxetable*}
558:
559:
560:
561:
562: % Fig.5
563: %\placefigure{sed_uv_opt_ir_filter}
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \epsscale{1.15}
567: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
568: \plotone{f5.eps}
569: %\plotone{f5bw.eps}
570: %\plotone{sed_uv_opt_ir_filter_color.epsi}
571: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
572: \caption{
573: Schematic representation of the energy spectrum of GQ Mus
574: according to our model. The passbands of the photometric filters
575: used in this work is indicated. The UV 1455\AA~ and supersoft
576: X-ray ($0.1-2.4$~keV) fluxes are calculated from a blackbody
577: spectrum, while the $V$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ magnitudes are from
578: a free-free emission spectrum as shown in the figure. Note that
579: the flux scale of the dereddened blackbody and of the free--free
580: emission corresponds to our $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf model on
581: day 180 as shown in Fig.\ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x},
582: assuming a reddening of $E(B-V)=0.55$. Horizontal short lines
583: denote the energy flux in each filter on day 180; some of them
584: are interpolated from other observational points.
585: The soft X-ray flux is negligibly small on that day.
586: The $V$ and $J$ magnitudes are larger than those of free-free
587: because these bands are heavily contaminated by strong emission
588: lines as explained in the Appendix.}
589: \label{sed_uv_opt_ir_filter}
590: \end{figure}
591:
592:
593:
594: \subsection{Evolution of the UV emission lines}
595: Also the UV emission lines suffered from important changes in coincidence
596: with the secondary outburst of day 151, as shown in Figure \ref{plotlines},
597: which reports, as a function of time, the flux in the most prominent
598: permitted UV emission lines, as measured by us from the available {\it IUE}
599: low resolution spectra. The figure shows that, on day 151, the flux of the
600: high ionization emission lines (\ion{He}{2} 1640 \AA, \ion{N}{5} 1240 \AA\
601: and \ion{C}{4} 1550 \AA) had decreased substantially while, on the contrary,
602: it increased in the low ionization resonance lines of \ion{C}{2} and
603: \ion{O}{1}, so implying a drastic change of the ionization structure of
604: the emitting regions.
605:
606: The other important feature of the secondary outburst was the appearance of a
607: strong P Cygni profile in the \ion{Si}{4} doublet $\lambda\lambda$ 1393.74,
608: 1402.77 \AA, shown in Figure \ref{pcygni}. The figure reports also, for
609: comparison, the \ion{Si}{4} profile of the Neon Nova V1974 Cyg obtained 45
610: days after the outburst. A comparison of observed with theoretical P Cygni
611: profiles computed with the SEI method \citep{lam87, gro89} indicate that the
612: terminal velocity of the wind was about the same for the two novae ($\approx$
613: 3200 km~s$^{-1}$). The special interest of the observations in Figure
614: \ref{pcygni} is that GQ Mus had entered the nebular phase well before day 151,
615: so that the presence of P Cygni profiles was not expected to be
616: detectable at this stage. Indeed, P Cygni profiles were not detectable in
617: an earlier {\it IUE} high resolution spectrum of day 49, despite the factor of
618: two longer exposure time, nor they were at later stages. This strongly
619: suggests that a short duration mass ejection episode took place around day
620: 151. This episode caused efficient recombination to take place in the
621: emitting region, observed as a substantial, although transitory, fainting of
622: the high ionization emission lines (cf. Fig.\ref{plotlines}). The fast
623: recovery of the emission line spectrum by day 202 suggests that the ejected
624: mass must have been small. Also the presence of a flare at UV
625: wavelengths rather than in the optical (cf. Fig. \ref{plotcont})
626: requires a small opacity in the UV and then a small ejected mass.
627:
628:
629: %% In this section, we use the \subsection command to set off
630: %% a subsection. \footnote is used to insert a footnote to the text.
631:
632: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
633: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
634: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
635: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
636: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
637: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
638: %% automatically renumber them.
639:
640: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments
641: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.
642:
643: %% The equation environment will produce a numbered display equation.
644:
645: %% The \notetoeditor{TEXT} command allows the author to communicate
646: %% information to the copy editor. This information will appear as a
647: %% footnote on the printed copy for the manuscript style file. Nothing will
648: %% appear on the printed copy if the preprint or
649: %% preprint2 style files are used.
650:
651: %% The eqnarray environment produces multi-line display math. The end of
652: %% each line is marked with a \\. Lines will be numbered unless the \\
653: %% is preceded by a \nonumber command.
654: %% Alignment points are marked by ampersands (&). There should be two
655: %% ampersands (&) per line.
656:
657: %% Putting eqnarrays or equations inside the mathletters environment groups
658: %% the enclosed equations by letter. For instance, the eqnarray below, instead
659: %% of being numbered, say, (4) and (5), would be numbered (4a) and (4b).
660: %% LaTeX the paper and look at the output to see the results.
661:
662: %% This section contains more display math examples, including unnumbered
663: %% equations (displaymath environment). The last paragraph includes some
664: %% examples of in-line math featuring a couple of the AASTeX symbol macros.
665:
666: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as
667: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered
668: %% by LaTeX.
669:
670:
671:
672: \section{Modeling of Nova Outbursts}
673: \label{model_nova_outburst}
674: We present a unified model for the IR, optical, UV,
675: and supersoft X-ray light curves of the 1983 outburst of
676: GQ Mus. As in Paper I, our models
677: are based on the optically thick wind theory of nova outbursts
678: described in \citet{kat94h}.
679:
680: \subsection{Optically thick wind model}
681: After a thermonuclear runaway sets in on a mass-accreting WD,
682: its envelope expands greatly to $R_{\rm ph} \gtrsim 100 ~R_\sun$,
683: where $R_{\rm ph}$ is the photospheric radius, and it then
684: settles onto steady-state regime. The decay phase of the nova
685: can be followed by a sequence of steady state solutions
686: \citep[e.g.,][]{kat94h}. Using the same method and numerical
687: techniques as in \citet{kat94h}, we have followed the nova
688: evolution by connecting steady state solutions along the envelope
689: mass-decreasing sequence.
690:
691: The equations of motion, radiative diffusion, and conservation
692: of energy are solved from the bottom of the hydrogen-rich envelope
693: through the photosphere under the condition that the solution
694: goes through a critical point of a steady-state wind. The winds
695: are accelerated deep inside the photosphere so that they are
696: called ``optically thick winds.'' We have used updated OPAL
697: opacities \citep{igl96}. One of the boundary conditions for our
698: numerical code consists in assuming that photons are emitted
699: at the photosphere as a blackbody with a photospheric temperature
700: $T_{\rm ph}$. X-ray and UV fluxes are estimated directly from
701: the blackbody emission, but infrared and optical fluxes are
702: calculated from free-free emission by using physical values of
703: our wind solutions as mentioned below in \S\ref{free-free_light_curve}.
704: Physical properties of these wind solutions have already been
705: published \citep[e.g.,][]{hac01ka, hac01kb, hac04k, hkn96, hkn99,
706: hknu99, hkkm00, hac03a, kat83, kat97, kat99}.
707:
708: Optically thick winds stop after a large part of the envelope is
709: blown in the winds. The envelope settles into hydrostatic
710: equilibrium, while its mass decreases in time by nuclear burning.
711: Then we solve the equation of static balance instead of the
712: equation of motion. When the nuclear burning decays, the WD
713: enters a cooling phase, in which the luminosity
714: is supplied with heat flow from the ash of hydrogen burning.
715:
716: % Fig.6
717: %\placefigure{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare}
718:
719: \begin{figure*}
720: %%%\begin{figure}
721: %%%\epsscale{1.15}
722: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
723: \epsscale{0.85}
724: \plotone{f6_color.eps}
725: %\plotone{f6bw.eps}
726: %\plotone{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare2_color.eps}
727: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
728: \caption{
729: Calculated light curves of free-free $V$ magnitude,
730: UV 1455 \AA, and supersoft X-ray ($0.1-2.4$~keV) fluxes are
731: compared with the observations. {\it Open diamonds}: {\it ROSAT}
732: X-ray (0.1--2.4 keV) observations from \citet{sha95} and
733: \citet{ori01}. {\it Open circles}: {\it IUE} UV 1455 \AA\
734: observations. {\it Open triangles}: visual and $V$ magnitudes
735: are from IAU Circulars 3764, 3766, 3771, 3782, and 3853.
736: {\it Open squares}: $V$ magnitude observations from \citet{whi84}
737: and {\it IUE} $V_{\rm FES}$ data. {\it Small circles}: visual
738: magnitude observations from RASNZ and AAVSO.
739: Our best-fit model consists of the white dwarf with mass
740: $0.75~M_\sun$ for the envelope chemical composition of $X=0.55$,
741: $X_{\rm CNO} =0.20$, and $Z=0.02$. An arrow indicates the epoch
742: when the optically thick wind stops. The upper thin solid line
743: is the same as the thick solid line, but lifted up by 4.5 mag
744: to represent contribution of strong emission lines to the $V$
745: bandpass (Papers I and II). Model predictions for white
746: dwarf masses $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$ ({\it thin solid line})
747: and $M_{\rm WD}= 0.8 ~M_\sun$ ({\it dash-dotted line}) are also
748: added for comparison.}
749: \label{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare}
750: %%%\end{figure}
751: \end{figure*}
752:
753:
754: % Fig.7
755: %\placefigure{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x}
756:
757: \begin{figure*}
758: %%%\begin{figure}
759: %%%\epsscale{1.15}
760: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
761: \epsscale{0.85}
762: \plotone{f7_color.eps}
763: %\plotone{f7bw.eps}
764: %\plotone{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare2_color.eps}
765: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
766: \caption{
767: Same as in Fig. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare}, but for
768: our best-fit model of $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$ for the
769: envelope chemical composition of
770: $X=0.45$, $X_{\rm CNO} =0.35$, and $Z=0.02$.
771: Two other cases of the white dwarf mass, $M_{\rm WD}= 0.65 ~M_\sun$
772: ({\it thin solid line}) and $M_{\rm WD}= 0.75 ~M_\sun$ ({\it dash-dotted
773: line}) are also added for comparison.}
774: \label{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x}
775: %%%\end{figure}
776: \end{figure*}
777:
778:
779:
780:
781:
782: % Fig.8
783: %\placefigure{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}
784:
785: \begin{figure*}
786: %%%\begin{figure}
787: %%%\epsscale{1.15}
788: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
789: \epsscale{0.85}
790: \plotone{f8_color.eps}
791: %\plotone{f8bw.eps}
792: %\plotone{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x2_color.eps}
793: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
794: \caption{
795: Same as Fig. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare},
796: but for our best-fit model of the white dwarf mass of $0.65~M_\sun$
797: for the envelope chemical composition of
798: $X=0.35$, $X_{\rm CNO} =0.30$, and $Z=0.02$.
799: Two other cases of the white dwarf mass, $M_{\rm WD}= 0.6 ~M_\sun$
800: ({\it thin solid line}) and $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$ ({\it dash-dotted
801: line}) are also added for comparison.}
802: \label{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}
803: %%%\end{figure}
804: \end{figure*}
805:
806:
807:
808: \subsection{Multiwavelength light curves}
809: In the optically thick wind model, a large part of the envelope
810: is ejected continuously during a relatively long period
811: \citep[e.g.,][]{kat94h}. After maximum expansion, the photospheric
812: radius gradually decreases keeping the total luminosity
813: ($L_{\rm ph}$) almost constant. The photospheric temperature
814: ($T_{\rm ph}$) increases with time because of $L_{\rm ph} = 4 \pi
815: R_{\rm ph}^2 \sigma T_{\rm ph}^4$. The maximum emission shifts
816: from the optical to supersoft X-ray through ultraviolet (UV) and
817: extreme ultraviolet (EUV). This causes the luminosity to decrease
818: in the optical and to increase in the UV, until it reaches
819: a maximum. The following decay in the UV is accompanied
820: by an increase of the supersoft X-ray range. These
821: timescales depend crucially on the WD parameters such as
822: the WD mass and the chemical composition of the envelope
823: \citep[e.g.][Paper I]{kat97}. Thus, we can follow the development
824: of optical, UV, and supersoft X-ray light curves by a single
825: modeled sequence of steady wind solutions.
826:
827:
828: \subsection{Free-free light curves}
829: \label{free-free_light_curve}
830: Spectra of novae show blackbody features at very early stages,
831: but free-free emission from optically thin plasma will eventually
832: dominate \citep[e.g.,][]{gal76, kra84}. During the optically
833: thick wind phase (see Paper I for more details), the extended
834: regions outside the photosphere are optically thin.
835: The optical and IR free-free emission fluxes arising from these
836: regions can be estimated from
837: \begin{equation}
838: F_\nu \propto \int N_e N_i d V
839: \propto \int_{R_{\rm ph}}^\infty {\dot M_{\rm wind}^2
840: \over {v_{\rm wind}^2 r^4}} r^2 dr
841: \propto {\dot M_{\rm wind}^2 \over {v_{\rm ph}^2 R_{\rm ph}}},
842: \label{free-free-wind}
843: \end{equation}
844: where $F_\nu$ is the flux at the frequency $\nu$,
845: $N_e$ and $N_i$ are the number densities of electrons
846: and ions, respectively, $V$ is the volume of the optically thin
847: region, $R_{\rm ph}$ is the photospheric radius,
848: $\dot M_{\rm wind}$ is the wind mass loss rate, and $v_{\rm ph}$
849: is the photospheric velocity. In equation (\ref{free-free-wind})
850: we assume that the electron temperature and the degree of
851: ionization are constant in the free-free emitting region.
852: We also assume that $N_e \propto \rho_{\rm wind}$, $N_i \propto
853: \rho_{\rm wind}$, and use the continuity equation, i.e.,
854: $\rho_{\rm wind} = \dot M_{\rm wind}/ 4 \pi r^2 v_{\rm wind}$,
855: where $\rho_{\rm wind}$ and $v_{\rm wind}$ are the density and
856: velocity of the wind, respectively. Finally, we assume
857: that $v_{\rm wind}= {\rm const.}= v_{\rm ph}$ in the optically
858: thin region.
859:
860: After the optically thick wind stops, the total mass of the
861: ejecta remains constant in time. The flux from such homologously
862: expanding ejecta is approximately given by
863: \begin{equation}
864: F_\nu \propto \int N_e N_i d V
865: \propto \rho_{\rm ej}^2 V_{\rm ej} \propto \left({{M_{\rm ej}}
866: \over V_{\rm ej}} \right)^2 V_{\rm ej}~ \propto V_{\rm ej}^{-1}
867: \propto R^{-3} \propto t^{-3},
868: \label{free-free-stop}
869: \end{equation}
870: where $\rho_{\rm ej}$, $V_{\rm ej}$, and $M_{\rm ej}
871: (= {\rm const.})$ are the density, volume, and total mass,
872: respectively, of the ejecta. We assume that the ejecta are
873: expanding at a constant velocity, $v$. So we have the radius of
874: the ejecta of $R = v t$, where $t$ is the time after the outburst.
875: The proportionality constants in equations (\ref{free-free-wind})
876: and (\ref{free-free-stop}) cannot be determined a priori
877: because radiative transfer is not calculated outside
878: the photosphere: these were determined using the procedure
879: described below in \S\ref{light_curve_fitting}.
880:
881:
882: % Fig.9
883: %\placefigure{gq_mus_m0700_x45z02c15o20_i_j_h_k}
884:
885: \begin{figure*}
886: %%%\begin{figure}
887: %%%\epsscale{1.15}
888: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
889: \epsscale{0.85}
890: \plotone{f9_color.eps}
891: %\plotone{f9bw.eps}
892: %\plotone{gq_mus_m0700_x45z02c15o20_i_j_h_k_color.eps}
893: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
894: \caption{
895: Near-infrared multiwavelength light curves ($I$, $J$, $H$, and
896: $K$) for free-free emission, based on equation (\ref{free-free-wind}),
897: and our model light curve corresponding to $M_{\rm WD} = 0.70
898: ~M_\sun$, $X=0.45$, and $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$, together with the
899: observations. {\it Thick solid line:} fit of the early phase.
900: {\it Thin solid line:} fit of the late phase after the transition
901: phase (see, e.g., Papers I and II). {\it Open circles:} end of
902: the wind phase. (a) $I$ magnitudes from free-free emission: These
903: thick and thin lines are overlapped. (b) $J$ magnitudes of
904: free-free emission. The \ion{He}{1}~$\lambda 10830$ contributes
905: to the $J$ band from the very early phase of the outburst
906: \citep{whi84, kra84}, so one more line ({\it dash-dotted}) is
907: added to represent the very early phase. (c) $H$ magnitudes
908: of free-free emission. (d) $K$ magnitudes of free-free emission.
909: Observational data ($I$, $J$, $H$, and $K$) are taken from
910: \citet{whi84} and \citet{kra84}. Essentially the same figures
911: are obtained for the other two cases of $M_{\rm WD} = 0.75 ~M_\sun$,
912: $X=0.55$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.20$ (see Fig.
913: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare}), and $M_{\rm WD} = 0.65
914: ~M_\sun$, $X=0.35$, and $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.30$ (see Fig.
915: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}).}
916: \label{gq_mus_m0700_x45z02c15o20_i_j_h_k}
917: %%%\end{figure}
918: \end{figure*}
919:
920:
921:
922:
923: \subsection{System parameters of optically thick wind model}
924: The light curves of our optically thick wind model are
925: parameterized by the WD mass ($M_{\rm WD}$),
926: the chemical composition of the envelope ($X$, $X_{\rm CNO}$,
927: $X_{\rm Ne}$, and $Z$), and the envelope mass
928: ($\Delta M_{\rm env, 0}$) at the time of the outburst (JD 2,445,348.0).
929: For the metal abundance we adopt $Z=0.02$,
930: which also includes carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon
931: with solar composition ratios.
932:
933: Three different sets of abundance determinations for the ejecta of
934: GQ Mus are available from the literature, but their values are
935: rather scattered, as it appears from Table
936: \ref{gqmus_chemical_abundance}. We here consider three cases,
937: in order of decreasing hydrogen content in the envelope, not
938: directly corresponding to the three sets of abundance determination
939: in Table \ref{gqmus_chemical_abundance}:
940: \noindent a) $X= 0.55$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.20$, $X_{\rm Ne}= 0.0$,
941: and $Z=0.02$;
942: \noindent b) $X= 0.45$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$, $X_{\rm Ne}= 0.0$,
943: and $Z=0.02$;
944: \noindent c) $X= 0.35$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.30$, $X_{\rm Ne}= 0.0$,
945: and $Z=0.02$.
946: These composition sets correspond to assuming 25\%, 55\%,
947: and 100\% mixing of C+O WD matter with a hydrogen-rich envelope
948: with solar composition. If we change $X_{\rm CNO}$ while
949: keeping the hydrogen content $X$ constant, the light curves
950: hardly change provided $X_{\rm CNO} \gtrsim 0.2$.
951:
952: We have searched for the best fit model by changing the WD mass
953: in steps of $0.05~M_\sun$ for the above three sets of chemical
954: compositions.
955:
956:
957:
958:
959: \section{Light curve fitting}
960: \label{light_curve_fitting}
961: We apply to GQ Muscae 1983 the model light curves of classical
962: novae described in the previous section , and evaluate its
963: fundamental parameters. The optical $V$ magnitude and the near
964: infrared $I$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ magnitudes are calculated from
965: free-free emission, while the UV 1455 \AA\ and supersoft X-ray
966: fluxes are obtained from blackbody emission, as
967: illustrated in Figure \ref{sed_uv_opt_ir_filter}.
968:
969: Models and observations are compared in Figures
970: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
971: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x} which refer to,
972: respectively, the three following chemical compositions sets:
973: $(X,Y,X_{\rm CNO},Z)=$ $(0.55, 0.23, 0.20, 0.02)$,
974: $(0.45, 0.18, 0.35, 0.02)$, and $(0.35, 0.33, 0.30, 0.02)$.
975: The white dwarf mass range explored is $M_{\rm WD}= 0.60$ to
976: $0.80 ~M_\sun$, in $0.05~M_\sun$ steps. In each figure,
977: the thick solid line represents the white dwarf mass value
978: that leads to the best representation of the data for the above
979: chemical composition sets.
980:
981:
982: \subsection{Supersoft X-ray fluxes}
983: The decay time of the supersoft X-ray flux is a good indicator
984: of the WD mass (Paper I). Through a careful visual inspection
985: to the data, we have selected the models that best fitted
986: the {\it ROSAT} observations \citep{oge93, sha95, ori01, bal01}.
987: The model and the observed supersoft X-ray light curves
988: are reported in Figures \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare}
989: -- \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}.
990:
991:
992:
993: \subsection{Continuum UV 1455 \AA~ fluxes}
994: The light curves in the UV 1455 \AA\ continuum are a good
995: indicator of photospheric temperature during the early decay
996: phase of novae. Such curves are in general quite smooth,
997: as shown by \citet{cas02} for several objects observed with
998: {\it IUE}. A comparison of models with observed UV light
999: curves (see Figs. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1000: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}) shows that
1001: this is also the case of GQ Mus, except for the two earliest
1002: observations on day 37 and 49, and that of day 151. Leaving
1003: these data apart, we find that the model that best fits the data
1004: is that of a white dwarf with mass $M_{\rm WD} = 0.75$, 0.7,
1005: and $0.65~M_\sun$, for the three above chemical composition
1006: sets, respectively. As for the observation of day 151, the large deviation
1007: from the model's smooth trend is clearly due to the occurrence of the UV flash
1008: discussed in \S 3.2. The otherwise good agreement between models and
1009: observations shown in the above figures may suggest that also the observations
1010: of day 37 and 49 are due to a UV flash (see discussion in
1011: \S\ref{UV_flushes}).
1012:
1013: % Fig.10
1014: %\placefigure{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}
1015:
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \epsscale{1.15}
1018: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1019: \plotone{f10_color.eps}
1020: %\plotone{f10bw.eps}
1021: %\plotone{gq_mus_softXray_r_t_m0700_x45z02c15o20_color.eps}
1022: %%\plotone{gq_mus_softXray_r_t_color.eps}
1023: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1024: \caption{
1025: Evolution of wind mass loss rate ($\dot M_{\rm wind}$:
1026: {\it dashed line}), photospheric temperature ($T_{\rm ph}$:
1027: {\it upper thin solid line}), photospheric radius ($R_{\rm ph}$:
1028: {\it middle thin solid line}), photospheric luminosity
1029: ($L_{\rm ph}$: {\it lower thin solid line}), and X-ray flux
1030: ({\it thick solid line}) of our $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7~M_\sun$ model
1031: for the envelope chemical composition of $X=0.45$,
1032: $X_{\rm CNO} =0.35$, and $Z=0.02$. {\it Open diamonds}:
1033: Observational X-ray count rates taken from \citet{sha95} and
1034: \citet{ori01}. {\it Open squares and open triangles}:
1035: photospheric temperatures and photospheric radii, respectively,
1036: taken from \citet{bal01}.
1037: \label{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}}
1038: \end{figure}
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043: \subsection{Optical and infrared fluxes}
1044: \label{optical_infrared}
1045: The visual light curves computed from free-free emission are
1046: compared with the observed ones in Figures
1047: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1048: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x} for the above
1049: chemical composition sets. As discussed in \S 1 and in Papers I
1050: and II, visual magnitudes are contaminated by strong emission
1051: lines which will eventually dominate over the continuum, causing
1052: an increasing deviation from our free-free models. In GQ Mus,
1053: the forbidden [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda\lambda$ 4959, 5007 emission
1054: lines already appeared 39 days after the outburst \citep{kra84}.
1055: At about this date the observed visual light curve did actually
1056: start to show an increasing deviation from the free--free
1057: emission model until, by about day 500, the contribution from
1058: the emission lines stabilized so that the observed light curve
1059: recovered the the shape of the model curve. This effect is
1060: approximatively taken into account by lifting up the template
1061: light-curve of GQ Mus by about 4.5 mag, as shown in Figures
1062: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1063: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}.
1064:
1065:
1066: On the other hand, the near infrared $IJHK$ bands are not so
1067: heavily contaminated by emission lines, as shown in Figure
1068: \ref{gq_mus_m0700_x45z02c15o20_i_j_h_k}, where the $IJHK$
1069: photometric data from \citet{whi84} are compared with our
1070: theoretical light curve. The figure shows that the model
1071: fits the observations reasonably well until about day 100
1072: (thick solid line in the figure), being anyhow the deviations
1073: after that date sensibly smaller than in the visual.
1074: The contribution from emission lines is particularly small in
1075: the $I$, $H$, and $K$ bands, whereas the emission line of
1076: \ion{He}{1} $\lambda 10830$ contributes somewhat to the $J$
1077: band from the very early phase \citep{whi84, kra84}.
1078: To mimic the different contribution by the emission lines at
1079: different phases of the nova development, it is sufficient
1080: to lift up the template free-free line two times (starting
1081: from the dash-dotted line representing the very early phases,
1082: to the thick solid line representing the intermediate phases,
1083: and then finally to the thin solid line, representing the late
1084: phases).
1085:
1086:
1087: % $V~(0.55\mu,~0.083\mu)$, $y~(0.55\mu,~0.024\mu)$,
1088: % $I_J~(0.88\mu,~0.17\mu)$, $I_C~(0.81\mu,~0.15\mu)$,
1089: % $J~(1.26\mu,~0.31\mu)$, $H~(1.62\mu,~0.28\mu)$,
1090: % and $K~(2.15\mu, ~0.35\mu)$.
1091:
1092: To summarize the results in this section, the white dwarf mass
1093: that best reproduces the X-ray, UV, optical, and near IR is
1094: $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 \pm 0.05 ~M_\sun$, where the error bar reflects
1095: mainly the uncertainty on chemical composition.
1096:
1097:
1098:
1099: \section{Discussion}
1100: % Fig.11
1101: %\placefigure{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t}
1102:
1103: \begin{figure}
1104: \epsscale{1.15}
1105: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1106: \plotone{f11_color.eps}
1107: %\plotone{f11bw.eps}
1108: %\plotone{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t_m0700_x45z02c15o20_color.eps}
1109: %\plotone{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t_color.eps}
1110: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1111: \caption{
1112: Photospheric temperature ($T_{\rm ph}$: {\it upper thin solid
1113: line}), photospheric luminosity ($L_{\rm ph}$: {\it middle thin solid
1114: line}), photospheric radius ($R_{\rm ph}$: {\it thin solid line from
1115: left-upper to right-lower}), and UV 1455 \AA~ flux ({\it thick solid
1116: line}) of our $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7~M_\sun$ model for the envelope chemical
1117: composition of $X=0.45$ and $X_{\rm CNO} =0.35$. {\it Open circles}: UV
1118: 1455 \AA~ fluxes. Visual magnitude are also shown (as $9 - m_V /
1119: 2.5$) using the same symbols as in Figs.
1120: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1121: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x}.
1122: \label{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t}}
1123: \end{figure}
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127: % Fig.12
1128: %\placefigure{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20}
1129:
1130: \begin{figure}
1131: \epsscale{1.15}
1132: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1133: \plotone{f12_color.eps}
1134: %\plotone{f12bw.eps}
1135: %\plotone{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20_color.eps}
1136: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1137: \caption{ Visual and $V$ magnitudes during 300 days after the optical maximum.
1138: The same symbols as in Figs. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1139: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x} except the {\it IUE}
1140: $V_{\rm FES}$ magnitude ({\it filled squares}).
1141: Two free-free light curves are plotted both
1142: for the {\it IUE} $V_{\rm FES}$ magnitudes and for Whitelock et
1143: al.'s (1984) $V$ magnitudes. The $V_{\rm FES}$ data are $0.5-0.8$ mag
1144: brighter than those of Whitelock et al.'s.
1145: The $t_3$ time ({\it left arrow}) is estimated to be 50 days from
1146: Whitelock et al.'s $V$ magnitudes together with the peak brightness of
1147: 7.2 mag \citep{lil83}. Note that the decay time
1148: ({\it right arrow}: $t_3= 122$ days)
1149: corresponding to our universal decline law
1150: ({\it lower solid free-free line}) is sensibly larger
1151: than that previously quoted. See text for more details.
1152: \label{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20}}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155:
1156: % Fig.13
1157: %\placefigure{uv_outburst}
1158:
1159: \begin{figure}
1160: \epsscale{0.9}
1161: %%%\epsscale{0.7}
1162: \plotone{f13.eps}
1163: %\plotone{uv_outburst.eps}
1164: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1165: \caption{
1166: Color-temperature relation for nova wind solutions.
1167: The UV color of $C(1455-2885)$ is defined by
1168: $-2.5 \log( F(1455) / F(2885))$.
1169: {\it Filled circles connected with a solid line}:
1170: reddening-corrected $C(1455-2885)$ v.s.
1171: the photospheric temperature $T_{\rm eff}$
1172: corresponding to our best fit model.
1173: {\it Open triangles}: color-temperature relations estimated from
1174: Fig. 10 of \citet{hau97} and Fig.8 of \citet{sho99}.
1175: See text for more details.
1176: \label{uv_outburst}}
1177: \end{figure}
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182: % Fig.14
1183: %\placefigure{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}
1184:
1185: \begin{figure}
1186: \epsscale{0.9}
1187: %%%\epsscale{0.7}
1188: \plotone{f14_color.eps}
1189: %\plotone{f14bw.eps}
1190: %\plotone{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0800_x55z02c10o10_color.eps}
1191: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1192: \caption{Distance-reddening relations derived from the UV 1455 \AA\
1193: fitting (solid line labeled ``UV 1455 \AA\ '')
1194: of our model $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$, $X=0.45$,
1195: and $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$ and the maximum magnitude vs. rate of decline
1196: (labeled ``MMRD1'' and ``MMRD2''). The dashed line labeled
1197: ``MMRD1'' is a MMRD relation calculated from Schmidt-Kaler's law, i.e.,
1198: eq. (\ref{schmidt-kaler-law}) together with $t_3 = 50$ days.
1199: The solid line labeled ``MMRD2'' is the
1200: same MMRD relation calculated from $t_3 = 122$ days estimated from our
1201: universal decline law. An arrow indicates our value
1202: of $E(B-V)= 0.55$, which is an error-weighted mean of
1203: $E(B-V)=0.51 \pm 0.06$ and $0.58 \pm 0.04$ in \S 3.1.
1204: See text for more details.
1205: \label{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}}
1206: \end{figure}
1207:
1208:
1209:
1210: \subsection{Overall Development of the Nova Outburst}
1211: In this subsection, we analyze the overall development of
1212: the nova outburst based on our model of $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7
1213: ~M_\sun$, $X=0.45$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$, and $Z=0.02$
1214: (Fig. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x}).
1215: Figures \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t} --
1216: \ref{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20} report some relevant
1217: model predictions and observations as a function of time.
1218: First we point out two important epochs of the nova development:
1219: one is the end of optically thick wind phase on day 1000, and
1220: the other is the end of hydrogen shell burning on day 3300
1221: as summarized in Table \ref{properties_gq_mus}. Because of
1222: the rapid shrinking of the the photospheric radius ($R_{\rm ph}$),
1223: also the photospheric temperature ($T_{\rm ph}$) rapidly
1224: increases until the wind stops, as indicated in Figure
1225: \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}. Also the wind mass loss rate
1226: ($\dot M_{\rm wind}$) decreases rapidly from $\sim 2 \times
1227: 10^{-4} M_\sun$~yr$^{-1}$ to $1 \times 10^{-7} M_\sun$~yr$^{-1}$
1228: during the first 1000 days. Thus the total mass ejected by the
1229: winds amounts to $\sim 2 \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$. After the wind
1230: stops, the photospheric radius becomes smaller than $\sim 0.1
1231: ~R_\sun$, and the photospheric temperature eventually becomes
1232: larger than 20 eV, so that the nova enters a supersoft X-ray
1233: phase. After the hydrogen shell burning ends, the nova cools
1234: down rapidly, and a fast decay phase of the supersoft X-ray flux
1235: follows, as already shown in the previous section. In what
1236: follows, we summarize some relevant observational aspects and
1237: make a comparison with our model predictions.
1238:
1239: From the coronal lines in the optical spectrum \citet{dia92}
1240: deduced a luminosity of $10^{37} - 10^{38}$ ergs~s$^{-1}$
1241: and a temperature of $(2-3) \times 10^5$~K.
1242: These values are consistent with our model of a $0.7~M_\sun$
1243: WD, which provides $T_{\rm ph} = 4 \times 10^5$~K and
1244: $L_{\rm ph}= 6 \times 10^{37}$ ergs~s$^{-1}$ about 2700 days
1245: after the outburst, as it may be appreciated from Figure
1246: \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}.
1247:
1248: \citet{dia95} estimated a central source temperature of
1249: 164,000~K, a luminosity of $350 ~L_\sun$, and an ejecta mass
1250: of $5 \times 10^{-4} M_\sun$, about 4000 days after the outburst.
1251: For our best-fit model of a $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf
1252: with an initial envelope mass of $\Delta M_0 = 2.7 \times 10^{-5}
1253: M_\sun$, the total mass lost by the optically thick wind is
1254: $\Delta M_{\rm wind} = 1.9 \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$.
1255: We also obtain $T_{\rm ph} = 1.5 \times 10^5$~K
1256: and $L_{\rm ph}= 4 \times 10^{35}$ergs~s$^{-1} \approx 100
1257: ~L_\sun$, 4000 days after the outburst, as shown in Figure
1258: \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}. Our values are then very consistent
1259: with those obtained by \citet{dia95}, except for their larger
1260: ejected mass (see below for another estimate).
1261:
1262: The envelope mass itself depends mainly on the white dwarf
1263: mass and slightly on the chemical composition.
1264: For a $0.65 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf, $X=0.35$,
1265: and $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.30$, we obtain a slightly larger
1266: envelope mass, $\Delta M_0 = 3.6 \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$,
1267: and a larger wind mass loss, $\Delta M_{\rm wind} =
1268: 2.3 \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$. On the other hand, for a
1269: $0.75 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf with $X=0.55$, and $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.20$,
1270: %3.75E-6 He, 2.84E-5 at 0, 3.95E-6 residual
1271: %3.73E-6 He, 2.5E-5 at 0, 3.95E-6 residual
1272: we obtain a slightly smaller envelope mass, $\Delta M_0 = 2.6
1273: \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$, and a smaller wind mass loss, $\Delta
1274: M_{\rm wind} = 1.7 \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$.
1275:
1276: Using their photoionization model, \citet{mor96b} estimated the
1277: temperatures during the static phase and at the hydrogen
1278: burning turnoff to be $2.5 \times 10^5$ K and $4.1 \times
1279: 10^5$ K, respectively, and an ejected shell mass of $8 \times
1280: 10^{-5} M_\sun$. These values are consistent with our model,
1281: i.e., $> 2.4 \times 10^5$ K, $> 4.4 \times 10^5$ K, and $2
1282: \times 10^{-5} M_\sun$. The above authors determined the
1283: duration of the wind phase and of the static hydrogen burning
1284: phase to be $< 0.52$ yr and $8.8$ yr, to be compared with our
1285: values of 2.7 yr and 6.3 yr, respectively. The much longer
1286: duration of the wind phase obtained by us is likely due to
1287: the rapid decrease of the wind mass loss rate with an e-folding
1288: time of 0.24 yr, corresponding to a decrease by a factor of
1289: 10 in 0.7 yr.
1290:
1291:
1292:
1293: \subsection{Photospheric Temperature Development}
1294: Figure \ref{uv_outburst} shows the reddening corrected UV color
1295: index $C(1455-2885)$ as a function of the photospheric temperature
1296: obtained from our best-fit model at the time of the individual
1297: observations (filled circles). The figure indicates that the
1298: color index decreases smoothly with increasing temperature
1299: except for its abrupt decrease at the time of the UV flash on
1300: day 151 (note that the temperature increases with time in these
1301: early phases).
1302:
1303: It is interesting to compare the color--$T_{\rm ph}$ values reported
1304: in Figure \ref{uv_outburst} with those derived from \citet{hau97}
1305: and \citet{sho99}, who calculated early-time nova spectra using
1306: non-LTE atmosphere codes with winds having density and velocity laws
1307: within the nova envelope. For this comparison, we have taken
1308: the values of $C(1455-2885)$ from Figure 10 of \citet{hau97} for
1309: $T_{\rm eff}= 15,000$, 20,000, 25,000, and 30,000 K, and from
1310: Figure 8 of \citet{sho99} for $T_{\rm eff}= 35,000$ K.
1311: The model values of $C(1455-2885)$
1312: so obtained are plotted as a function of the corresponding
1313: effective temperature in Figure \ref{uv_outburst} (open triangles).
1314: It clearly appears from Figure \ref{uv_outburst} that the two sets
1315: of values are very consistent with each other, except for the UV
1316: flash on day 151. This result supports our assumption that the
1317: UV 1455 \AA\ flux is reasonably well accounted for by blackbody
1318: emission. Indeed, line blanketing is rather small at this
1319: wavelength, so that the blackbody model does not deviate much
1320: from Hauschildt et al.'s non-LTE models, as already discussed
1321: in Paper I.
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: \subsection{Emergence of the secondary component}
1326: The mass of the donor star (the secondary component) can be
1327: estimated from the orbital period. \citet{dia89, dia94}
1328: obtained $P_{\rm orb}= 0.05936$~days ($1.425$~hr) from the
1329: orbital modulations with an amplitude of 0.6 mag. Using
1330: Warner's (1995) empirical formula
1331: \begin{equation}
1332: {{M_2} \over {M_\sun}} \approx 0.065 \left({{P_{\rm orb}}
1333: \over {\rm hours}}\right)^{5/4},
1334: \mbox{~for~} 1.3 < {{P_{\rm orb}} \over {\rm hours}} < 9
1335: \label{warner_mass_formula}
1336: \end{equation}
1337: we get $M_2 = 0.10 ~M_\sun$. The orbital separation is then
1338: $a = 0.59 ~R_\sun$ for $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$, the effective
1339: radius of the Roche lobe for the primary component (white dwarf)
1340: is $R_1^* = 0.33 ~R_\sun$, and the effective radius of the
1341: secondary is $R_2^* = 0.14 ~R_\sun$. In our model, the companion
1342: emerges from the white dwarf envelope when the photospheric
1343: radius of the white dwarf shrinks to $R_{\rm ph} \sim 0.6 ~R_\sun$
1344: (the separation) or $0.3~R_\sun$ (the Roche lobe). This
1345: happens on about day~330 or 500, respectively, in our best-fit
1346: model with $M_{\rm WD}= 0.7 ~M_\sun$, as shown in Figures
1347: \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t} and \ref{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t}.
1348:
1349: %% M1= 0.6500 M2= 0.1000
1350: %% AA= 0.582 RL1= 0.316 RL2= 0.136
1351:
1352: %% M1= 0.7000 M2= 0.1000
1353: %% AA= 0.594 RL1= 0.326 RL2= 0.136
1354:
1355:
1356: According to \citet{whi84}, strong infrared coronal lines appeared
1357: 57 days after optical maximum in V1500 Cyg, but were not present
1358: in GQ Mus as late as 97 days after maximum. Their appearance
1359: roughly coincides with the emergence of the companion from the
1360: white dwarf photosphere: this suggests that these strong coronal
1361: lines arise from the shock between the white dwarf wind and
1362: companion star. Indeed, the emergence of the companion in V1500
1363: Cyg took place about 50 days after optical maximum (Paper I),
1364: which is consistent with the appearance of the line 57 days after
1365: maximum. In the case of GQ Mus, the absence of strong coronal
1366: lines on day 97 days is consistent with our model in which the
1367: companion emerged about 330 or 500 days after maximum.
1368:
1369: In their study of GQ Mus, \citet{kra89} reported that the
1370: [\ion{Fe}{10}] $\lambda 6374$ coronal line first appeared 2.2 to
1371: 3.4 yrs after the outburst, and became the strongest about 4 years
1372: after it. They argued that the coronal line was due to
1373: photoionization from a hot radiation source rather than to
1374: collisional excitation. In our $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf model,
1375: the optically thick wind stopped about 960 days (2.7 yrs) after
1376: the outburst and then the photospheric temperature gradually
1377: increased to above $20-25$ eV 4 yrs after the outburst, as shown
1378: in Figures \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t} and \ref{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t}.
1379: These authors suggested that $\sim 3 \times 10^5$ K in 1984,
1380: which is consistent with our photospheric temperature of
1381: $T_{\rm ph}= 2.2 \times 10^5$~K 2.2 yr after the outburst
1382: (Figs. \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t} and \ref{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t}).
1383:
1384:
1385: \subsection{Hard X-ray component}
1386: \citet{oge87} reported that the count rate of the {\it EXOSAT}
1387: low-energy telescope was about $3 \times 10^{-3}$ c~s$^{-1}$
1388: 400 days to 700 days after optical maximum, a value that
1389: gradually decreased to $1 \times 10^{-3}$ c~s$^{-1}$ about
1390: 900 days after it.
1391:
1392: If the X-rays originates from the shock between the wind and
1393: the companion star, the soft X-ray behavior is consistent with
1394: our $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf model (as well as $0.75 ~M_\sun$
1395: and $0.65 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf models), because the emergence
1396: of the companion star is predicted to happen on day 330, and the
1397: wind stopped at 960 days after optical maximum.
1398:
1399:
1400:
1401: % Table 2
1402: %\placetable{system_parameters}
1403:
1404: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllll}
1405: %%%\begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
1406: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1407: \tablecaption{Properties of GQ Muscae
1408: \label{system_parameters}}
1409: \tablewidth{0pt}
1410: \tablehead{
1411: \colhead{subject} &
1412: \colhead{...} &
1413: \colhead{data} &
1414: \colhead{units} &
1415: \colhead{reference}
1416: }
1417: \startdata
1418: discovery & ... & 2,445,352.6 & JD & \citet{lil83} \\
1419: nova speed class & ... & moderately fast & & \citet{whi84} \\
1420: $t_2$ & ... & 18 & days & \citet{whi84} \\
1421: $t_3$ & ... & 48 & days & \citet{whi84} \\
1422: $M_{V, {\rm peak}}$ from $t_3$ &... & $-7.55$ & mag & \citet{whi84} \\
1423: distance from $t_3$ &... & 5 & kpc & \citet{whi84} \\
1424: dust & ... & no & & \citet{whi84} \\
1425: orbital period & ... & 1.425 & hr & \citet{dia95} \\
1426: $E(B-V)$ & ... & 4.5 & & \citet{kra84} \\
1427: %%%obs. WD mass & ... & $M_\sun$ & \nodata \\
1428: wind phase & ... & $< 0.5$ & yr & \citet{mor96b} \\
1429: H-burning phase & ... & 3300 & days & \citet{sha95}
1430: \enddata
1431: %\tablenotetext{a}{xxxxxxxxxx}
1432: %%%\end{deluxetable}
1433: \end{deluxetable*}
1434:
1435:
1436:
1437: % Table 3
1438: %\placetable{properties_gq_mus}
1439:
1440: %%%%%\clearpage
1441: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
1442: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1443: \tablecaption{Summary of our model
1444: \label{properties_gq_mus}}
1445: \tablewidth{0pt}
1446: \tablehead{
1447: \colhead{subject} &
1448: \colhead{...} &
1449: \colhead{data} &
1450: \colhead{units}
1451: }
1452: \startdata
1453: outburst day & ... & 2,445,348.0 & JD \\
1454: opt. maximum & ... & 2,445,352.6 & JD \\
1455: $t_2$ & ... & 67\tablenotemark{a} & days \\
1456: $t_3$ & ... & 122\tablenotemark{a} & days \\
1457: $M_{V, {\rm peak}}$ from $t_3$ &... & $-6.53$\tablenotemark{b} & mag \\
1458: distance from $t_3$ &... & $5.0 \pm 0.3$ & kpc \\
1459: %early osc. & ... & yes & \\
1460: %transition osc. & ... & yes & \\
1461: %dust &... & no & \\
1462: %orbital period & ... & 1.425\tablenotemark{c} & hr \\
1463: secondary mass & ... & 0.1\tablenotemark{c} & $M_\sun$ \\
1464: $E(B-V)$ & ... & $0.55 \pm 0.05$ & \\
1465: distance by UV fit & ... & $4.9 \pm 0.9$ & kpc \\
1466: $t_{\rm break}$\tablenotemark{d} & ... & 275 & day \\
1467: WD mass & ... & $0.7 \pm 0.05$ & $M_\sun$ \\
1468: WD envelope mass & ... & $(2.6 - 3.6) \times 10^{-5}$ & $M_\sun$ \\
1469: mass lost by wind & ... & $(1.7 - 2.3) \times 10^{-5}$ & $M_\sun$ \\
1470: wind phase & ... & $1000$ & days \\
1471: H-burning phase & ... & $3300$ & days \\
1472: separation & ... & 0.6 & $R_\sun$ \\
1473: companion's emergence & ... & $330 \pm 30$ & days \\
1474: UV flash luminosity & ... & $\gtrsim 45,000$\tablenotemark{e} & $L_\sun$
1475: \enddata
1476: \tablenotetext{a}{$t_2$ and $t_3$ are calculated from our fitted
1477: universal decline law.}
1478: \tablenotetext{b}{calculated from equation (\ref{schmidt-kaler-law})
1479: together with $t_3$ above.}
1480: \tablenotetext{c}{estimated from equation (\ref{warner_mass_formula}).}
1481: \tablenotetext{d}{see Paper I.}
1482: \tablenotetext{e}{estimated from a blackbody of $T \sim 10^5$~K.}
1483: \end{deluxetable}
1484:
1485:
1486:
1487:
1488:
1489: \subsection{Distance}
1490: \citet{whi84} and \citet{kra84} have estimated the distance to
1491: GQ Mus from the apparent and the absolute $V$ magnitudes at
1492: maximum, $m_{\rm V}$ and $M_{\rm V}$. This latter was computed
1493: from the $t_3$ time through the Schmidt--Kaler Maximum Magnitude
1494: Rate of Decline (MMRD) relation \citep{sch57}:
1495: \begin{equation}
1496: M_V = -11.75 + 2.5 \log t_3.
1497: \label{schmidt-kaler-law}
1498: \end{equation}
1499: Despite the sensibly different input values adopted of 48 and 40
1500: days for $t_3$, 0.4 and 0.45 for $E(B-V)$, and 7.2 and 6 for
1501: $m_V$, these authors obtained quite similar values for the
1502: distance, 5 kpc and 4.8 kpc, respectively.
1503:
1504: A re-analysis of the merged visual magnitude data present in the
1505: literature (see plot in Fig.
1506: \ref{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20}) confirms $t_3
1507: \approx 50$ days, in close agreement with \citet{whi84},
1508: so that $M_V =-7.5$ [cf. equation (\ref{schmidt-kaler-law})].
1509: If, together with \citet{whi84}, we take $m_{V, {\rm max}} =
1510: 7.2$ as the best estimate of the apparent magnitude at optical
1511: maximum \citep{lil83}, we finally obtain the following relation
1512: between distance and $E(B-V)$:
1513: \begin{equation}
1514: m_V- M_V = -5 ~+~ 5 \log~d ~+~ 3.1 E(B-V)= 14.7,
1515: \label{modulus}
1516: \end{equation}
1517: which is labeled ``MMRD1'' in Figure
1518: \ref{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}.
1519: In particular, the value $E(B-V)= 0.55 \pm 0.05$ obtained in
1520: \S 3.1, corresponds to a distance of $d = 4.0 \pm 0.3$~kpc.
1521:
1522: Following the same procedure outlined in Paper I and
1523: \citet{kat05h, kat07h}, an independent estimate of the distance
1524: to GQ Mus can be obtained by comparing the observed light curve
1525: in the 1455 \AA\ continuum with the corresponding model fluxes
1526: in Figures \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x55z02c10o10_compare} --
1527: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x35z02c10o20_compare_uv_x},
1528: \ref{gq_mus_uv1455_r_t},
1529: and \ref{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20}.
1530: The calculated flux at $\lambda$ = 1455 \AA\ at a distance of
1531: 10~kpc for our adopted model ($0.7 ~M_\sun$, $X=0.45$,
1532: $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$) is $F_{\lambda}^{\rm mod}$ = 2.85 $\times
1533: 10^{-12}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~\AA$^{-1}$ on JD 2,445,455.6.
1534: The observed flux at the same date is $F_{\lambda}^{\rm obs}$=
1535: 1.78 $\times 10^{-13}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ ~\AA$^{-1}$.
1536: From these values one obtains the following relation between
1537: distance and reddening:
1538: \begin{equation}
1539: m_{\lambda}^{\rm obs} - M_{\lambda}^{\rm mod}=
1540: 5 \log ({d \over {10\mbox{~kpc}}}) + A_{\lambda} E(B-V) = 3.01,
1541: \label{eq:ebv}
1542: \end{equation}
1543: where $m_{\lambda} = -2.5 \log(F_{\lambda})$, and $A_{\lambda}=
1544: 8.3$ \citep{sea79}. This curve, labeled ``UV 1455 \AA,''
1545: is reported in Figure
1546: \ref{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}.
1547: In particular, equation (\ref{eq:ebv}) provides a distance of
1548: $4.9 \pm 0.9$~kpc for $E(B-V)=0.55 \pm 0.05$, which is sensibly
1549: larger than that obtained from MMRD1.
1550:
1551:
1552: % Fig.15
1553: %\placefigure{sed_uv_outburst}
1554:
1555: \begin{figure}
1556: \epsscale{1.0}
1557: %%%\epsscale{0.7}
1558: \plotone{f15.eps}
1559: %\plotone{sed_uv_outburst.eps}
1560: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1561: \caption{
1562: Energy distribution for three bands of UV 1455 \AA, 2885 \AA, and
1563: {\it IUE} FES visual ({\it open triangles}) on day 151.
1564: Blackbody energy distributions are also plotted for three temperatures
1565: of 50,000, 100,000, and 200,000 K.
1566: \label{sed_uv_outburst}}
1567: \end{figure}
1568:
1569:
1570: An alternative way to determine the distance of GQ Mus is
1571: to compare the shape of the theoretical visual light curve
1572: (based on the free--free model) with the
1573: observed visual fluxes. Such a comparison, done in Figure
1574: \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x} is very
1575: instructive because it shows that the object was up to 1.5
1576: magnitudes brighter than predicted by our universal light
1577: curve model during the earliest phases (until day 10). It is
1578: then legitimate to consider GQ Mus as a super--bright nova.
1579: An extreme case of this type was V1500 Cyg, which,
1580: near peak luminosity was about 4 magnitudes
1581: brighter than the Eddington limit for
1582: a 1.0 $M_\sun$ white dwarf \citep{fer86}.
1583: It is interesting to note that if such a super--bright phase
1584: is ignored in GQ Mus, the $t_3$ and $t_2$ times
1585: of the theoretical light curve that best fits the observations
1586: are considerably longer than the observation indicates at
1587: face value: we in fact estimate $t_3$ = 122 days and $t_2$= 67
1588: days. From equation (\ref{schmidt-kaler-law}) we then obtain
1589: $M_{\rm ff, max} = -6.53$ at the time of maximum light ($t =
1590: 8$ days). Since the apparent magnitude at visual maximum of
1591: our theoretical light curve is $m_{\rm ff, max} = 8.66$ mag
1592: (see Fig. \ref{all_mass_gq_mus_x45z02c15o20_compare_uv_x}),
1593: the distance to GQ Mus can be estimated to be $5.0 \pm 0.3$~kpc
1594: for $E(B-V) = 0.55 \pm 0.05$. If the reddening is not fixed,
1595: the following relation applies:
1596: \begin{equation}
1597: m_{\rm ff, max} - M_{\rm ff, max}= - 5~+~5 \log d~+~3.1 E(B-V)= 15.19 ,
1598: \label{mmrd_relation_2}
1599: \end{equation}
1600: which is plotted in Figure
1601: \ref{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}
1602: (labeled ``MMRD2'').
1603: The two curves UV 1455 \AA\ and MMRD1 cross at $d= 3.5$ kpc
1604: and $E(B-V)= 0.64$, whereas the curves UV 1455 \AA\ and MMRD2
1605: cross at $d= 5.1$ kpc and $E(B-V)= 0.54$, as it appears from
1606: Figure \ref{gq_mus_distance_reddening_m0700_x45z02c15o20}.
1607: Since $E(B-V)= 0.55$ is the weighted mean of the reddening
1608: determinations done in \S 3.1, we take this value together with
1609: $d$= 5 kpc as the best estimates compatible with the observations.
1610: The errors on the reddening and the distance are $\approx$ 0.05
1611: dex and $\approx$ 0.5 kpc, respectively.
1612:
1613:
1614:
1615: \subsection{The UV flashes}
1616: \label{UV_flushes}
1617: Here we estimate the total luminosity of the UV flash
1618: on day 151 and discuss its outburst nature. From Figure
1619: \ref{plotcont}, we have obtained the excess of energy above the
1620: smooth decline for each of the three bands, i.e., 1455 \AA,
1621: 2885 \AA, and $V_{\rm FES}$, which are plotted in Figure
1622: \ref{sed_uv_outburst}. These fluxes are consistent with
1623: the energy distribution from a blackbody with a temperature of
1624: $\gtrsim 100,000$~K. \citet{has90} also estimated the temperature
1625: from a Zanstra-like method, based on the \ion{He}{2}$/$H$\beta$
1626: ratio, to be 85,000 to 100,000~K. The photospheric temperature
1627: of our $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf model are about 30,000~K (on day
1628: 108) before the UV flash and about 60,000~K (on day 202) after
1629: the UV flash.
1630:
1631: Assuming blackbody emission, we can estimate the size of the
1632: emitting region from $(R/d)^2 \approx 10^{-21}$ for $T =
1633: 100,000$ K. Taking $d = 5$ kpc, the radius of the emission region
1634: is $R \sim 7 ~R_\sun$. The total flux is estimated to be $1.7
1635: \times 10^{38}$ erg~s$^{-1}$ ($\approx 45,000 ~L_\sun$) from
1636: $L = 4 \pi R^2 \sigma T^4$. On day 151, the photospheric radius
1637: of our $0.7 ~M_\sun$ white dwarf model is as small as $1.3
1638: ~R_\sun$ and the photospheric temperature is as low as 42,000 K.
1639: Therefore, the estimated radius and blackbody temperature,
1640: $R \sim 7 ~R_\sun$ and $T \gtrsim 100,000$~K, suggest an episodic
1641: expansion and strong heating of the photosphere. This
1642: was probably due to a dynamical mass ejection episode and to
1643: strong shock heating. The UV flash is anyhow a short-lived
1644: event that hardly contributes to the total ejecta mass, as
1645: suggested by the fast recovery of the emission line spectrum
1646: by day 202 and by the negligible effect on the optical
1647: light curves.
1648:
1649: The first observation of {\it IUE} on day 37 also shows a high
1650: UV flux compared with our white dwarf model. A close look at
1651: the optical brightness in Figure
1652: \ref{gq_mus_t3_uv1455_m0700_x45z02c15o20} indicates a small peak
1653: around day 37. This event may also be due to another mass
1654: ejection episode. Note that these mass ejection episodes add to
1655: the major underlying continuous mass ejection process from the
1656: optically thick wind, which endures until day $\sim 1000$, as
1657: shown in Figure \ref{gq_mus_softXray_r_t}.
1658:
1659:
1660: \section{Conclusions}
1661: We have applied the ``universal decline law'' of classical novae
1662: described in \S\ref{model_nova_outburst} to GQ Muscae 1983
1663: and derived various parameters of the nova.
1664: Our main results may be summarized as follows:
1665:
1666: 1. We show that the ``universal decline law'' reproduces well
1667: the observed light curves of GQ Mus in the optical
1668: and in the near infrared $I$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ bands.
1669:
1670: 2. Our blackbody light curve model for the UV 1455 \AA\ band
1671: can reproduce the observed UV 1455 \AA\ fluxes except two UV
1672: flashes on day 37 and 151.
1673:
1674: 3. The UV flash on day 151 described in \S\ref{uv_evolution_cont}
1675: was accompanied by a mass ejection episode seen as a fast wind
1676: with a terminal velocity of about 3200 km~s$^{-1}$.
1677:
1678: 4. An analysis of the {\it IUE} reprocessed data of GQ Mus
1679: indicates $E(B-V)= 0.55 \pm 0.05$, a value that is larger
1680: than previously reported.
1681:
1682: 5. We find that the mass of the WD component of GQ Mus is $0.7
1683: \pm 0.05 ~M_\sun$ for the adopted envelope chemical composition
1684: of $X=0.35-0.55$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.2-0.35$. This value has been
1685: derived by comparing predicted fluxes from our models with the
1686: observations in the supersoft X-ray, in the UV, and in the
1687: optical and near infrared, obtained at different times.
1688:
1689: 6. We have estimated a mass of $\Delta M_{\rm wind} \sim 2
1690: \times 10^{-5} M_\odot$ lost by the wind.
1691:
1692: 7. We have estimated a distance of $d \sim 5$ kpc.
1693:
1694: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
1695: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
1696: %% command.
1697:
1698: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
1699: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
1700: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
1701: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
1702: %% text to be printed in the second.
1703:
1704:
1705: \acknowledgments We thank Albert Jones (RASNZ) for providing us
1706: with their machine readable visual estimates of GQ Mus 1983 and
1707: also AAVSO for the visual data of GQ Mus 1983. We are also grateful
1708: to the anonymous referee for useful comments that helped to improve
1709: the paper. This research has been supported in part by the
1710: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (16540211, 16540219, 20540227)
1711: of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and by INAF PRIN 2007.
1712:
1713:
1714:
1715: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
1716: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
1717: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
1718:
1719: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
1720: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
1721: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
1722:
1723: %%%%\appendix
1724:
1725: %%%%\section{Appendicial material}
1726:
1727:
1728: \appendix
1729:
1730:
1731: %Fig.16
1732: %\placefigure{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color}
1733:
1734: \begin{figure}
1735: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1736: \epsscale{0.8}
1737: \plotone{f16_color.eps}
1738: %\plotone{v1500_cyg_x55z02o10ne03_yvijhk_new_color_color.epsi}
1739: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1740: \caption{
1741: Observed $y$, $V$, $I$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ light curves for the classical
1742: nova V1500 Cyg. Each light curve is shifted down to the $y$ light
1743: curve by $\Delta m_\lambda = \Delta V= y-V=0.3$, $\Delta I= y-I=2.2$,
1744: $\Delta J= y-J=2.75$, $\Delta H= y-H=2.65$, and $\Delta K= y-K=3.1$.
1745: These light curves are well overlapped between day 6 and 30 (days
1746: after outburst). Filled circles: $y$ magnitudes.
1747: Asterisks: $V$ magnitudes. Plusing open circles: $I$ magnitudes.
1748: Filled triangles: $J$ magnitudes. Open squares: $H$ magnitudes.
1749: Open circles: $K$ magnitudes. Solid line with a large open circle:
1750: our model light curve for the $1.15 ~M_\sun$ WD with $X=0.55$,
1751: $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.10$, $X_{\rm Ne}= 0.03$, and $Z=0.02$ (see Paper I).
1752: The large open circle at the right-lower edge of the line indicates
1753: the end of optically thick wind phase.
1754: \label{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color}}
1755: \end{figure}
1756:
1757:
1758:
1759:
1760: %Fig.17
1761: %\placefigure{v1668_cyg_yvijhk_color}
1762:
1763:
1764: \begin{figure}
1765: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1766: \epsscale{0.8}
1767: \plotone{f17_color.eps}
1768: %\plotone{v1668_cyg_vy_ijhk_mag_x45z02c15o20_color_color.epsi}
1769: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1770: \caption{
1771: Same as Fig.\ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color} but for the
1772: classical nova V1668 Cyg. Each light curve is overlapped
1773: with the $y$ light curve between day 6 and 30.
1774: Optically thin dust was formed aound day 35--50.
1775: Solid line with a large open circle: our model light curve
1776: for the $0.95 ~M_\sun$ WD with $X=0.45$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$,
1777: and $Z=0.02$ (see Paper I).
1778: \label{v1668_cyg_yvijhk_color}}
1779: \end{figure}
1780:
1781:
1782:
1783:
1784: %Fig.18
1785: %\placefigure{v1974_cyg_vjhk_color}
1786:
1787: \begin{figure}
1788: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1789: \epsscale{0.8}
1790: \plotone{f18_color.eps}
1791: %\plotone{all_wavelngth_v1974_cyg_free_free_new_color.epsi}
1792: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1793: \caption{
1794: Same as Fig.\ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color} but for the
1795: classical nova V1974 Cyg. No $y$ and $I$ magnitudes
1796: are available for this nova, so that we show only three
1797: colors of $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$. Each light curve is
1798: overlapped with the $V$ light curve during day 10--30.
1799: Solid line with a large open circle: our model light curve
1800: for the $1.05 ~M_\sun$ WD with $X=0.55$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.10$,
1801: $X_{\rm Ne}= 0.03$, and $Z=0.02$ (see Paper I). Solid line
1802: with $t^{-3}$: a decline law of $F_\lambda \propto t^{-3}$
1803: (see eq.[\ref{free-free-stop}]).
1804: \label{v1974_cyg_vjhk_color}}
1805: \end{figure}
1806:
1807:
1808:
1809:
1810:
1811: %Fig.19
1812: %\placefigure{gq_mus_vijhk_color}
1813:
1814:
1815: \begin{figure}
1816: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1817: \epsscale{0.8}
1818: \plotone{f19_color.eps}
1819: %\plotone{gq_mus_m0700_x45z02c15o20_vijhk_color_color.epsi}
1820: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1821: \caption{
1822: Same as Fig.\ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color} but for the
1823: classical nova GQ Mus. No $y$ magnitudes are available
1824: for this nova, so that we show four colors of $V-I$,
1825: $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$. Each light curve is overlapped
1826: with the $V$ light curve during day 8--50 except for the
1827: $J$ magnitudes. The $J$ magnitudes are fitted only during
1828: day 20--100. As mentioned in \S \ref{optical_infrared},
1829: the $J$ magnitude brightened up by 0.6 mag after day 15.
1830: If we overlap the $J$ light curve between day 8 and 15,
1831: the color decreases from $V-J =3.1$ to $V-J =2.5$ as shown
1832: in the figure.
1833: Solid line with a large open circle: our model light curv
1834: for the $0.7 ~M_\sun$ WD with $X=0.45$, $X_{\rm CNO}= 0.35$,
1835: and $Z=0.02$ (see \S \ref{light_curve_fitting}).
1836: Dashed line with a large open circle: same as that for the solid
1837: line but vertically shift down by 0.6 mag to match
1838: the $J$ magnitudes during day 8-15.
1839: \label{gq_mus_vijhk_color}}
1840: \end{figure}
1841:
1842:
1843:
1844: %Fig.20
1845: %\placefigure{magnitude_calibration3}
1846:
1847: \begin{figure}
1848: %%%\epsscale{1.0}
1849: \epsscale{0.8}
1850: \plotone{f20_color.eps}
1851: %\plotone{magnitude_calibration3_new_color.epsi}
1852: %\plotfiddle{evolution1.ps}{5.0cm}{270}{0.4}{0.4}{-170}{220}
1853: \caption{
1854: The $V-R$, $V-I$, $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$ ({\it open triangles}) and
1855: the $y-R$, $y-I$, $y-J$, $y-H$, and $y-K$ ({\it filled triangles})
1856: for the four classical novae: (a) V1500 Cyg, (b) V1668 Cyg,
1857: (c) V1974 Cyg, and (d) GQ Mus. Open and filled circles represent,
1858: respectively, the intrinsic and the reddening corrected colors
1859: as expected from free-free emission (see Table \ref{color_of_free-free}).
1860: See equation (\ref{color_reddening_relation}) for the relation between
1861: free-free color and reddening). Note that the $H$ and $K$-band is
1862: the least contaminated by emission lines, so that the
1863: $y-H$ and $y-K$ colors are in a reasonable agreement
1864: with the theoretical values. See text for more details.
1865: \label{magnitude_calibration3}}
1866: \end{figure}
1867:
1868:
1869: \section{Color of free-free light curves of novae}
1870:
1871: In this and previous papers we have modeled the time evolution
1872: of novae in the continuum and compared the results with observed
1873: light curves. Such a study is hampered by the presence of
1874: emission lines, which give rise to sensible distortions in most
1875: photometric bands (see \S 1), especially at some nova phases.
1876: To evaluate the contamination by emission lines, we take
1877: advantage of the fact that the intrinsic colors of free-free
1878: emission are constant with time because of $\lambda F_{\lambda}
1879: \propto \lambda^{-1}$ for free-free emission. Here, we consider
1880: four classical novae that are well observed in various photometric
1881: bands: V1500 Cyg, V1668 Cyg, V1974 Cyg, and GQ Mus.
1882:
1883: Intrinsic $V-R$, $V-I$, $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$ colors from
1884: free-free emission, as calculated from $\lambda F_\lambda \propto
1885: \lambda^{-1}$, are reported in the second column of Table
1886: \ref{color_of_free-free}. If reddening is known, observed colors
1887: are obtained from
1888: \begin{equation}
1889: m_V - m_\lambda = (M_V - M_\lambda)_0 + c_\lambda E(B-V),
1890: \label{color_reddening_relation}
1891: \end{equation}
1892: where $(M_V - M_\lambda)_0$ is the intrinsic color and
1893: $c_\lambda$ is the reddening coefficient listed in the
1894: second and third columns of Table \ref{color_of_free-free},
1895: respectively.
1896:
1897: In the following subsection, we will compare the observed colors
1898: with those calculated from equation (\ref{color_reddening_relation})
1899: for classical novae V1500 Cyg, V1668 Cyg, V1974 Cyg, and GQ Mus.
1900: Figures \ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color}--\ref{gq_mus_vijhk_color}
1901: demonstrate that the shape of light curves is almost independent
1902: of the wavelength, which is a characteristic feature of free-free
1903: emission (see equation [\ref{free-free-wind}]). In these figures,
1904: we shift each observed light curve down by $\Delta m_\lambda$ and
1905: overlap it on the observed $y$ (or $V$) light curve. Then, we
1906: obtain the color of $\Delta m_\lambda = m_y - m_\lambda$
1907: (or $\Delta m_\lambda = m_V - m_\lambda$) from the definition of
1908: $m_\lambda + \Delta m_\lambda = m_y$ (or $m_\lambda + \Delta
1909: m_\lambda = m_V$). The colors thus obtained are listed in each
1910: figure and plotted in Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}.
1911:
1912: %Table 4
1913: %\placetable{color_of_free-free}
1914:
1915: %%%%%\clearpage
1916: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
1917: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1918: \tablecaption{Colors of free-free light curves
1919: \label{color_of_free-free}}
1920: \tablewidth{0pt}
1921: \tablehead{
1922: \colhead{color\tablenotemark{a}} &
1923: \colhead{...} &
1924: \colhead{intrinsic} &
1925: \colhead{coefficient} \\
1926: \colhead{($m_V - m_\lambda$)} &
1927: \colhead{} &
1928: \colhead{($(M_V - M_\lambda)_0$)} &
1929: \colhead{($c_\lambda$)}
1930: }
1931: \startdata
1932: $V-V$ & ... & 0 & 0 \\
1933: $V-R$ & ... & 0.18 & 0.7812 \\
1934: $V-I$ & ... & 0.39 & 1.6058 \\
1935: $V-J$ & ... & 0.90 & 2.2258 \\
1936: $V-H$ & ... & 1.33 & 2.5575 \\
1937: $V-K$ & ... & 1.85 & 2.7528
1938: \enddata
1939: \tablenotetext{a}{color is calculated from
1940: $(m_V-m_\lambda) = (M_V-M_\lambda)_0 + c_\lambda E(B-V)$,
1941: where $(M_V-M_\lambda)_0$ is the intrinsic color of the
1942: free-free spectrum and $c_\lambda$ is the reddening
1943: coefficient}
1944: \end{deluxetable}
1945:
1946:
1947:
1948:
1949:
1950: \subsection{V1500 Cyg}
1951: For V1500 Cyg, we use the $y$ photometry in \citet{loc76} and the
1952: $V$ data in \citet{tem79}, $I$ data in \citet{the76}.
1953: % and \citet{bel77}.
1954: The $J$, $H$, and
1955: $K$ observations were taken from \citet{enn77}, \citet{kaw76},
1956: and \citet{gal76}. These light curves are plotted in
1957: Figure \ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color} with each light curve being
1958: overlapped on the $y$ magnitude. The spectrum became that for
1959: free-free emission about 4--5 days after the outburst while it
1960: was that for blackbody during the first 3 days \citep{gal76}. So,
1961: we shift each observed light curve down by $\Delta m_\lambda$
1962: and overlap it on the observed $y$ light curve between day 6 and 30.
1963: Then, we obtain the color of $\Delta m_\lambda = m_y - m_\lambda$
1964: as listed in Figure \ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color}.
1965:
1966:
1967: The intrinsic color indices, $(M_V - M_\lambda)_0$, for $V-R$,
1968: $V-I$, $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$ of free-free emission (Table
1969: \ref{color_of_free-free}) are plotted in Figure
1970: \ref{magnitude_calibration3}a (open circles) together with
1971: $E(B-V)= 0.45$ (filled circles) calculated from equation
1972: (\ref{color_reddening_relation}).
1973:
1974: The $V-I$, $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$ color indices
1975: obtained from Figure \ref{v1500_cyg_yvijhk_color}
1976: are plotted in Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}a (open triangles).
1977: If strong emission lines are present in the spectrum,
1978: observed colors deviate from those calculated from equation
1979: (\ref{color_reddening_relation}).
1980: In fact, the $V$ band is not emission-line free, being contaminated
1981: by strong emission lines even between day 6 and 30. The amount
1982: of contamination can be estimated from $y-V= 0.3$ because the $y$
1983: band is almost emission-line free. This value tells us
1984: that strong emission lines contribute about 30\% of the
1985: energy flux to the $V$ band. The $y-I$, $y-J$, $y-H$, and $y-K$
1986: color indices are also plotted in Figure
1987: \ref{magnitude_calibration3}a (filled triangles).
1988:
1989: A somewhat larger contamination is present in the $I$ and $J$
1990: bands while the $H$ and $K$ bands are not so heavily contaminated
1991: by emission lines. For V1500 Cyg, the $y-H$ and $y-K$ colors are
1992: in a reasonable agreement with equation
1993: (\ref{color_reddening_relation}) with $E(B-V)= 0.45$.
1994:
1995:
1996:
1997: \subsection{V1668 Cyg}
1998: Figure \ref{v1668_cyg_yvijhk_color} shows $y$, $V$, $I$, $J$, $H$,
1999: and $K$ light curves of V1668 Cyg. Here the $y$ magnitude
2000: observations are taken from \citet{gal80}, the $V$ data are
2001: from \citet{mal79} and \citet{due80},
2002: the $I$ magnitudes from \citet{der78},
2003: and the $J$, $H$, and $K$ magnitudes from \citet{geh80}.
2004: Each light curve is shifted down to overlap with the $y$
2005: light curve between day 6 and 30 because the spectrum was no longer
2006: that for free-free emission after day 35 due to dust formation.
2007: The colors are summarized in this figure and are also plotted
2008: in Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}b.
2009: The $I$ band is strongly, the $J$ band is slightly, while the
2010: $H$ and $K$ bands are not heavily contaminated by emission lines.
2011: For V1668 Cyg, the $y-H$ and $y-K$ color are in reasonable
2012: agreement with equation (\ref{color_reddening_relation})
2013: together with $E(B-V)= 0.40$ \citep{sti81}.
2014: Note also that the $V$ band is contaminated by emission lines
2015: as suggested from $y-V= 0.4$.
2016:
2017:
2018: \subsection{V1974 Cyg}
2019: For V1974 Cyg, no $y$ and $I$ photometry is available. Figure
2020: \ref{magnitude_calibration3}c shows the $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$
2021: colors obtained from Figure \ref{v1974_cyg_vjhk_color},
2022: where $V$ magnitudes are taken from \citet{cho93} and the $J$,
2023: $H$, and $K$ magnitudes are from \citet{woo97}.
2024: Open triangles denote the observed colors, which
2025: follow quite well the calculated ones with $E(B-V)= 0.32$
2026: \citep{cho93}. However, the $V$ band is contaminated
2027: by emission lines even at early phases as already shown in
2028: V1500 Cyg and V1668 Cyg. If we subtract this
2029: contribution of $\Delta V \sim 0.3$ \citep[estimated from
2030: the spectrum in Fig. 2 of][]{bar93}, i.e., $y-V= 0.3$,
2031: we obtain the corrected colors (filled triangles) as shown
2032: in Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}c. The $J$ band is heavily
2033: contaminated by \ion{O}{1}, Paschen $\beta$, and $\gamma$,
2034: while the $H$ and $K$ bands are not so heavily contaminated
2035: \citep{woo97}. This explains why the $y-H$ and $y-K$
2036: colors, corrected by $\Delta V = y-V= 0.3$, are in good
2037: agreement with the expected values from free-free emission.
2038:
2039:
2040:
2041: \subsection{GQ Mus}
2042: In Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}d we plot (as open triangles)
2043: the observed $V-I$, $V-J$, $V-H$, and $V-K$ colors from Figures
2044: \ref{gq_mus_vijhk_color}, and compare them with
2045: the intrinsic colors from free-free emission
2046: calculated from equation (\ref{color_reddening_relation}) for
2047: $E(B-V)= 0.55$ (filled circles). The observed colors are
2048: in reasonably good agreement with the calculated ones.
2049:
2050: However, the $V$ band is not emission-line free, being contaminated
2051: by strong emission lines even in the early phase \citep[e.g.,
2052: $\sim 30$\% from Fig. 2 of][]{whi84}. This contributes $\Delta V
2053: = y-V \sim 0.3$ to the colors, so we subtract this from the original
2054: value of $V$, and obtain the corrected colors of $y-I$,
2055: $y-J$, $y-H$, and $y-K$ (filled triangles)
2056: as shown in Figure \ref{magnitude_calibration3}d. The $I$ band
2057: is strongly contaminated by \ion{O}{1} line and the $J$ band is
2058: also very strongly contributed by Paschen $\beta$ line
2059: \citep[e.g., Fig. 3 of][]{whi84}. Consequently, both the $y-I$
2060: and $y-J$ colors (corrected by $\Delta V= y-V=0.3$)
2061: are 0.8 and 1.3 mag below the calculated ones, respectively.
2062: On the other hand, the $H$ and $K$ bands are not heavily contaminated
2063: by strong emission lines \citep[e.g., Fig. 3 of][]{whi84}. This
2064: explains why both the $y-H$ and $y-K$ colors corrected by
2065: $\Delta V= y-V=0.3$ are in good agreement with equation
2066: (\ref{color_reddening_relation}) of $E(B-V)= 0.55$.
2067:
2068:
2069:
2070:
2071:
2072: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
2073: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
2074: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
2075: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
2076: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
2077: %%
2078: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
2079: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
2080: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
2081: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
2082: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
2083: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
2084: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
2085: %% place of the \cite commands.
2086:
2087: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
2088: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
2089: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
2090:
2091: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
2092: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
2093: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
2094: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
2095: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
2096:
2097: %\clearpage
2098: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2099: \bibitem[Andreae \& Drechsel (1990)]{and90}
2100: Andreae, J., \& Drechsel, H. 1990, {\it Physics of Classical Novae},
2101: eds. A. Cassatella and R. Viotti (Berin: Springer-Verlag), 204
2102: %-205, Element abundances of Nova PW Vulpeculae
2103:
2104: \bibitem[Balman \& Krautter (2001)]{bal01}
2105: Balman, \c{S}., \& Krautter, J. 2001, \mnras, 326, 1441
2106: %-1447. The re-analysis of the ROSAT data of Nova Mus 1983
2107: % using white dwarf atmosphere emission models
2108:
2109: \bibitem[Balman et al. (1998)Balman, Krautter, \& \"Ogelman]{bal98}
2110: Balman, \c{S}., Krautter, J., \& \"Ogelman, H. 1998, \apj, 499, 395
2111: % The X-Ray Spectral Evolution of Classical Nova V1974 Cygni 1992:
2112: % A Reanalysis of the ROSAT Data
2113:
2114: \bibitem[Barger et al. (1993)]{bar93}
2115: Barger, A. J., Gallagher, J. S., Bjorkman, K. S., Johansen, K. A.,
2116: \& Nordsieck, K. H. 1993, \apj, 419, L85
2117: % A Hot Neon Nova: Optical Spectrophotometry and the Physics
2118: % of Nova Cygni 1992
2119:
2120: \bibitem[Bateson (1983)]{bat83}
2121: Bateson, F. M. 1998, Inf. Bul. Variable Stars, 2316, 1
2122: % Nova Muscae 1983
2123:
2124: %\bibitem[Belokon \& Larionov (1977)]{bel77}
2125: %Belokon, E. T., \& Larionov, V. M. 1977, Soviet Astronomy, 21, 355
2126: %-357. Photometric and polarization observations of Nova Cygni
2127: % 1975 = V1500 Cyg
2128:
2129: \bibitem[Cassatella et al. (2002)Cassatella, Altamore,
2130: \& Gonz\'alez-Riestra]{cas02}
2131: Cassatella, A., Altamore, A., \& Gonz\'alez-Riestra, R. 2002,
2132: \aap, 384, 1023
2133: %-1029, Classical novae in outburst:
2134: % The early evolution of the ultraviolet continuum
2135:
2136: \bibitem[Cassatella et al. (2004)]{cas04}
2137: Cassatella, A., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Rossi, C., Altamore, A.,
2138: Gonz\'alez-Riestra, R. 2004, \aap, 420, 571
2139: %-588, A study of the expanding envelope of Nova V1974 Cyg 1992
2140: % based on IUE high resolution spectroscopy
2141:
2142: \bibitem[Cassatella et al. (2005)Cassatella, Altamore,
2143: \& Gonz\'alez-Riestra]{cas05}
2144: Cassatella, A., Altamore, A., Gonz\'alez-Riestra, R. 2005, \aap, 439, 205
2145: %-211. Classical novae in outburst:
2146: % evolution of the ultraviolet emission lines in CO novae
2147:
2148: \bibitem[Chochol et al. (1993)]{cho93}
2149: Chochol, D., Hric, L., Urban, Z., Komzik, R., Grygar, J., \&
2150: Papousek, J. 1993, \aap, 277, 103
2151: %%-113. Spectroscopic and Photometric Behaviour of Nova Cygni 1992
2152: %% in the First Nine Months Following Outburst
2153:
2154: \bibitem[de Freitas Pacheco \& Codina (1985)]{pac85}
2155: de Freitas Pacheco, J. A., \& Codina, S. J. 1985, \mnras, 214, 481
2156: %-490. The chemical composition of the Nova MUSCAE 1983 ejecta
2157:
2158: \bibitem[Deroux (1978)]{der78}
2159: Deroux, J. K. 1978, Inf. Bul. Var. Stars, 1519, 1.
2160: % UBVRI Observations of Nova Cygni 1978
2161:
2162: \bibitem[Diaz \& Steiner (1989)]{dia89}
2163: Diaz, M. P., \& Steiner, J. E. 1989, \apj, 339, L41
2164: %-L43. The photometric period of nova Muscae 1983
2165:
2166: \bibitem[Diaz \& Steiner (1994)]{dia94}
2167: Diaz, M. P., \& Steiner, J. E. 1994, \apj, 425,252
2168: %-263. On the magnetic nature of GQ Muscae
2169:
2170: \bibitem[Diaz et al. (1995)]{dia95}
2171: Diaz, M. P., Williams,R. E., Phillips, M. M., \& Hamuy, M. 1995,
2172: \mnras, 277, 959
2173: %-964. Recent observations of nova GQ MUS 1983
2174:
2175: \bibitem[Diaz et al. (1992)]{dia92}
2176: Diaz, M. P., Williams,R. E., Phillips, M. M., \& Steiner, J. E. 1992,
2177: Cataclysmic Variable Stars, ed. N. Vogt, (ASP Conf. Ser. 29), 362.
2178: %
2179:
2180: \bibitem[Dinerstein (1986)]{din86}
2181: Dinerstein, H. L. 1986, \aj, 92, 1381
2182: %-1386. Classical novae detected in IRAS survey
2183:
2184: \bibitem[Duerbeck et al. (1980)Duerbeck, Rindermann, \& Seitter]{due80}
2185: Duerbeck, H. W., Rindermann, R., \& Seitter, W. C. 1980, \aap, 81, 157
2186: %-160. A UBV light curve of Nova Cygni 1978
2187:
2188: \bibitem[Ennis et al. (1977)]{enn77}
2189: Ennis, D., Beckwith, S., Gatley, I., Matthews, K., Becklin, E. E.,
2190: Elias, J., Neugebauer, G., \& Willner, S. P. 1977, \apj, 214, 478
2191: %-487. Infrared observations of Nova Cygni 1975
2192:
2193: \bibitem[Ferland et al. (1986)]{fer86}
2194: Ferland, G. J., Lambert, D. L., \& Woodman, J. H. 1986, \apjs, 60, 375
2195: %-392. Spectroscopic observations of Nova Cygni 1975
2196: % - The coronal line region revisited
2197:
2198: \bibitem[Gallagher \& Ney (1976)]{gal76}
2199: Gallagher, J. S., \& Ney, E. P. 1976, \apj, 204, L35
2200: %-L39. The early infrared development of Nova Cygni 1975.
2201:
2202: \bibitem[Gallagher et al. (1980)]{gal80}
2203: Gallagher, J. S., Kaler, J. B., Olson, E. C., Hartkopf, W. I., \&
2204: Hunter, D. A. 1980, \pasp, 92, 46
2205: %-51. An optical light curve for Nova Cygni 1978
2206:
2207: \bibitem[Gehrz et al. (1980)]{geh80}
2208: Gehrz, R. D., Hackwell, J. A., Grasdalen, G. I., Ney, E. P.,
2209: Neugebauer, G., \& Sellgren, K. 1980, \apj, 239, 570
2210: %-580. The optically thin dust shell of Nova Cygni 1978
2211:
2212: \bibitem[Grevesse \& Anders (1989)]{gre89}
2213: Grevesse, N., \& Anders, E. 1989, Cosmic Abundances of Matter,
2214: ed. C. J. Waddington (New York: AIP), 1
2215: %-8. Solar-system abundances of the elements - A new table
2216:
2217: \bibitem[Groenewegen \& Lamers (1989)]{gro89}
2218: Groenewegen, M. A. T., \& Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 1989,
2219: \aaps, 79, 359
2220: %-383. The winds of O-stars. I - an analysis of the UV line profiles
2221: % with the SEI method
2222:
2223: \bibitem[Hachisu \& Kato (2001a)]{hac01ka}
2224: Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M. 2001a, \apjl, 553, L161
2225: %-L164. Prediction of the Supersoft X-Ray Phase, Helium Enrichment,
2226: %and Turnoff Time in the 2000 Outburst of the Recurrent Nova CI Aquilae
2227:
2228: \bibitem[Hachisu \& Kato (2001b)]{hac01kb}
2229: Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M. 2001b, \apj, 558, 323
2230: %-350. Recurrent Novae as a Progenitor System of Type Ia Supernovae. I.
2231: %RS Ophiuchi Subclass --- Systems with a Red Giant Companion
2232:
2233: \bibitem[Hachisu \& Kato (2004)]{hac04k}
2234: Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M. 2004, \apj, 612, L57
2235: %-L60. The Nature of Premaximum Halts of Classical Nova Outbursts:
2236: % V723 Cassiopeiae and V463 Scuti
2237:
2238: \bibitem[Hachisu \& Kato (2006)]{hac06kb}
2239: Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M. 2006, \apjs, 167, 59 (Paper I)
2240: %-80. A Universal Decline Law of Classical Novae
2241:
2242: \bibitem[Hachisu \& Kato (2007)]{hac07k}
2243: Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M. 2007, \apj, 662, 552
2244: %(astro-ph/0702563)
2245: (Paper II)
2246: %-563. A Universal Decline Law of Classical Novae.
2247: % II. GK Persei 1901 and Novae in 2005
2248:
2249: \bibitem[Hachisu et al. (2000)]{hkkm00}
2250: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Kato, T., \& Matsumoto, K. 2000,
2251: \apjl, 528, L97 %(HKKM00) (U Sco outburst)
2252: %-L100 (HKKM00)
2253: %A theoretical light curve model for the 1999 outburst of U Scorpii
2254:
2255: \bibitem[Hachisu et al. (1996)Hachisu, Kato, \& Nomoto]{hkn96}
2256: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Nomoto, K. 1996, \apj, 470, L97 %(HKN96)
2257: %-L100, A New Model for Progenitor Systems of Type IA Supernovae
2258:
2259: \bibitem[Hachisu et al. (1999a)Hachisu, Kato, \& Nomoto]{hkn99}
2260: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Nomoto, K. 1999a, \apj, 522, 487 %(HKN99)
2261: %Hachisu, I., Kato, M. \& Nomoto, K. A wide symbiotic channel to
2262: %Type Ia supernovae. {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 522}, 487
2263:
2264: \bibitem[Hachisu et al. (1999b)]{hknu99}
2265: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Nomoto, K., \& Umeda, H. 1999b, \apj, 519, 314
2266: %(HKNU99)
2267: %Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Nomoto, K. \& Umeda, H.
2268: %A new evolutionary path to Type Ia supernovae: a helium-rich
2269: %supersoft X-ray source channel. {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 519},
2270: %314---323 (1999).
2271:
2272: \bibitem[Hachisu et al. (2003)Hachisu, Kato, \& Schaefer]{hac03a}
2273: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Schaefer, B. E. 2003, \apj, 584, 1008
2274: %-1015, Revised analysis of the supersoft X-ray phase, helium enrichment,
2275: %and turn-off time in the 2000 outburst of the recurrent nova CI Aquilae
2276: %
2277:
2278: \bibitem[Hassall et al. (1990)]{has90}
2279: Hassall, B. J. M., et al. 1990, {\it Physics of Classical Novae},
2280: eds. A. Cassatella and R. Viotti (Berin: Springer-Verlag), 202
2281: %-203, Measurements of outburst characteristics, temperatures,
2282: % densities, and abundances in the ejecta of Nova Muscae 1983
2283:
2284: \bibitem[Hauschildt et al. (1997)]{hau97}
2285: Hauschildt, P. H., Shore, S. N., Schwarz, G. J., Baron, E., Starrfield, S.,
2286: \& Allard, F. 1997, \apj, 490, 803
2287: %-818. Detailed Non-LTE Model Atmospheres for Novae during Outburst.
2288: % I. New Theoretical Results
2289:
2290: \bibitem[Hummer \& Storey (1987)]{hum87}
2291: Hummer, D. G., \& Storey, P. J. 1987, \mnras, 224, 801
2292: %-820. Recombination-line intensities for hydrogenic ions.
2293: % I - Case B calculations for H I and He II
2294:
2295: \bibitem[Iglesias \& Rogers (1996)]{igl96}
2296: Iglesias, C. A., \& Rogers, F. J. 1996, \apj, 464, 943
2297: %-953. Updated Opal Opacities
2298:
2299: \bibitem[Kaler (1986)]{kal86}
2300: Kaler, J. B. 1986, \pasp, 98, 243
2301: %-245. Extended light curves for Nova Cygni 1978
2302:
2303: \bibitem[Kato (1983)]{kat83}
2304: Kato, M. 1983, \pasj, 35, 507
2305: %-519, Optically thick winds and nova outbursts
2306:
2307: \bibitem[Kato (1997)]{kat97}
2308: Kato, M. 1997, \apjs, 113, 121
2309: % Optically Thick Winds from Degenerate Dwarfs.
2310: % I. Classical Novae of Populations I and II
2311:
2312: \bibitem[Kato (1999)]{kat99}
2313: Kato, M. 1999, \pasj, 51, 525
2314: %Optically thick wind solutions for extremely rapid light
2315: %curve of recurrent novae.
2316: %{\it Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan} {\bf 51}, 525---535 (1999).
2317:
2318: \bibitem[Kato \& Hachisu (1994)]{kat94h}
2319: Kato, M., \& Hachisu, I., 1994, \apj, 437, 802
2320: %Kato, M. \& Hachisu, I. Optically thick winds in nova outbursts.
2321: %{\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 437}, 802---826 (1994).
2322:
2323: \bibitem[Kato \& Hachisu (2005)]{kat05h}
2324: Kato, M., \& Hachisu, I., 2005, \apj, 633, L117
2325: %-L120. A Modeling of the Super-Eddington Luminosity
2326: % in Nova Outbursts: V1974 Cygni
2327:
2328: \bibitem[Kato \& Hachisu (2007)]{kat07h}
2329: Kato, M., \& Hachisu, I., 2007, \apj, 657, 1004
2330: %-1012. Modeling of the Super-Eddington Phase
2331: % for Classical Novae: Five IUE Novae
2332:
2333: \bibitem[Kawara et al. (1976)]{kaw76}
2334: Kawara, K., Maihara, T., Noguchi, K., Oda, N., Sato, S., Oishi, M., \&
2335: Iijima, T. 1976, \pasj, 28, no. 1, 1976, p. 163
2336: %-170. Multi-band photometry of Nova Cygni 1975
2337:
2338: \bibitem[Krautter et al. (1984)]{kra84}
2339: Krautter, J., Beuermann, K., Leitherer, C., Oliva, E., Moorwood, A. F. M.,
2340: Deul, E., Wargau, W., Klare, G., Kohoutek, L., van Paradijs, J.,
2341: \& Wolf, B. 1984, \aap, 37, 307
2342: %-326. Observations of Nova MUSCAE 1983 from 1200 A-10 micron
2343: % during its early decline stage
2344:
2345: \bibitem[Krautter \& Williams (1989)]{kra89}
2346: Krautter, J., \& Williams, R. 1989, \apj, 341, 968
2347: %-973. The nebular phase of Nova GQ MUSCAE 1983 - Evolution
2348: % of the ionization of the optical spectrum
2349:
2350: \bibitem[Lamers et al. (1987)]{lam87}
2351: Lamers, H. J. G. L. M.; Cerruti-Sola, M.; Perinotto, M. 1987,
2352: \apj, 314, 726
2353: %-738. The 'SEI' method for accurate and efficient calculations
2354: % of line profiles in spherically symmetric stellar winds
2355:
2356: \bibitem[Liller \& Overbeek (1983)]{lil83}
2357: Liller, W., \& Overbeek, M. D. 1983, \iaucirc,
2358: % Nova MUSCAE 1983
2359:
2360: \bibitem[Livio (1992)]{liv92}
2361: Livio, M. 1992, \apj, 393, 516
2362: %-522. Classical novae and the extragalactic distance scale
2363:
2364: \bibitem[Lockwood \& Millis (1976)]{loc76}
2365: Lockwood, G. W., \& Millis, R. L. 1976, \pasp, 88, 235
2366: %-237. ubvy light curves of nova Cygni 1975.
2367:
2368: \bibitem[Mallama \& Skillman (1979)]{mal79}
2369: Mallama, A. D., \& Skillman, D. R. 1979, \pasp, 91, 99
2370: %-100. Photometry of Nova CYG 1978.
2371:
2372: \bibitem[McLaughlin (1942)]{mcl42}
2373: McLaughlin, D. B. 1942, \apj, 95, 428
2374: %-436. Spectral Stages of Novae.
2375:
2376: \bibitem[Morisset \& P\'equignot (1996a)]{mor96a}
2377: Morisset, C., \& P\'equignot, D. 1996a, \aap, 312, 135
2378: %-159. Evolution of the post-nova GQ MUS (Nova MUSCAE 1983).
2379: % I. A photoionization model for the shell from 1984 to 1990.
2380:
2381: \bibitem[Morisset \& P\'equignot (1996b)]{mor96b}
2382: Morisset, C., \& P\'equignot, D. 1996b, \aap, 313, 611
2383: %-623. Evolution of the post-nova GQ MUS (Nova MUSCAE 1983).
2384: % II. Stellar atmospheres, coronal lines, and turnoff.
2385:
2386: \bibitem[\"Ogelman et al. (1987)]{oge87}
2387: \"Ogelman, H., Krautter, J., \& Beuermann, K. 1987, \aap, 177, 110
2388: %-116. EXOSAT observations of X-rays from classical novae
2389: % during the outburst stage
2390:
2391: \bibitem[\"Ogelman et al. (1993)]{oge93}
2392: \"Ogelman, H., Orio, M., Krautter, J., \& Starrfield, S.
2393: 1993, \nat, 361, 331
2394: %-333. Detection of supersoft X-ray emission from GQ MUSCAE
2395: % nine years after a nova outburst
2396:
2397: \bibitem[Orio et al. (2001)]{ori01}
2398: Orio, M., Covington, J., \"Ogelman, H. 2001, \aap, 373, 542
2399: %-554. X-ray emission from classical
2400: % and recurrent novae observed with ROSAT
2401:
2402: \bibitem[Payne-Gaposchkin (1957)]{pay57}
2403: Payne-Gaposchkin, C. 1957, The Galactic Novae (Amsterdam:
2404: North-Holland)
2405:
2406: \bibitem[P\'equignot et al. (1993)]{peq93}
2407: P\'equignot, D., Petitjean, P., Boisson, C., \& Krautter, J. 1993,
2408: 271, 219
2409: %-272. The Optical Spectrum of Nova GQ Muscae 1983 from 1984 to 1988
2410:
2411: \bibitem[Rosenbush (1999a)]{ros99a}
2412: Rosenbush, A. E. 1999a, Astrophysics, 42, 43
2413: %-53. On the Possibility of Systematizing Classical Novae
2414: % by Light Curve Type. I. Type Criteria
2415:
2416: \bibitem[Rosenbush (1999b)]{ros99b}
2417: Rosenbush, A. E. 1999b, Astrophysics, 42, 140
2418: %-148. On the Possibility of Systematizing Classical Novae
2419: % by Light Curve Type. II. Observational Characteristics of Novae and Groups
2420:
2421: \bibitem[Schmidt (1957)]{sch57}
2422: Schmidt, Th. 1957, Z. Astrophys., 41, 181
2423: %-201. Die Lichtkurven-Leuchtkraft-Beziehung Neuer Sterne.
2424: % Mit 8 Textabbildungen
2425:
2426: \bibitem[Seaton (1979)]{sea79}
2427: Seaton, M. J. 1979, \mnras, 187, 73
2428: %-76, Interstellar extinction in the UV
2429:
2430: \bibitem[Shanley et al. (1995)]{sha95}
2431: Shanley, L., \"Ogelman, H., Gallagher, J. S., Orio, M., \& Krautter, J.
2432: 1995, \apj, 438, L95
2433: %-L98. The soft X-ray turnoff of Nova MUSCAE 1983
2434:
2435: \bibitem[Short et al. (1999)]{sho99}
2436: Short, C. I., Hauschildt, P. H., \& Baron, E. 1999, \apj, 525, 375
2437: %-385. Massive Multispecies, Multilevel Non-LTE Model Atmospheres
2438: % for Novae in Outburst
2439:
2440: \bibitem[Stickland et al. (1981)]{sti81}
2441: Stickland, D. J., Penn, C. J., Seaton, M. A., Snijders,
2442: M. A., J., Storey, P. J. 1981, \mnras, 197, 107
2443:
2444: \bibitem[Tempest (1979)]{tem79}
2445: Tempest, P. 1979, Astron. Nachricheten, Bd. 300, 51
2446:
2447: \bibitem[Th\'e \& van der Klis (1976)]{the76}
2448: Th\'e, P. S., \& van der Klis, M. 1976, Inf. Bul. Var. Stars, 1089, 1.
2449: % Photoelectric R, I Observations of Nova Cygni 1975
2450:
2451: \bibitem[Vorontsov-Velyaminov (1948)]{vor48}
2452: Vorontsov-Velyaminov, B. A. 1948, Gaseous nebula and novae,
2453: Moscow-Leningrad, Izd. Akad. Nauka (in Russian)
2454:
2455: \bibitem[Warner (1995)]{war95}
2456: Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Cambridge,
2457: Cambridge University Press
2458:
2459: \bibitem[Whitelock et al. (1984)]{whi84}
2460: Whitelock, P. A., Carter, B. S., Feast, M. W., Glass, I. S.,
2461: Laney, D., Menzies, J. W., Walsh, J., \& Williams, P. M. 1984,
2462: \mnras, 211, 421
2463: %-432. Infrared and optical observations of Nova MUS 1983
2464:
2465: \bibitem[Woodward et al. (1997)]{woo97}
2466: Woodward, C. E., Gehrz, R. D., Jones, T. J., Lawrence, G. F.,
2467: \& Skrutskie, M. F. 1997, \apj, 477, 817
2468: %-824, The Temporal Evolution of the Near-Infrared Light Curves
2469: % of V1974 Cygni (Nova Cygni 1992)
2470: %
2471: \end{thebibliography}
2472:
2473:
2474:
2475: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
2476: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
2477: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
2478: %% inside the \tablecaption.
2479:
2480:
2481: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
2482: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
2483: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
2484:
2485: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
2486: %% \tableline, not \hline.
2487: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
2488: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
2489:
2490: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
2491: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
2492: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
2493: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
2494: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
2495: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
2496: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
2497: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
2498:
2499: %% In this example, we have used the optional * argument to \\ to
2500: %% instruct LaTeX to keep rows together on the same page. (See the
2501: %% lines following the \cutinhead.) Using \\* to group together table
2502: %% rows on the same page affects how the table breaks. Try taking
2503: %% the *'s out and LaTeXing again to see the difference.
2504:
2505: %% You can append references to a table using the \tablerefs command.
2506:
2507: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
2508: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
2509: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
2510: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
2511: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
2512: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
2513: %% to include it in this document.)
2514:
2515: %% \input{table}
2516:
2517: %\clearpage
2518: % Table 1
2519:
2520:
2521:
2522: %\clearpage
2523: % Table 2
2524:
2525:
2526:
2527: %\clearpage
2528: % Table 3
2529:
2530:
2531:
2532: % Table 4
2533: %%%\placetable{color_of_free-free}
2534:
2535:
2536:
2537:
2538: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
2539: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
2540:
2541: %% If you are not including electronic art with your submission, you may
2542: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
2543: %% User Guide for details.
2544: %%
2545: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
2546: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
2547: %% after every seventh one.
2548:
2549:
2550: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
2551: %% each one.
2552:
2553: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
2554: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
2555: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
2556: %%
2557:
2558: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
2559: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
2560:
2561: %\clearpage
2562: % Fig.1
2563:
2564: %%%Fig.1
2565: %\placefigure{ebvplot}
2566:
2567:
2568:
2569: %\clearpage
2570: % Fig.2
2571:
2572:
2573:
2574: %\clearpage
2575: % Fig.3
2576:
2577:
2578:
2579: %\clearpage
2580: % Fig.4
2581:
2582:
2583:
2584: %\clearpage
2585: % Fig.5
2586:
2587:
2588:
2589: %\clearpage
2590: % Fig.6
2591:
2592:
2593:
2594: %\clearpage
2595: % Fig.7
2596:
2597:
2598:
2599: %\clearpage
2600: % Fig.8
2601:
2602:
2603:
2604: %\clearpage
2605: % Fig.9
2606:
2607:
2608:
2609:
2610: %\clearpage
2611: % Fig.10
2612:
2613:
2614:
2615: %\clearpage
2616: % Fig.11
2617:
2618:
2619:
2620: %\clearpage
2621: % Fig.12
2622:
2623:
2624:
2625:
2626: %\clearpage
2627: % Fig.13
2628:
2629:
2630:
2631: %\clearpage
2632: % Fig.14
2633:
2634:
2635:
2636:
2637: %\clearpage
2638: % Fig.15
2639:
2640:
2641: %\clearpage
2642: % Fig.16
2643:
2644:
2645: %\clearpage
2646: % Fig.17
2647:
2648:
2649: %\clearpage
2650: % Fig.18
2651:
2652:
2653:
2654: %\clearpage
2655: % Fig.19
2656:
2657:
2658:
2659: %\clearpage
2660: % Fig.20
2661:
2662:
2663:
2664: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
2665: %% that appears after it.
2666:
2667: \end{document}
2668: