1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\it Chandra}}
5: \newcommand{\swift}{{\it Swift}}
6: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM-Newton}}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{High-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of the evolving shock in the
11: 2006 outburst of RS\,Ophiuchi}
12:
13: \author{J.-U. Ness\altaffilmark{1}, J.J. Drake\altaffilmark{2},
14: S. Starrfield\altaffilmark{1},
15: M.F. Bode\altaffilmark{3}, T.J. O'Brien\altaffilmark{4},
16: A. Evans\altaffilmark{5}, S.P.S. Eyres\altaffilmark{6},
17: L.A. Helton\altaffilmark{7},
18: J.P. Osborne\altaffilmark{8}, K.L. Page\altaffilmark{8},
19: C. Schneider\altaffilmark{9}, C.E. Woodward\altaffilmark{7}
20: }
21:
22: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona
23: State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA: Jan-Uwe.Ness@asu.edu}
24: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
25: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
26: \altaffiltext{3}{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD, UK}
27: \altaffiltext{4}{Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Manchester, Macclesfield, SK11 9DL, UK}
28: \altaffiltext{5}{Astrophysics Group, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK}
29: \altaffiltext{6}{Centre for Astrophysics,
30: School of Computing, Engineering \& Physical Sciences,
31: University of Central Lancashire,
32: Preston, PR1 2HE, UK}
33: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, School of Physics \& Astronomy, 116 Church Street S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA}
34: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK}
35: \altaffiltext{9}{Hamburger Sternwarte, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029
36: Hamburg, Germany}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: The evolution of the 2006 outburst of the recurrent nova
40: RS Ophiuchi was followed with 12 X-ray grating observations with
41: \chandra\ and \xmm. We present detailed spectral analyses
42: using two independent approaches. From the best dataset,
43: taken on day 13.8 after outburst, we reconstruct the
44: temperature distribution and derive elemental abundances.
45: We find evidence for at least two distinct temperature
46: components on day 13.8 and a reduction of temperature with
47: time. The X-ray flux decreases as a power-law, and the
48: power-law index changes from $-5/3$ to $-8/3$ around day
49: 70 after outburst. This can be explained by different decay
50: mechanisms for the hot and cool components. The decay of the
51: hot component and the decrease in temperature are consistent
52: with radiative cooling, while the decay of the cool component
53: can be explained by the expansion of the ejecta.
54: We find overabundances of N and of $\alpha$ elements, which
55: could either represent the composition of the secondary that
56: provides the accreted material or that of the ejecta.
57: The N overabundance indicates CNO-cycled material. From
58: comparisons to abundances for the secondary taken from the
59: literature, we conclude that 20-40\% of the observed nitrogen
60: could originate from the outburst. The overabundance of the
61: $\alpha$ elements is not typical for stars of the spectral
62: type of the secondary in the RS\,Oph system, and white dwarf
63: material might have been mixed into the ejecta. However, no
64: direct measurements of the $\alpha$ elements in the secondary
65: are available, and the continuous accretion may have changed
66: the observable surface composition.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \keywords{novae, cataclysmic variables –- stars: individual (RSOph) -- X-rays: stars -- shock waves -- methods: data analysis -- binaries: symbiotic}
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72:
73: Nova explosions occur in binary systems containing a white dwarf
74: (WD) that accretes hydrogen-rich material from its companion.
75: When $10^{-6}-10^{-4}$\,M$_\odot$ have been accreted (depending
76: on the WD mass), ignition conditions for explosive nuclear
77: burning are reached and a thermonuclear runaway (TNR) occurs
78: \citep{st08}. Material dredged up from below the WD surface is
79: mixed with the accreted material and violently ejected. While
80: nuclear burning continues, the WD is surrounded by a pseudo
81: atmosphere, and the peak of the spectral energy distribution
82: (SED) shifts from the optical to soft X-rays as the radius of
83: the pseudo photosphere shrinks \citep{gallagher78}. Observations
84: of novae in soft X-rays therefore
85: generally yield no detections until the photosphere recedes to
86: the regions within the outflow that are hot enough to produce
87: X-rays. For some novae this has been observed, and the
88: X-ray spectra during this phase resemble the class of
89: Super Soft X-ray Binary Sources \citep[SSS,][]{kahab}.
90: This phase is therefore called the SSS phase.
91:
92: Observational evidence (from optical observations) and
93: theoretical calculations indicate two abundance classes of
94: novae, those with overabundance of carbon and oxygen (CO
95: novae) and those with overabundance of oxygen and neon
96: (ONe novae; see, e.g., \citealt{abunovae94,JH98}). Since
97: the pressure on the white dwarf surface is not high enough
98: for the production of C, O, or Ne during the nova outburst,
99: these abundance classes reflect the composition of the WD.
100: This indicates that core material is dredged-up into the
101: accreted material and the gases are mixed before being
102: ejected into space \citep{S98,G98}. In addition to
103: dredged-up WD material, the ashes of CNO burning during
104: the outburst have frequently been observed
105: \citep{abunovae94,JH98}. The composition of the ejected
106: material is thus highly non-solar.
107:
108:
109: RS\,Oph is a Recurrent Symbiotic Nova, which erupts about
110: every 20 years. The latest outburst occurred on 2006 February
111: 12.83 \citep[=\,day\,0;][]{rsophdiscovery}. The mass donor is
112: a red giant (M2III), and the expanding ejecta interact
113: with the pre-existing stellar wind setting up shock systems.
114: The composition of the red giant was studied by
115: \cite{pavlenko}, who found that the overall metallicity
116: does not seem to be significantly different from solar
117: ($[$Fe/H$]=0.0\,\pm\,$0.5), C is underabundant
118: ($[$C$]=-0.4$), and N overabundant ($[$N$]=+0.9$).
119: UV spectra taken with IUE during the 1985 outburst provided
120: evidence that N was overabundant \citep{shore96}. Lines of
121: C were observed, but no detailed abundance analyses were
122: carried out by \cite{shore96}.
123: \cite{contini95} determined an N/C abundance ratio of 100
124: and N/H=10 from optical spectra taken on day 201. From their
125: absolute abundance of N and Fe, an abundance ratio of
126: N/Fe=15 relative to solar can be derived. \cite{snijders87}
127: found N/O=1.1 and C/N=0.16, and they caution that the evolved
128: secondary can already be C/N depleted.
129: \cite{contini95} found significant underabundance of O/H
130: and of Ne/H of $\sim 10$\% solar but high abundance ratios of
131: Mg/Fe=5.4 and Si/Fe=7.2.
132:
133: During the first month after outburst, intense hard X-ray
134: emission, that originated from the shock, was observed
135: with \swift\ and the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE;
136: \citealt{bode06,osborne06,sokoloski06}). \swift\ X-Ray Telescope
137: (XRT) observations carried out between days 3--26 were analyzed
138: by \cite{bode06} who applied single-temperature MEKAL models to
139: the X-ray spectra. They determined temperatures and wind column
140: densities, $N_{\rm W}=N_{\rm H}({\rm total})
141: -N_{\rm H}({\rm interstellar})$. The interstellar value of
142: $N_{\rm H}({\rm interstellar})=2.4\times 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$
143: has been determined from H\,{\sc i}
144: 21\,cm measurements \citep{hje86}. This value is consistent with
145: the visual extinction ($E(B-V) = 0.73\,\pm\,0.1$) determined from
146: IUE observations in 1985 \citep{sni87}. \cite{bode06}
147: converted the temperatures found from the MEKAL models into
148: derived shock velocities $v_{\rm s}$, assuming
149: that the X-rays were produced in the blast wave driven
150: into the circumstellar material following the outburst.
151: Before day $\sim 6$ after outburst they found a
152: power-law decay $t^{-\alpha}$ with an
153: approximate index $\alpha=0.6,\ 0.5$, and $1.5$ for $v_{\rm s}$,
154: $N_{\rm W}$, and the flux (unabsorbed, i.e., corrected for
155: interstellar absorption), respectively. These results
156: compare well with model predictions of the RS\,Oph system
157: presented by O'Brien et al. (\citeyear{obrien92} - see also
158: \citealt{bodekahn85}). According to these models, the
159: evolution can be divided into three phases. The first phase (I),
160: where the ejecta are still important in supplying energy to the
161: shocked stellar wind of the red giant, lasts only a few days.
162: The second phase (II) commences when the blast wave is being
163: driven into the stellar wind and is effectively adiabatic. This
164: phase is expected to last
165: until the shocked material is well cooled by radiation
166: (phase III). The physics behind these phases of evolution,
167: together with the density distribution in the wind,
168: determine the evolution of temperature with the corresponding
169: velocity of the shock, unabsorbed fluxes, and the
170: absorbing column of the wind \citep{vaytet07}.
171:
172: \cite{sokoloski06} analyzed X-ray data taken between days 3--21
173: with RXTE, and from thermal bremsstrahlung models found
174: that the temperature decreased with time $t$ as $t^{-2/3}$. They
175: concluded that the speed
176: of the blast wave produced in the nova explosion decreased with
177: $t^{-1/3}$. However, the RXTE data with their low sensitivity
178: at low energies did not favor the measurement of the wind
179: column density $N_{\rm W}$.
180:
181: A \chandra\ High Energy Transmission Grating Spectrograph snapshot
182: of the blast wave obtained at the end of day 13 and analyzed
183: by \cite{drake07} shows asymmetric emission lines sculpted by
184: differential absorption in the circumstellar medium and explosion
185: ejecta. \cite{drake07} found the lines to be more sharply peaked
186: than expected for a spherically-symmetric explosion and concluded
187: that the blast wave was collimated in the direction perpendicular
188: to the line of sight, as also suggested by contemporaneous radio
189: interferometry \citep{obrien06}.
190:
191: The SSS phase was observed after day $\sim 30$ and ended before
192: day $\sim 100$ after outburst \citep{osborne06}. Three
193: high-resolution X-ray spectra were taken during this phase
194: which are described by \cite{ness_rsoph}. The SSS emission
195: longward of $\sim 12$\,\AA\ ($E>1$\,keV) outshines any
196: emission produced by the shock at these wavelengths,
197: however, all emission shortward of 12\,\AA\ originates
198: exclusively from the shock \citep{ness_keele,ness_rsoph}.
199: We note that
200: \cite{bode_keele} show tentative evidence for emission
201: between 6-12\,\AA\ that may reflect the evolution of the SSS.
202: The SSS spectra analyzed by \cite{ness_rsoph} contain
203: emission lines on top of the bright SSS continuum which,
204: combined with blue-shifted absorption lines, were first
205: attributed to P Cygni profiles \citep{rsoph_iau1}, but may
206: also originate from the shock \cite{ness_rsoph}.
207:
208: An analysis of all X-ray grating spectra was presented by
209: \cite{nelson07}. They discovered a soft X-ray flare in week
210: 4 of the evolution in which a new system of low-energy
211: emission lines appeared. With their identifications of the
212: emission lines, they derived velocities of
213: $8,000-10,000$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ which is
214: consistent with the escape velocity of the WD, and the
215: new component may thus represent the outflow.
216: From preliminary atmosphere models they also determined
217: the abundance ratio of Carbon to Nitrogen of 0.001
218: solar. This is a factor 10 lower than C/N abundance
219: measurements by \cite{contini95} and a factor 100 lower
220: than \cite{snijders87}. From He-like line flux ratios they
221: confirm that the shock plasma is collisionally dominated.
222: They measured line shifts and line widths and found that
223: the magnitude of the velocity shift increases for lower
224: ionization states and longer wavelengths. In addition,
225: as the wavelength increased, so did the broadening of
226: the lines. They discuss bow shocks as a possible origin
227: for the line emission seen in RS Oph.
228: From multi-temperature plasma modelling of the
229: early X-ray spectra, \cite{nelson07} needed four
230: temperature components. While they found reasonably good
231: reproduction of the \chandra\ spectrum, the same model
232: was in poor agreement with the simultaneous \xmm\ spectrum.
233: Their model underpredicts lines of O and N, and they
234: concluded that these elements are overabundant, and that
235: the lines originated in the ejecta.
236:
237: The structure of this paper is as follows: In \S\ref{obssect}
238: we present 12 X-ray grating observations
239: taken between days 13.8 and 239.2 after outburst, focusing
240: only on the emission produced by the shock.
241: We measure emission line fluxes and
242: line ratios in \S\ref{lines}, and in \S\ref{anal} we
243: present supporting models. We compute
244: multi-temperature spectral models with the fitting program
245: {\sc xspec} (\S\ref{xspecsect}) and reconstruct a continuous
246: temperature distribution based on a few selected emission
247: lines (\S\ref{lfluxes}), yielding
248: the elemental abundances. In \S\ref{cmpmodels} we
249: compare the results of these two model approaches.
250: We dedicate a separate section (\S\ref{syserr}) to
251: the discussion of systematic uncertainties, as all
252: given error estimates are only statistical uncertainties.
253: In \S\ref{disc} we discuss our results and
254: summarize our conclusions in \S\ref{concl}.
255:
256: \section{Observations}
257: \label{obssect}
258:
259: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
260: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{allspecs}}
261: \caption{\label{allspecs}11 X-ray grating spectra
262: extracted from 12 \chandra\ and \xmm\ observations
263: taken on the dates and with the instruments given in
264: the legends. Plotted are the raw spectra in counts
265: per bin per individual exposure time (see Table~\ref{tab1}).
266: Bin sizes are 0.005\,\AA, 0.0025\,\AA, and 0.01\,\AA\ for
267: MEG, HEG, and RGS1, RGS2, and LETG, respectively. Four
268: \chandra\ spectra taken between days 204 and 208 after
269: outburst are combined. RGS1 and RGS2 spectra are combined.}
270: \end{figure*}
271:
272: In this paper we analyze five X-ray grating spectra taken with
273: \chandra\ and five with \xmm. We use the High- and Low Energy
274: Transmission Grating spectrometers (HETG and LETG, respectively) aboard
275: \chandra\ and the Reflection Grating Spectrometers (RGS1 and
276: RGS2) aboard \xmm\ to obtain data between 1\,\AA\ and 40\,\AA.
277: In Table~\ref{tab1} we list the start- and stop times,
278: the corresponding days after outburst, the mission and
279: instrumental setup, ObsIDs, and net exposure times for each
280: observation. We have extracted the spectra in the same way as
281: described by \cite{ness_rsoph} using the standard
282: tools provided by the mission-specific software packages SAS
283: (Science Analsis Software, version 7.0) and CIAO (Chandra
284: Interactive Analysis of Observations, version 3.3.0.1).
285: While pile up in the zero-th order of the \chandra\ HETGS
286: observation may lead to problems in centroiding the extraction
287: regions for the dispersed spectra \citep{nelson07}, we are
288: confident that the standard centroiding is accurate enough.
289: For example, the wavelengths of strong lines from the two
290: opposite dispersion orders agree well with each other.
291:
292: We have also extracted spectra from the \xmm\ European Photon
293: Imaging Camera (EPIC), concentrating on the observations
294: recorded with the Metal Oxide Semi-conductor chips (MOS1).
295: We have used standard SAS routines for the extraction of spectra
296: and have corrected for pile up using annular extraction regions
297: that avoid extracting photons from the innermost regions
298: of the point spread function (PSF) following the instructions
299: provided by the SAS software. We only need the MOS1 data
300: for ObsID 0410180201 (26.1 days after outburst) in
301: \S\ref{xspecsect}, for which an inner radius of 300 pix
302: ($15\arcsec$) has to be excluded to avoid significant pile up.
303:
304: \begin{table}[!ht]
305: \begin{flushleft}
306: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
307: \caption{\label{tab1}Grating observations of RS Oph}
308: \begin{tabular}{ccclll}
309: %\begin{tabular}{cp{.5cm}p{.8cm}lll}
310: Date & Day$^{a}$& Mission & Grating & ObsID & exp. time\\
311: start--stop & & & /detector & & (net; ks)\\
312: \hline
313:
314: \ Febr. 26, 15:20 & 13.81 & \chandra & HETG & 7280 & 9.9\\
315: --Febr. 26, 18:46 & 13.88 & & /ACIS & &\\
316: \ Febr. 26, 17:09 & 13.88 & {\it XMM} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS1\ \ 0410180101} & 23.8\\
317: --Febr. 26, 23:48 & 14.2 & &\multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS2} & 23.8\\
318: \ March 10, 23:04 & 26.1 & {\it XMM} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS1\ \ 0410180201} & 11.7\\
319: --March 11, 02:21 & 26.3 & &\multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS2} & 11.7\\
320:
321: \ March 24, 12:25 & 39.7 & \chandra & LETG & 7296 & 10.0\\
322: --March 24, 15:38 & 39.8 & & /HRC & &\\
323: \ April 07, 21:05 & 54.0 & {\it XMM} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS1\ \ 0410180301} & 9.8\\
324: --April 08, 02:20 & 54.3 & &\multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS2} & 18.6\\
325: \ April 20, 17:24 & 66.9 & \chandra & LETG & 7297 & 6.5\\
326: --April 20, 20:28 & 67.0 & & /HRC & &\\
327:
328: \ June 04, 12:06 & 111.7 & \chandra & LETG & 7298 & 19.9\\
329: --June 04, 18:08 & 111.9 & & /HRC & &\\
330:
331: \ Sept. 06, 01:59 & 205.3 & {\it XMM} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS1\ \ 0410180401} & 30.2\\
332: --Sept. 06, 17:30 & 205.9 & &\multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS2} & 30.2\\
333:
334: \ Sept. 04, 10:43 & 203.6 & \chandra & LETG & 7390 & 39.6\\
335: --Sept. 04, 22:26 & 204.1 & & /HRC & &\\
336: \ Sept. 07, 02:37 & 206.3 & \chandra & LETG & 7389 & 39.8\\
337: --Sept. 07, 14:29 & 206.8 & & /HRC & &\\
338: \ Sept. 08, 17:58 & 207.9 & \chandra & LETG & 7403 & 17.9\\
339: --Sept. 08, 23:36 & 208.2 & & /HRC & &\\
340:
341: \ Oct. 09, 23:38 & 239.2 & {\it XMM} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS1\ \ 0410180501} & 48.7\\
342: --Oct. 10, 13:18 & 239.7 & &\multicolumn{2}{l}{RGS2} & 48.7\\
343:
344: \hline
345: \end{tabular}
346:
347:
348: $^{a}$after outburst (2006, Feb. 12.83)
349: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
350: \end{flushleft}
351: \end{table}
352:
353: \subsection{Description of spectra}
354:
355: An overview of all grating spectra is presented in
356: Fig.~\ref{allspecs}
357: with the instrument and day after outburst indicated in the
358: legends of each panel. All spectra taken on days 13.8 and
359: 26.1 after outburst (top three panels) are characterized by a
360: hard, broad continuum spectrum with additional strong emission
361: lines \citep{rsoph_iau1,drake07}. The count rate on day 26.1
362: is significantly lower than that on day 13.8, and the shape of
363: the continuum
364: is different. On day 26.1 a new component is observed longward
365: of $\sim 20$\,\AA\ \citep{nelson07} that could be associated with
366: the SSS spectrum that was clearly detected three days later with
367: \swift\ \citep{osborne06}. However, the spectral shape of this
368: new component on day 26.1 is quite different from the spectra
369: observed on days 39.7, 54.0, and 66.9 (next three panels).
370: These spectra are
371: dominated by the SSS spectrum \citep{ness_rsoph} between
372: 14\,\AA\ and 37\,\AA, while the emission from the shock
373: dominates shortward of $\sim 15$\,\AA\ \citep{ness_keele}. After
374: day $\sim 100$, the SSS spectrum has disappeared, and those
375: spectra display emission lines with a weak continuum.
376: The short-wavelength lines are only seen in the early spectra
377: while those between 12\,\AA\ and 25\,\AA\ can be seen in
378: all spectra, however, with different relative strengths.
379:
380: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
381: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{day13.8.eps}}
382: \caption{\label{day13.8}X-ray spectrum of RS\,Oph on
383: day 13.8, in photon flux units, taken with \chandra/MEG
384: shortward of 16.5\,\AA\ and with \xmm/RGS longwards.
385: We label H-like and He-like lines in italic font with
386: the H-like lines in bold-face. Other lines are
387: labeled with roman font. The high ionization stages indicate
388: temperatures up to $10^8$\,K while the additional presence
389: of low-ionization stages show that the plasma is not
390: isothermal.
391: }
392: \end{figure*}
393:
394: In Fig.~\ref{day13.8} we show the X-ray spectrum taken
395: on day 13.8. For this plot we have converted the number of
396: counts in each spectral bin to photon fluxes, simply dividing
397: the number of counts by the effective areas extracted for
398: each spectral bin from the instrument calibration. With
399: grating spectra such a conversion is sufficiently accurate
400: because of the precise
401: placement of the recorded photons into the spectral grid.
402: In contrast to low-resolution X-ray spectra taken with
403: CCDs, the photon redistribution matrix of grating spectra
404: is nearly diagonal. Below 16.5\,\AA\ we show the
405: \chandra/MEG spectrum, and above this wavelength,
406: where the MEG has extremely low sensitivity, the
407: combined \xmm/RGS spectra are shown. The strongest lines
408: seen in
409: the spectrum originate from H-like and He-like ions of
410: S\,{\sc xvi} and S\,{\sc xv} (4.73 and 5.04\,\AA),
411: Si\,{\sc xiv} and Si\,{\sc xiii} (6.18 and 6.65\,\AA),
412: Mg\,{\sc xii} and Mg\,{\sc xi} (8.42 and 9.2\,\AA),
413: Ne\,{\sc x} and Ne\,{\sc ix} (12.1 and 13.5\,\AA),
414: O\,{\sc viii} and O\,{\sc vii} (18.97 and 21.6\,\AA),
415: and N\,{\sc vii} (24.78\,\AA). Also some of the
416: 3p-1s lines are detected, e.g., Mg\,{\sc xii} at
417: 7.11\,\AA, Mg\,{\sc xi} at 7.85\,\AA, and O\,{\sc viii}
418: at 16\,\AA. The H-like and He-like lines of elements
419: with higher nuclear charge arise at shorter wavelengths,
420: and strong lines at short wavelength indicate
421: high temperatures. Several Fe lines are present,
422: e.g., Fe\,{\sc xxv} (1.85+1.86+1.87\,\AA) and
423: Fe\,{\sc xxiv} at 10.62\,\AA\ as well as
424: low-ionization lines of Fe\,{\sc xvii} at 15.01\,\AA\
425: and 12.26\,\AA. These lines cannot be formed in the
426: same region of the plasma and it is thus not isothermal.
427:
428: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
429: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{day26.1.eps}}
430: \caption{\label{day26.1}\xmm/RGS1 and RGS2 spectra (combined)
431: taken on day 26.1 and converted to photon flux units. The
432: strongest emission lines are labelled as explained in
433: Fig.~\ref{day13.8}.
434: }
435: \end{figure*}
436:
437: In Fig.~\ref{day26.1} we show the combined \xmm/RGS spectra
438: taken on day 26.1, in the same units as in Fig.~\ref{day13.8}
439: for direct comparison. While on day 13.8 the strongest lines
440: are formed at wavelengths shortward of 10\,\AA, the Ne\,{\sc x}
441: line at 12.1\,\AA\ is now the strongest line. This could
442: mean that the temperature and/or the neutral
443: hydrogen column density have decreased. The relative
444: line strengths of H-like to He-like lines are significantly
445: lower for all elements (see, e.g., Mg\,{\sc xii} to
446: Mg\,{\sc xi}). This is clearly a temperature effect, and
447: the plasma is cooling. Longwards of 25\,\AA\ a new component
448: can be seen. The fact that only three days later the SSS
449: spectrum was observed with \swift\ \citep{osborne06}
450: suggests that this emission represents the onset of the SSS
451: phase \citep[e.g.,][]{bode06,nelson07}. However,
452: while the SSS spectra observed on day 39.7 range from
453: $\sim 15-30$\,\AA\ (Fig.~\ref{allspecs}), the RGS spectra
454: shown in Fig.~\ref{day26.1} show only excess emission
455: longward of $\sim 20$\,\AA\ (see also Fig.~\ref{mepic}). At
456: 23.5\,\AA\ a deep absorption edge from O\,{\sc i} has been
457: found in the SSS spectra of RS\,Oph by \cite{ness_rsoph}
458: (see also bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{mepic}).
459: The hard portion of an early faint SSS spectrum might be
460: entirely absorbed by circumstellar neutral oxygen in the
461: line of sight, while the shock-induced emission may originate
462: from further outside, thus traversing through less absorbing
463: material. Also, in the standard picture of
464: nova evolution, the peak of the SED is
465: expected to shift from long wavelengths to short wavelengths
466: while the radius of the photosphere recedes to successively
467: hotter layers, and the observed emission would be consistent
468: with this picture. However, the spectrum has more
469: characteristics of an emission line spectrum (see
470: Fig.~\ref{day26.1} and \citealt{nelson07}), but only the
471: lines at 24.79\,\AA\ and 28.78+29.1+29.54\,\AA\ can be
472: identified as N\,{\sc vii} and as the N\,{\sc vi} He-like
473: triplet lines, respectively. In between the N\,{\sc vii}
474: and N\,{\sc vi} lines no strong lines are listed
475: in any of the atomic databases. The strongest emission
476: line in this range is observed as a narrow line at
477: 27.7\,\AA\ (FWHM 0.08\,\AA) with a line flux of
478: $(2.7\,\pm\,0.4)\times10^{-13}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$.
479: The only possible identifications would be
480: Ar\,{\sc xiv} (27.64\,\AA\ and 27.46\,\AA) or
481: Ca\,{\sc xiv} (27.77\,\AA). Both appear rather unlikely
482: identifications, as no Ar lines are detected in any
483: of the other spectra, and for Ca\,{\sc xiv}, stronger
484: lines are expected at 24.03\,\AA, 24.09\,\AA, and
485: 24.13\,\AA, but are not detected. A remarkable aspect is that
486: the 27.7-\AA\ line is so narrow while the N\,{\sc vii} line
487: shows an extremely broad profile (see \S\ref{lprofiles}).
488: Another unidentified line is measured at 23.6\,\AA, but we
489: experience the same difficulties in finding an identification.
490: This could be residual continuum emission if the absorption
491: feature at 23.5\,\AA\ is interpreted as interstellar
492: O\,{\sc i}. \cite{nelson07} suggested that some of these
493: lines are blue-shifted N\,{\sc vi} and C\,{\sc vi} lines,
494: but this requires extremely high velocities and is in
495: contradiction to the non-detection of the C\,{\sc vi}
496: Ly$\alpha$ line and the low C abundance reported in the same
497: paper. In any case, this component is likely not part of
498: the shock systems, and the discussion of it is beyond
499: the scope of this paper. While the O\,{\sc viii} and
500: O\,{\sc vii} lines might be part of the shock, we treat
501: the interpretation of these lines with care. We will also include
502: the N\,{\sc vii} line in our analyses as if it were formed
503: in the shock, and any inconsistencies based on this line
504: can be understood as supporting evidence that this component
505: is unrelated to the shock emission. For more details of this
506: component we also refer to \cite{nelson07}.
507:
508: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
509: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{day39.7.eps}}
510: \caption{\label{day39.7}Same as Fig.~\ref{day26.1} for
511: the \chandra/LETG spectrum taken on day 39.7. Longward of
512: $\sim 14.5$\,\AA\ the SSS spectrum dominates.
513: }
514: \end{figure*}
515:
516: In Fig.~\ref{day39.7} we show the photon flux spectrum taken
517: with \chandra\ LETGS on day 39.7. The SSS spectrum dominates
518: all emission longward of $\sim 14.5$\,\AA, and we only show the
519: wavelength range relevant for this paper. The ratio of H-like
520: to He-like lines is lower than in the earlier spectra,
521: indicating that the temperature has continued to decrease.
522: Since the lines are formed shortwards of the high-energy (Wien)
523: tail of the SSS
524: spectrum (14.5\,\AA$\approx 0.86$\,keV), they are not
525: affected by photoexcitations and originate exclusively from
526: the shock.
527:
528: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
529: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{day111.7.eps}}
530: \caption{\label{day111.7}Same as Fig.~\ref{day26.1} for
531: the \chandra/LETG spectrum taken on day 111.7. The SSS spectrum
532: has disappeared and emission lines longward of $\sim 14.5$\,\AA\
533: can be observed.}
534: \end{figure*}
535:
536: In Fig.~\ref{day111.7} we show one of the spectra taken
537: after the SSS had turned off. All emission lines are significantly
538: weaker and the ratio of H-like and He-like lines is again
539: lower than in the previous observation. All short-wavelength
540: lines are extremely weak or are not detected.
541:
542: Next we integrate the photon flux spectra over the range
543: 7--11\,\AA\ (1.1--1.8\,keV) in order to obtain X-ray fluxes.
544: We do not correct for absorption, thus yielding fluxes at Earth.
545: Since the fluxes are extracted from above 1\,keV, the effects
546: from absorption are small, and particularly the relative
547: evolution of the absorbed and non-absorbed fluxes is the same.
548: The wavelength range over which the fluxes are integrated
549: is a compromise between collecting as much information
550: as possible from the observations before day 39.7 and after day
551: 66.9 while excluding as much as possible of the emission from
552: the SSS on days 39.7, 54.0, and 66.9. The results are illustrated
553: as a function of time in Fig.~\ref{evol}. For comparison we
554: include rescaled \swift/XRT count rates (0.25-10\,keV) taken
555: after day 106. At this late stage of the evolution, the spectral
556: shape hardly changes (see Table~\ref{xspec}),
557: yielding a direct correlation between X-ray flux and count rate.
558: With the assumption of no spectral changes between days 106 and
559: 250, we can also use the count rates integrated over the full
560: \swift\ XRT band pass, as additional emission in the larger
561: wavelength range also scales directly with the count rate.
562: Since we are not interested in the absolute flux from the
563: \swift\ observations, we chose a scaling factor of
564: $3\times10^{-12}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,cps$^{-1}$
565: to yield the same values as the grating fluxes for
566: days 111.7-239.2. The rescaled XRT count rate follows the
567: same trend as the fluxes obtained from the grating spectra.
568: We include two power-law curves,
569: and the early evolution evolves more like $t^{-5/3}$, while
570: the later evolution (after day 100) clearly follows a
571: $t^{-8/3}$ trend. We observe the same behavior if we use
572: a larger wavelength range and exclude the observations
573: between days 39.7 and 66.9.
574:
575: \begin{figure}[!ht]
576: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{evol}}
577: \caption{\label{evol}X-ray fluxes measured at Earth
578: (cgs units, integrated over 7--11\,\AA;
579: 1.1--1.8\,keV) as a function of time. The triangles
580: mark \swift/XRT count rates (0.3-10\,keV), rescaled by
581: $3\times 10^{-12}$\,[erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,cps$^{-1}$].
582: The statistical errors are smaller than the plot
583: symbols. For systematic errors see \S\ref{syserr}.
584: }
585: \end{figure}
586:
587: \section{Measurement of emission lines}
588: \label{lines}
589:
590: \subsection{Line shifts and profiles}
591: \label{lprofiles}
592:
593: In order to determine velocities from the emission lines we have
594: measured wavelengths and line widths in excess of the instrumental
595: line broadening function for a number of strong lines with
596: well-identified rest wavelengths, $\lambda_0$. For the narrow
597: wavelength range around the lines we have accounted for continuum
598: emission by defining a constant local offset on top of the
599: instrumental background that can be treated as an 'uninteresting'
600: free parameter. For each line $j$ we have used a normalized Gaussian
601: profile with wavelength $\lambda_j$
602: and line width $\sigma_j$ and folded this profile through the
603: instrumental response using the IDL tool {\tt scrmf} provided by
604: the PINTofAle package \citep{pintofale} before comparing with the
605: measured count spectra. We have determined the statistical
606: measurement uncertainties for
607: $\lambda_j$ and $\sigma_j$ from the $2\times 2$ Hesse matrix as
608: defined in Eq.~\ref{hesse} of the appendix section, which is
609: based on an approach proposed by \cite{strong85}.
610: Systematic uncertainties are
611: difficult to assess and are not included in our error estimates
612: (for details see \S\ref{syserr}). Those can arise from
613: fluctuations in the underlying continuum and line blends.
614: While the former has a stronger effect on weak lines, the latter
615: can affect any line. For this reason we chose lines for which no
616: strong nearby lines are known to arise. We have
617: iterated $\lambda_j$ and $\sigma_j$, and in each iteration
618: step we have adjusted the normalization utilizing the fixed point
619: iteration scheme described by \cite{newi02}. The normalization
620: factor can be converted to line fluxes (see \S\ref{lfluxmeas}).
621:
622: The results are listed in Table~\ref{vlines}. The line shifts
623: $\lambda_j-\lambda_0$ and Gaussian line widths $\sigma_j$
624: (both measured in m\AA$=10^{-3}$\AA) are converted
625: to corresponding Doppler velocities using the rest wavelengths
626: $\lambda_0$ listed in the first column. The measurement
627: uncertainties of line shifts and widths are correlated
628: uncertainties, and account for the uncertainties in
629: the respective other values. The Ne\,{\sc x} line at 10.23\,\AA\
630: is relatively weak in all observations, and the results from
631: this line may be less certain due to additional systematic
632: uncertainties from fluctuations in the underlying continuum.
633: The Fe\,{\sc xvii}
634: line could be blended with the weak O\,{\sc viii} 1s-4p
635: ($\lambda_0=15.18$\,\AA) line,
636: and the accuracy of the results from this line might suffer from
637: line blending. All lines measured from observations taken after
638: day 26.1 are weaker, and the uncertainties on the results from
639: these observations have to be increased by at least 20\% due to
640: fluctuations in the continuum.
641:
642: \begin{figure}[!ht]
643: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{day13_lprofiles}}
644: \caption{\label{v13}Measurement of line shifts (left panels)
645: and line widths (right panels) for the \chandra\ HETGS
646: (bullets) and \xmm\ (open boxes) observations taken on
647: day 13.8 with the conversion to velocities, if interpreted
648: as Doppler velocities (bottom panels). The error bars
649: are statistical uncertainties only.
650: For systematic errors see \S\ref{syserr}.}
651: \end{figure}
652:
653: In Fig.~\ref{v13} we illustrate the measured line
654: shifts (top left) and widths (top right) and the corresponding
655: velocities (respective bottom panels) for the observations taken
656: on day 13.8. All lines are significantly blue-shifted, the
657: short-wavelength lines by $200-800$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and the
658: lines of O\,{\sc viii}, O\,{\sc vii}, and N\,{\sc vii}
659: at longer wavelengths by more than $1200$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
660: \cite{nelson07} found similar values and concluded that
661: there was a trend of increased velocities with wavelength
662: and thus with formation temperature. However, with a
663: different set of lines we come to a different conclusion.
664: First, we have not used the unresolved He triplet lines
665: of Mg\,{\sc xi} and Si\,{\sc xiii} to avoid additional
666: systematic uncertainties from line blends (see \S\ref{syserr}).
667: Then,
668: we have included the Ne\,{\sc x} and Fe\,{\sc xvii} lines
669: that lie in between the Mg lines and the O\,{\sc viii} line.
670: Although we caution that these lines may suffer from
671: additional systematic uncertainties, there
672: seems to be more of an abrupt change rather than a
673: systematic trend with these additional lines included.
674: Interestingly, the lines
675: with larger blue shifts originate only from oxygen and nitrogen.
676: \cite{drake07} investigated the possibility that the line
677: profiles are dominated by complex absorption patterns in their
678: red wings, leading to apparent blue shifts. In that case the
679: column density in the respective line is a stronger driver for
680: line shifts than the temperature, and oxygen and nitrogen
681: might exhibit deeper column densities than other elements,
682: possibly owing to higher elemental abundances.
683:
684: The line widths are all about
685: $800-1000$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, with the exceptions of
686: Ne\,{\sc x} (10.23\,\AA) and Fe\,{\sc xvii}
687: (15.01\,\AA\ and 16.78\,\AA) which are narrower
688: (bottom right panel of Fig.~\ref{v13}). Since fluctuations
689: in the continuum and line blending cannot lead to narrower
690: lines, it is
691: not clear to us why these particular lines are narrower,
692: but we cannot confirm a trend with long-wavelength
693: lines being broader as reported by \cite{nelson07}.
694: Nelson et al. seem not to have accounted for
695: the instrumental line broadening when computing
696: line widths, but the instrumental line broadening
697: is only $\sim 0.01$\,\AA\ for the MEG and
698: $\sim 0.03$\,\AA\ in the RGS. The instrumental
699: line profile is roughly Gaussian, and since the
700: convolution of two Gaussians is again a Gaussian,
701: the resulting line width is dominated by the
702: broader line, and in the case of most lines, the
703: instrumental line broadening can be neglected.
704:
705: After day 13.8, all line shifts except those for the
706: O\,{\sc viii} and N\,{\sc vii} lines fluctuate around
707: the same value of $\sim 500-800$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (see
708: Table~\ref{vlines}). The O and N lines that show
709: extreme blue-shifts on day 13.8 (Fig.~\ref{v13}) have
710: values consistent with other lines in all later
711: observations. If these lines are shaped by absorption in
712: their red wings as proposed by \cite{drake07}, then the
713: column densities have decreased from
714: day 13.8 to day 261. The N\,{\sc vii} line on day 26.1
715: shows an extreme value (also in line width, see bottom
716: panel of Fig.~\ref{v13}), and belongs to the new component discovered by
717: \cite{nelson07}; however, the velocity measured
718: from the shift of this line does not agree with their
719: value of 8,000-10,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ derived from the
720: lines between 25--30\,\AA. While we mark these lines as
721: unidentified in Fig.~\ref{day26.1}, \cite{nelson07}
722: discuss possible identifications as highly blue-shifted
723: N\,{\sc vi} and C\,{\sc vi} lines.
724:
725: The line widths slowly decrease with time. The N\,{\sc
726: vii} line at 24.78\,\AA\ is extremely broad on day 26.1.
727: At this time of the evolution, this line is part of the
728: new component reported by \cite{nelson07} with a set
729: of unidentified lines. There is thus a reasonable chance
730: that this line is a blend, making this anomalous velocity
731: questionable. Since shock
732: velocities derived from the temperatures from the spectral
733: models discussed in \S\ref{xspecsect} represent
734: the evolution of the expansion velocity, they can
735: be compared with these values.
736: The shock velocities derived from the hottest
737: model component are given in the last row of
738: Table~\ref{vlines}. We discuss the implication of the
739: comparison in \S\ref{xspecsect}.
740:
741: \begin{table*}[!ht]
742: \begin{flushleft}
743: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
744: \caption{\label{vlines}Evolution of line shifts and line widths.}
745: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
746: $\lambda_0^{a}$\small{(\AA)}&day 13.81 & day 13.88 & day 26.1 & day 39.7 & day 54.0 & day 66.9 & day 111.7 \\
747: ID&HETG&RGS&RGS&LETG&RGS&LETGS&LETGS\\
748: \hline
749: {\bf 4.73}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-8.3\,\pm\,1.6$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & --\\
750: {\bf S\,{\sc xvi}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $12.7\,\pm\,1.7$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & --\\
751: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-526\,\pm\,103$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & --\\
752: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $806\,\pm\,111$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & --\\
753: \hline
754: {\bf 6.18}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-8.1\,\pm\,0.6$ & $-4.8\,\pm\,5.7$ & -- & $-16.1\,\pm\,5.2$ & -- & -- & --\\
755: {\bf Si\,{\sc xiv}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $16.3\,\pm\,0.6$ & $<12.1$ & -- & $17.7\,\pm\,8.9$ & -- & -- & --\\
756: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-395\,\pm\,29$ & $-233\,\pm\,275$ & -- & $-781\,\pm\,253$ & -- & -- & --\\
757: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $790\,\pm\,27$ & $<586.2$ & -- & $861\,\pm\,433$ & -- & -- & --\\
758: \hline
759: {\bf 8.42}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-21.3\,\pm\,0.7$ & $-22.4\,\pm\,1.5$ & $-6.5\,\pm\,2.9$ & $-25.9\,\pm\,3.0$ & $-17.5\,\pm\,0.7$ & $-16.7\,\pm\,8.8$ & $2.3\,\pm\,18.0$\\
760: {\bf Mg\,{\sc xii}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $26.5\,\pm\,0.6$ & $23.0\,\pm\,3.0$ & $20.3\,\pm\,5.3$ & $24.0\,\pm\,5.3$ & $<17.1$ & $<11.0$ & $<27.7$\\
761: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-759\,\pm\,24$ & $-796\,\pm\,54$ & $-230\,\pm\,102$ & $-924\,\pm\,107$ & $-623\,\pm\,25$ & $-593\,\pm\,313$ & $82\,\pm\,640$\\
762: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $945\,\pm\,21$ & $818\,\pm\,108$ & $724\,\pm\,189$ & $853\,\pm\,187$ & $<607.8$ & $<390.6$ & $<985.1$\\
763: \hline
764: {\bf 10.23}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-14.2\,\pm\,2.3$ & -- & -- & -- & $-2.2\,\pm\,8.4$ & $-17.9\,\pm\,10.7$ & $-1.3\,\pm\,16.4$\\
765: {\bf Ne\,{\sc x}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $14.5\,\pm\,2.6$ & -- & -- & -- & $<11.3$ & $<25.7$ & $<12.1$\\
766: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-416\,\pm\,69$ & -- & -- & -- & $-64\,\pm\,246$ & $-525\,\pm\,314$ & $-38\,\pm\,482$\\
767: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $425\,\pm\,75$ & -- & -- & -- & $<331.7$ & $<753.7$ & $<355.1$\\
768: \hline
769: {\bf 12.13}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-29.1\,\pm\,1.9$ & $-17.6\,\pm\,2.4$ & $-6.1\,\pm\,2.5$ & $-19.3\,\pm\,2.6$ & $-3.5\,\pm\,3.3$ & -- & $-6.8\,\pm\,5.6$\\
770: {\bf Ne\,{\sc x}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $34.0\,\pm\,1.6$ & $38.0\,\pm\,3.7$ & $24.3\,\pm\,4.4$ & $27.3\,\pm\,4.0$ & $29.7\,\pm\,5.6$ & -- & $<19.0$\\
771: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-719\,\pm\,47$ & $-435\,\pm\,60$ & $-151\,\pm\,62$ & $-477\,\pm\,65$ & $-87\,\pm\,81$ & -- & $-168\,\pm\,139$\\
772: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $841\,\pm\,39$ & $939\,\pm\,91$ & $601\,\pm\,110$ & $675\,\pm\,99$ & $733\,\pm\,137$ & -- & $<469.3$\\
773: \hline
774: {\bf 15.01}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-14.8\,\pm\,3.3$ & $12.7\,\pm\,4.8$ & $4.1\,\pm\,3.2$ & -- & -- & -- & $18.3\,\pm\,4.5$\\
775: {\bf Fe\,{\sc xvii}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $19.7\,\pm\,4.4$ & $65.5\,\pm\,5.8$ & $30.5\,\pm\,4.4$ & -- & -- & -- & $28.3\,\pm\,3.0$\\
776: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-296\,\pm\,65$ & $254\,\pm\,96$ & $82\,\pm\,64$ & -- & -- & -- & $365\,\pm\,91$\\
777: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $394\,\pm\,89$ & $1308\,\pm\,115$ & $609\,\pm\,89$ & -- & -- & -- & $565\,\pm\,60$\\
778: \hline
779: {\bf 16.78}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-19.8\,\pm\,7.3$ & $-29.6\,\pm\,6.5$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & $-38.9\,\pm\,8.5$\\
780: {\bf Fe\,{\sc xvii}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $15.1\,\pm\,7.3$ & $13.3\,\pm\,11.2$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & $<14.1$\\
781: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-354\,\pm\,131$ & $-529\,\pm\,116$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & $-695\,\pm\,151$\\
782: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $270\,\pm\,130$ & $238\,\pm\,201$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & $<252.6$\\
783: \hline
784: {\bf 18.97}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $-79.7\,\pm\,9.6$ & $-82.6\,\pm\,2.8$ & $-38.1\,\pm\,5.2$ & -- & -- & -- & $-26.3\,\pm\,3.0$\\
785: {\bf O\,{\sc viii}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & $57.2\,\pm\,5.7$ & $53.5\,\pm\,3.1$ & $68.3\,\pm\,3.0$ & -- & -- & -- & $<1.0$\\
786: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $-1260\,\pm\,151$ & $-1305\,\pm\,44$ & $-602\,\pm\,82$ & -- & -- & -- & $-416\,\pm\,47$\\
787: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & $904\,\pm\,91$ & $845\,\pm\,50$ & $1080\,\pm\,48$ & -- & -- & -- & $<16.1$\\
788: \hline
789: {\bf 24.78}\ \hfill $\Delta\lambda$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & -- & $-106.9\,\pm\,6.3$ & $30.0\,\pm\,7.7$ & -- & -- & -- & $-6.9\,\pm\,0.4$\\
790: {\bf N\,{\sc vii}}\hfill $\sigma$\,{\tiny (m\AA)} & -- & $82.2\,\pm\,5.9$ & $170.3\,\pm\,1.5$ & -- & -- & -- & $<7.9$\\
791: \hfill $v_{\rm shift}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & -- & $-1293\,\pm\,76$ & $363\,\pm\,93$ & -- & -- & -- & $-83\,\pm\,4$\\
792: \hfill $v_{\rm width}$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)} & -- & $994\,\pm\,72$ & $2060\,\pm\,18$ & -- & -- & -- & $<95.7$\\
793: \hline
794: $v_{\rm shock}(T_1)$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)}$^b$&
795: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1899\,\pm\,22$} & $1284\,\pm\,30$ & $1269\,\pm\,44$ & -- & -- & $792\,\pm\,37$\\
796: $v_{\rm shock}(T_2)$\,{\tiny (km\,s$^{-1}$)}$^b$&
797: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$792\,\pm\,8$} & $792\,\pm\,8$ & $714\,\pm\,7$ & -- & $747\,\pm\,60$ & $548\,\pm\,61$\\
798:
799: \hline
800: \end{tabular}
801:
802: $^a$rest wavelengths\ \ $^b$From k$T_1$ and k$T_2$ in APEC models
803: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
804: \end{flushleft}
805: \end{table*}
806:
807: \subsection{Line fluxes}
808: \label{lfluxmeas}
809:
810: We have used our line fitting program Cora \citep{newi02} to measure
811: line counts which are then converted to line fluxes using the
812: effective areas extracted from the instrument calibration.
813: The Cora program applies the likelihood method described in
814: the appendix and adds a model of line templates to the
815: instrumental background. In order to measure the line fluxes on
816: top of the continuum, we have added a constant source background
817: to the instrumental background before fitting. The continuum
818: is not expected to change significantly over the narrow
819: wavelength range considered for line fitting.
820:
821: In Table~\ref{elines} we list
822: the measured line fluxes for the strongest lines of Fe and the
823: H-like and He-like lines of N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, and S, sorted
824: by wavelength (for emission line fluxes measured on days
825: 39.7, 66.9, and 54 we refer to \citealt{ness_rsoph}). The
826: given uncertainties are the statistical uncertainties. Additional
827: systematic uncertainties arise from the assumed level of the
828: underlying continuum and line widths (see \S\ref{syserr}). The
829: fluxes are not corrected for the effects of interstellar or
830: circumstellar absorption. In the bottom part of Table~\ref{elines}
831: we list line ratios of H-like to He-like line fluxes, which are
832: temperature and density indicators.
833:
834: \begin{figure}[!ht]
835: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lrats}}
836: \caption{\label{lrats}Evolution of average temperatures
837: derived from ratios of H-like and He-like lines for the
838: elements given in the legend. The values are listed in
839: Table~\ref{lytemps}. Error bars are statistical errors;
840: systematic errors are small (see \S\ref{syserr}).
841: }
842: \end{figure}
843:
844: In the top part of Table~\ref{lytemps} we list temperatures
845: derived from the H-like to He-like line ratios of the same
846: species (after correction for $N_{\rm H}$ as noted in
847: Table~\ref{lytemps}) using
848: theoretical predictions of the same ratios as a function of
849: temperature extracted from an atomic database computed by
850: the Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code
851: \citep[APEC, v1.3:][]{smith01,smith01b}. The temperatures
852: are computed under the assumption of collisional equilibrium
853: (see end of this section and \S\ref{methods} for more details)
854: and are average
855: values assuming that the plasma is isothermal over the
856: temperature range over which the respective H-like and
857: He-like lines are formed. Lines originating from high-Z
858: elements probe hotter plasma. Since the lines
859: involved in each ratio are from the same element, these
860: ratios yield temperatures independently of the elemental
861: abundances \citep[see, e.g.,][]{abun,ness_vel}. A graphical
862: representation is given in Fig.~\ref{lrats}, and it can
863: be seen that the Si ratios probe hotter plasma than the
864: N ratios. Significantly different temperatures are derived,
865: indicating that we are dealing with a wide range of
866: temperatures in the early observations (before
867: day $\sim 70$). The measurements for the later observations
868: deliver consistent temperatures (at least within the large
869: uncertainties), indicating that the plasma could be
870: characterized by a single temperature by that time. The
871: temperatures derived from the Mg lines indicate that the
872: hotter plasma cools until
873: day $\sim 70$ and remains constant after that time.
874: A similar behavior can be concluded from the other values
875: but it is not as clear. For example the temperatures derived
876: from the Ne lines yield a slight increase, however, the
877: temperature on day 26.1 may also be anomalously low,
878: owing to line blends of the Ne\,{\sc ix} lines
879: \citep{nebr}.
880: We note that the N lines observed on day 26.1 show a
881: peculiar behavior in the line shifts and -widths (see
882: Table~\ref{vlines}), and the derived temperature may
883: thus not represent the same plasma as the values for the
884: other times of evolution. For days 39.7-66.9
885: the cool component cannot be probed because the O and N
886: lines are outshone by the SSS emission from the WD. The
887: temperature derived from the O lines for day 39.7 is based
888: on the fluxes measured by \cite{ness_rsoph} on top of the
889: SSS continuum. These fluxes may be contaminated by
890: photoexcitations, but the derived temperature agrees
891: well with the temperatures derived for the other days.
892:
893: In the bottom part of Table~\ref{lytemps} we list
894: densities derived from the He-like
895: forbidden-to-intercombination (f/i) line ratios for the
896: ions O\,{\sc vii} and Ne\,{\sc ix}. These values have
897: been derived assuming collisional equilibrium according to
898: the parameterization derived by \cite{gj69}, neglecting
899: UV radiation; see, e.g., \cite{denspaper} for details. The
900: method explores density-dependent excitations out of the
901: upper level of the f line (1s2p\,$^3$S) into that of the
902: i line (1s2p\,$^3$P). In the low-density limit, all
903: ions in the 1s2p\,$^3$S state radiate to the
904: ground (1s$^2$\,$^1$S), giving rise to the f line, while
905: with increasing density, collisional excitations from the
906: 1s$^2$\,$^3$S state into the 1s2p\,$^3$P state reduce the
907: f line and increase the i line. However, the
908: 1s2p\,$^3$P-1s2p\,$^3$S transition can
909: also be induced by UV radiation, whose presence would
910: mimic a high density if neglected \citep{blum72,ness_cap}.
911: Especially for the early
912: spectra we must assume that significant UV contamination
913: from the WD has to be accounted for. While the
914: UV intensity can be estimated from IUE observations
915: of the 1985 outburst \citep{shore96}, the distance
916: between the X-ray emitting plasma and the UV source
917: needs to be known in order to quantify the contaminating
918: effects for the density diagnostics. Since UV radiation
919: fields, if present, mimic high densities, we treat the
920: values with great caution, but we can at least conclude
921: that the density is not higher than any of the values
922: listed in Table~\ref{lytemps}.
923:
924: In the next section we present models for which the
925: assumption of optically thin plasma is made.
926: As a test of this assumption we measure the line flux
927: ratio of the Ly$\beta$ (3p-1s) to Ly$\alpha$ (2p-1s) lines of
928: the H-like ion Ne\,{\sc x} (10.23\,\AA\ and 12.12\,\AA,
929: respectively), which increases with increasing
930: optical depth, but also depends on the electron
931: temperature and the amount of photoelectric absorption
932: in the line of sight. Theoretical predictions of the same
933: ratio for an optically thin plasma in collisional equilibrium,
934: from the atomic databases CHIANTI version 5.2 \citep{landi06}
935: and APEC, vary between 0.1 and 0.3 within the temperature range
936: $10^6$ to $10^8$\,K, while for day 13.8 we measure a ratio of
937: $0.17\,\pm\,0.02$. This is well within the expected range.
938: We also refer to the tests presented by \cite{nelson07}
939: who measured the so-called G-ratio of the He-like triplets
940: of S, Si, and Mg and concluded that the plasma is collisionally
941: dominated.\\
942:
943: \begin{table*}[!ht]
944: \begin{flushleft}
945: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
946: \caption{\label{elines}Evolution of emission line fluxes.}
947: \begin{tabular}{lrccccccccc}
948: & & flux$^{b}$ & flux$^{b}$& flux$^{b}$ & flux$^{b}$ & flux$^{b}$& flux$^{b}$& flux$^{b}$ \\
949: Ion & $\lambda_0^{a}$\small{(\AA)}&day 13.81 & day 13.88 & day 26.1 & day 111.7 & day 205.9 & days 204--208$^e$ & day 239.2\\
950: \hline
951: Fe\,{\sc xxvi} & 1.78 & $<144$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
952: Fe\,{\sc xxv}$^c$ & 1.85 & $1037\,\pm\,190$ & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
953: S\,{\sc xvi} & 4.73 & $219\,\pm\,22$ & -- & \multicolumn{2}{c}{day 39.7: $<33.8$} & -- & -- & -- \\
954: S\,{\sc xv}$^c$ & 5.04 & $624\,\pm\,84$ & -- & \multicolumn{2}{c}{day 39.7: $78.1\,\pm\,67.7$} & -- & -- & -- \\
955: Si\,{\sc xiv} & 6.18 & $349\,\pm\,13$ & $260\,\pm\,32$ & $138\,\pm\,29$ & $2.7\,\pm\,1.8$ & -- & $<1.5$ & -- \\
956: Si\,{\sc xiii}$^c$ & 6.65 & $620\,\pm\,32$ & $795\,\pm\,112$ & $560\,\pm\,124$ & $10.3\,\pm\,5.6$ & -- & $<5.1$ & -- \\
957: Mg\,{\sc xii} & 8.42 & $412\,\pm\,11$ & $585\,\pm\,19$ & $269\,\pm\,19$ & $5.1\,\pm\,2.0$ & $<0.3$ & $1.3\,\pm\,0.7$ & $<0.3$\\
958: Mg\,{\sc xi}$^c$ & 9.20 & $383\,\pm\,30$ & $369\,\pm\,35$ & $374\,\pm\,47$ & $18.8\,\pm\,7.6$ & $4.5\,\pm\,2.9$ & $4.1\,\pm\,2.4$ & $2.2\,\pm\,1.1$ \\
959: Ne\,{\sc x} & 12.13 & $273\,\pm\,20$ & $309\,\pm\,9.2$ & $309\,\pm\,12$ & $21.6\,\pm\,3.0$ & $3.0\,\pm\,0.7$ & $3.2\,\pm\,0.7$ & $2.0\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
960: +Fe\,{\sc xvii} & 12.12&\multicolumn{5}{l}{1.08 times the flux at 12.26\,\AA\ if $\log T<6.9$ otherwise negligible}&\\
961: Fe\,{\sc xvii} & 12.26 & $52.8\,\pm\,6.8$ & $52.5\,\pm\,6.6$ & $82.8\,\pm\,9.3$ & $3.2\,\pm\,1.8$ & $<1.6$ & $1.5\,\pm\,0.6$ & $<0.75$\\
962: +Fe\,{\sc xxi} & 12.28&\multicolumn{5}{l}{at $\log T>6.9$ only Fe\,{\sc xxi} otherwise only Fe\,{\sc xvii}}&\\
963: Ne\,{\sc ix} & 13.44 & $71.8\,\pm\,8.9$ & $99.8\,\pm\,5.3$ & $148\,\pm\,9.4$ & $19.6\,\pm\,2.8$ & $3.7\,\pm\,0.8$ & $3.4\,\pm\,0.7$ & $3.1\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
964: Ne\,{\sc ix} (i)$^{d}$& 13.55 & $19.8\,\pm\,6.8$ & $38.2\,\pm\,4.5$ & $60.3\,\pm\,8.4$ & $3.4\,\pm\,1.8$ & $1.2\,\pm\,0.6$ & $1.0\,\pm\,0.6$ & $0.7\,\pm\,0.4$ \\
965: Ne\,{\sc ix} (f)$^{d}$& 13.69 & $33.9\,\pm\,6.8$ & $53.3\,\pm\,4.1$ & $82.3\,\pm\,7.4$ & $10.1\,\pm\,2.1$ & $3.3\,\pm\,0.7$ & $2.8\,\pm\,0.6$ & $2.4\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
966: Fe\,{\sc xvii} & 14.21 & $33.6\,\pm\,7.5$ & $45.5\,\pm\,3.4$ & $59.5\,\pm\,5.6$ & $1.8\,\pm\,1.4$ & $1.6\,\pm\,0.6$ & $1.0\,\pm\,0.5$ &--\\
967: Fe\,{\sc xvii} & 15.01 & $67.3\,\pm\,8.1$ & $69.5\,\pm\,3.6$ & $156\,\pm\,7.7$ & $14.3\,\pm\,2.1$ & $3.4\,\pm\,0.7$ & $2.7\,\pm\,0.5$ & $2.7\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
968: O\,{\sc viii} & 18.97 & $84.2\,\pm\,19$ & $92.5\,\pm\,3.1$ & $186\,\pm\,13$ & $33.5\,\pm\,2.8$ & $7.7\,\pm\,1.4$ & $5.3\,\pm\,0.6$ & $5.2\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
969: O\,{\sc vii} & 21.60 & -- & $14.8\,\pm\,1.9$ & $29.5\,\pm\,3.1$ & $6.8\,\pm\,1.8$ & $2.4\,\pm\,0.5$ & $2.1\,\pm\,0.6$ & $0.9\,\pm\,0.3$ \\
970: O\,{\sc vii} (i)$^{d}$& 21.80 & -- & $<1.5$ & $13.6\,\pm\,2.4$ & $1.3\,\pm\,1.3$ & $1.4\,\pm\,0.4$ & $<0.5$ & $0.6\,\pm\,0.3$ \\
971: O\,{\sc vii} (f)$^{d}$& 22.10 & -- & $6.4\,\pm\,1.3$ & $33.4\,\pm\,3.2$ & $5.4\,\pm\,1.7$ & $2.0\,\pm\,0.5$ & $0.8\,\pm\,0.6$ & $1.0\,\pm\,0.3$ \\
972: N\,{\sc vii} & 24.78 & -- & $43.0\,\pm\,1.8$ & $259\,\pm\,12.8$ & $15.7\,\pm\,2.3$ & $6.6\,\pm\,0.7$ & $3.9\,\pm\,0.6$ & $4.0\,\pm\,0.5$ \\
973: N\,{\sc vi} & 28.78 & -- & $2.3\,\pm\,0.6$ & $35.4\,\pm\,3.5$ & $1.8\,\pm\,1.1$ & $<0.4$ & $<1.5$ & $0.4\,\pm\,0.2$\\
974: C\,{\sc vi} & 33.74 & -- & $<0.6$ & $<0.5$ & $<1.4$ & $<0.3$ & $<0.9$ & $<0.1$\\
975:
976: \hline
977: \multicolumn{9}{l}{Temperature-sensitive line ratios}\\
978: Fe\,{\sc xxvi}/Fe\,{\sc xxv} && $<0.2$&--&--&--&--&--&--\\
979: S\,{\sc xvi}/S\,{\sc xv} && $0.35\,\pm\,0.06$&--& \multicolumn{2}{c}{day 39.7: $<3.25$}&--&--&--\\
980: Si\,{\sc xiv}/Si\,{\sc xiii}& &$0.56\,\pm\,0.04$ & $0.33\,\pm\,0.06$ & $0.25\,\pm\,0.08$ & $0.26\,\pm\,0.23$ & -- & -- &--\\
981: Mg\,{\sc xii}/Mg\,{\sc xi}& & $1.08\,\pm\,0.09$ & $1.59\,\pm\,0.16$ & $0.72\,\pm\,0.10$ & $0.27\,\pm\,0.15$ & $<0.2$ & $0.32\,\pm\,0.25$ & $<0.3$ \\
982: Ne\,{\sc ix}/Ne\,{\sc x} &&$3.80\,\pm\,0.54$ & $3.09\,\pm\,0.19$ & $2.10\,\pm\,0.16$ & $1.10\,\pm\,0.22$ & $0.81\,\pm\,0.26$ & $0.94\,\pm\,0.28$ & $0.65\,\pm\,0.19$ \\
983: O\,{\sc viii}/O\,{\sc vii} &&-- & $6.25\,\pm\,0.83$ & $6.31\,\pm\,0.79$ & $4.93\,\pm\,1.37$ & $3.21\,\pm\,0.89$ & $2.52\,\pm\,0.78$ & $5.78\,\pm\,2.00$ \\
984: N\,{\sc vii}/N\,{\sc vi} &&-- & $18.70\,\pm\,4.94$ & $7.32\,\pm\,0.81$ & $8.72\,\pm\,5.48$ & $>14.8$ & $>2.2$ & $10.00\,\pm\,5.15$ \\
985: \hline
986: \multicolumn{9}{l}{Density-sensitive line ratios}\\
987: Ne\,{\sc ix} (f/i) && $1.7\,\pm\,0.7$ & $1.4\,\pm\,0.2$ & $1.4\,\pm\,0.2$ & $3.0\,\pm\,1.7$ & $2.8\,\pm\,1.5$ & $2.8\,\pm\,1.8$ & $3.4\,\pm\,2.1$\\
988: O\,{\sc vii} (f/i) && -- & $>4.3$ & $2.5\,\pm\,0.5$ & $>4.2$ & $1.4\,\pm\,0.5$ & $>4.0$ & $1.7\,\pm\,1.0$\\
989: \hline
990: \end{tabular}
991: Uncertainties and upper limits are 68.3\%. Additional systematic
992: uncertainties are discussed in \S\ref{syserr}.\ $\bullet$\
993: $^{a}$rest wavelengths $\bullet\ ^{b}10^{-14}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$
994: $\bullet\ ^{c}$sum of three lines
995: $\bullet\ ^{d}$intersystem line
996: $\bullet\ ^e$Sum of Chandra spectra taken between days 203.3 and 208.2 (see
997: Table~\ref{tab1}).
998: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
999: \end{flushleft}
1000: \end{table*}
1001:
1002: \begin{table*}[!ht]
1003: \begin{flushleft}
1004: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
1005: \caption{\label{lytemps}Temperatures and Densities derived from H-like to He-like line ratios}
1006: \begin{tabular}{lrccccccccc}
1007: Ion & day 13.81 & day 26.1 & day 39.7 & day 54 & day 66.9 & day 111.7 & days 204--208$^a$ & day 239.2\\
1008: \hline
1009: \multicolumn{9}{l}{$\log T$ in K, after correction of line ratios
1010: for $N_{\rm H}$ with values $5\times 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for
1011: days 13.8 and 26.1 and $2.4\times 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for the
1012: rest.}\\
1013: Fe & $<7.8$&--&--&--&--&--&--\\
1014: S & $7.21^{+0.02}_{-0.20}$ & -- & $<7.61$&--&--&--&--\\
1015: Si & $7.09\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.98\,\pm\,0.03$ & $7.02\,\pm\,0.02$ & $7.01^{+0.05}_{-0.1}$ & $7.05^{+0.08}_{-0.14}$ & $7.00^{+0.08}_{-0.19}$ & -- & -- \\
1016: Mg &$6.96\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.91\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.87\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.85\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.81\,\pm\,0.03$ & $6.80^{+0.04}_{-0.1}$ & $6.81^{+0.07}_{-0.16}$ & $<6.8$ \\
1017: Ne &$6.81\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.72\,\pm\,0.01$ &$6.74\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.77\,\pm\,0.03$ & $6.79^{+0.05}_{-0.1}$& $6.65\,\pm\,0.03$ & $6.63\,\pm\,0.04$ & $6.59\,\pm\,0.03$ \\
1018: O & $6.46\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.46\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.42\,\pm\,0.03$ &--&--& $6.52\,\pm\,0.04$ & $6.43\,\pm\,0.04$ & $6.55^{+0.05}_{-0.1}$ \\
1019: N & $6.36\,\pm\,0.04$ & $6.23\,\pm\,0.01$ &--&--&--& $6.40^{+0.08}_{-0.15}$ & $>6.5$ & $6.42\,\pm\,0.11$ \\
1020: \hline
1021: \multicolumn{9}{l}{Densities, $\log n_e$ in cm$^{-3}$, from He-like triplet ratios assuming no UV illumination (see text \S\ref{lfluxmeas})}\\
1022: O\,{\sc vii} & $<8$ & $10.3^{+0.7}_{-0.2}$ & -- & -- & -- & $<8$ & $10.7^{+0.2}_{-0.8}$ & $10.6^{+0.2}_{-0.8}$\\
1023: Ne\,{\sc ix} & $11.7\,\pm\,0.4$ & $11.9^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$ & -- & -- & -- & $>10.3$ & $>10.8$ & $>9$\\
1024: \hline
1025: \end{tabular}
1026: $^a$Sum of Chandra spectra taken between days 203.3 and 208.2.
1027: The results are consistent with {\it XMM}
1028: observations taken day 205.9.
1029: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1030: \end{flushleft}
1031: \end{table*}
1032:
1033: \section{Analysis}
1034: \label{anal}
1035:
1036: For the interpretation of the observations described above
1037: we use two model approaches. First we compute multi-temperature
1038: plasma models with the fitting package {\sc xspec} \citep{xspec}.
1039: We use the atomic data computed by APEC which are similar to
1040: the MEKAL database, and the results can be compared to those
1041: given by \cite{bode06} for earlier X-ray observations.
1042: Next, we use the measured emission line fluxes from
1043: Table~\ref{elines} to construct a model of a smooth temperature
1044: distribution. This model allows us to determine relative
1045: abundances.
1046:
1047: \subsection{Description of methods and model assumptions}
1048: \label{methods}
1049:
1050: For our modeling of the X-ray spectra of the shock we assume:
1051: (1) that all emission originates
1052: from the same volume with the same abundances, (2) that the
1053: plasma is in a collisional equilibrium, and (3) that it is
1054: optically thin.
1055:
1056: The first assumption is implicit in all spectral analyses
1057: in X-rays unless spatial resolution is available. Although
1058: there is likely stratification to some extent in the
1059: emitting environment, we have no basis on which we can
1060: develop more refined models. We further have to assume a
1061: uniform plasma, which implies that interstellar and
1062: circumstellar absorption can only be modelled with
1063: a single absorption component.
1064:
1065: The line ratios used in the end of \S\ref{lfluxmeas} support the other
1066: two assumptions. In a collisional plasma, all temperatures
1067: are kinetic temperatures, derived from the distribution of
1068: velocities, which is commonly assumed to be Maxwellian. While
1069: in a shocked plasma collisions are the main energy source
1070: for all atomic transitions, the assumption of an equilibrium
1071: is not necessarily valid. Note that
1072: rapid recombination can lead to non-equilibrium conditions,
1073: since recombination into excited states leads to
1074: an overpopulation of upper levels and consequently to
1075: excessively high fluxes in certain emission lines. Nevertheless,
1076: we base our analysis on the assumption of equilibrium
1077: conditions and discuss the implications of this assumption
1078: where relevant.
1079:
1080: The third assumption implies that all emission that is produced
1081: in the collisional plasma escapes unaltered. However, lines
1082: with high oscillator strengths may be reabsorbed within the
1083: plasma and reemitted in a different direction (resonant
1084: line scattering). Depending on the plasma geometry, resonance
1085: lines may be stronger or weaker compared to optically thin
1086: plasma, since resonance line photons can be scattered out of
1087: the line of sight or into the line of sight. In a spherical
1088: geometry the processes cancel out and no effects from
1089: resonant line scattering are detectable. Ways to detect
1090: resonant line scattering are discussed by \cite{ness_opt}.
1091: The emission line fluxes presented in \S\ref{lfluxmeas} show
1092: no signatures of resonant line scattering.
1093:
1094: In a collisional plasma the brightness of a source is
1095: expressed in terms of the volume emission measure,
1096: $VEM$, which is a measure of the intensity per unit volume
1097: (in cm$^{-3}$). The $VEM$
1098: is defined as $VEM=\int n_{\rm e}^2{\rm d}V$ with
1099: $n_{\rm e}$ the electron density and $V$ the emitting
1100: volume. A given value of $VEM$ is thus proportional to the
1101: emitting volume; however, volumes can only be determined
1102: from independent density measurements which are difficult
1103: to obtain from X-ray spectra (see \S\ref{lfluxmeas}).
1104:
1105: The volume emission measure as a function of temperature,
1106: $T$, is called the emission measure distribution (EMD). A given
1107: EMD is a model that allows the calculation of continuum
1108: emission by bremsstrahlung and emission line fluxes, which
1109: together form a predicted X-ray spectrum that can be
1110: compared to an observed spectrum. In order to predict the
1111: line flux for a line at wavelength $\lambda$, one needs the
1112: respective line contribution function with temperature $T$
1113: \begin{equation}
1114: \label{gte}
1115: G_\lambda(T)=0.83\frac{h\,c}{\lambda}\frac{n_u(T)}{n_I(T)n_{\rm e}(T)}\frac{n_I(T)}{n_E}\frac{n_E}{n_{\rm H}}A_{ul}\frac{1}{4\pi d^2}
1116: \end{equation}
1117: with $h$ Planck's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $\lambda$
1118: the wavelength of the line. The number densities are given with
1119: $n$ with subscripts $u$ for ions in the upper level in the
1120: transition, $I$ for the ionization stage in which the transition
1121: occurs, $E$ for the element giving rise to the transition,
1122: and $n_e$ is the electron density.
1123: The ratio $n_I(T)/n_E$ is the ionization balance, and calculations
1124: of $n_I(T)/n_E$ as a function of temperature have been presented
1125: by \cite{mazzotta}. The ratio $n_E/n_{\rm H}$ represents
1126: the absolute elemental abundance, and $A_{ul}$ is the Einstein
1127: A-value. With a given EMD (which can also be written as
1128: $VEM(T)$) the predicted line fluxes are
1129: \begin{equation}
1130: \label{fpred}
1131: F_\lambda=\int VEM(T)\times G_\lambda(T) \times {\rm d}T\,.
1132: \end{equation}
1133: An EMD can be defined as one or more isothermal components
1134: (\S\ref{xspecsect}) or as a continuous function of temperature
1135: (\S\ref{lfluxes}).
1136:
1137: When fitting models using {\sc xspec} (\S\ref{xspecsect}) all
1138: information that is available in the atomic database is used
1139: to constrain the models. We make use of a second approach
1140: (\S\ref{lfluxes}) selecting only the most reliable
1141: atomic data, and constrain the models by fitting the
1142: measured line fluxes rather than the entire spectrum.
1143: Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and we compare
1144: the two approaches in \S\ref{cmpmodels}.
1145:
1146: In \S\ref{syserr} we discuss estimates of systematic
1147: uncertainties in addition to the given statistical
1148: uncertainties.
1149:
1150: \subsection{Multi-temperature plasma models}
1151: \label{xspecsect}
1152:
1153: \begin{table*}[!ht]
1154: \begin{flushleft}
1155: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
1156: \caption{\label{xspec}Model parameters from multi-$T$ APEC
1157: models}
1158: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1159: \hline
1160: & day 13.8 & day 26.1$^b$ & day 26.1$^c$ & day 39.7 & day 66.9 & day 111.7 & day 239.2\\
1161: k$T_1^a$ & $4.19\,\pm\,0.11$ & $1.80\,\pm\,0.24$ & $1.91\,\pm\,0.07$ & $1.88\,\pm\,0.13$ & $74.4^{+5.5}_{-62}$ & $0.74\,\pm\,0.06$ & $<79.9$\\
1162: $\log(T)^a$ & $7.69\,\pm\,0.01$ & $7.32\,\pm\,0.06$ & $7.35\,\pm\,0.02$ & $7.34\,\pm\,0.03$ & $8.93^{+0.01}_{-8.13}$ & $6.93\,\pm\,0.04$ & $<8.97$\\
1163: $\log(EM_1)^a$ & $58.02\,\pm\,0.01$ & $57.48\,\pm\,0.04$ & $57.51\,\pm\,0.02$ & $57.23\,\pm\,0.03$ & $56.6\,\pm\,0.14$ & $56.15\,\pm\,0.09$ & $<54.04$\\
1164: k$T_2^a$ & $0.74\,\pm\,0.01$ & $0.74\,\pm\,0.02$ & $0.74\,\pm\,0.01$ & $0.60\,\pm\,0.01$ & $0.66^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ & $0.35\,\pm\,0.03$ & $0.37\,\pm\,0.02$\\
1165: $\log(T)^a$ & $6.93\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.93\,\pm\,0.02$ & $6.93\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.84\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.88^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $6.61\,\pm\,0.11$ & $6.63\,\pm\,0.03$\\
1166: $\log(EM_2)^a$& $57.76\,\pm\,0.01$ & $57.69\,\pm\,0.05$ & $57.67\,\pm\,0.04$ & $57.44\,\pm\,0.02$ & $56.81\,\pm\,0.20$ & $55.21\,\pm\,0.09$ & $55.65\,\pm\,0.03$\\
1167: k$T_3^a$ & $0.30\,\pm\,0.01$ & $0.37\,\pm\,0.03$ & $0.38\,\pm\,0.02$ & $0.11\,\pm\,0.01$ & $0.14\,\pm\,0.06$ & $0.12\,\pm\,0.03$ & $0.11\,\pm\,0.02$\\
1168: $\log(T)^a$ & $6.55\,\pm\,0.01$ & $6.64\,\pm\,0.96$ & $6.64\,\pm\,0.03$ & $6.10\,\pm\,0.06$ & $6.21\,\pm\,0.24$& $6.14\,\pm\,0.11$&$6.12\,\pm\,0.10$\\
1169: $\log(EM_3)^a$& $57.46\,\pm\,0.02$ & $57.60\,\pm\,0.09$ & $57.61\,\pm\,0.05$ & $58.96^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ & $58.88\,\pm\,1.21$ & $55.88\,\pm\,0.25$ & $55.32\,\pm\,0.45$\\
1170: $N_{\rm H}$ & $6.95\,\pm\,0.35$ & $5.59\,\pm\,0.02$ & $5.56\,\pm\,0.13$ & 2.4 & 2.4 & 2.4 & 2.4\\
1171: $\chi^2_{\rm red},\,dof^{\,d}$& 0.67,\,{\it 21317} & 1.70,\,{\it 2939} & 1.73,\,{\it 3151} & (0.65,\,{\it 1928})$^e$ & (0.18,\,{\it 1294})$^e$ & (0.21,\,{\it 10088})$^e$ & (0.59,\,{\it 5228})$^e$\\
1172: \hline
1173: \end{tabular}
1174:
1175: $^a$Units: k$T$ in keV, $T$ in K, $EM$ in cm$^{-3}$, $N_{\rm H}$
1176: in $10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$
1177: $\bullet\ ^b$Only RGS data\ $\bullet\ ^c$RGS and MOS1 data
1178: simultaneously\ $\bullet\ ^d$degrees of freedom\
1179: $\bullet\ ^e$after iteration with C-statistics\
1180: $\bullet\ ^f$fixed at values
1181: from day 13.8
1182: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1183: \end{flushleft}
1184: \end{table*}
1185:
1186: We construct spectral models using the X-ray fitting
1187: package {\sc xspec} version 11.3.2ag \citep{xspec} which
1188: combines all information in a given atomic database and
1189: generates count spectra to be compared to the observed
1190: count spectra. We chose multi-temperature APEC models
1191: comprising the sum of $n$ independent isothermal
1192: components with variable abundances relative to the
1193: solar values listed by \cite{agrev89}. Line fluxes are
1194: obtained applying Eq.~\ref{fpred} using the ionization
1195: balance by \cite{mazzotta}, and the plasma density is
1196: assumed constant at $\log n_e=0$ \citep{smith01}.
1197: We vary only
1198: the abundances of elements which produce strong emission
1199: lines in the respective spectra (see Figs.~\ref{day13.8} to
1200: \ref{day111.7}) and assume solar abundances
1201: for the other elements. We correct for interstellar
1202: absorption using the {\tt tbabs} module developed
1203: by \cite{wilms00} and allow the neutral hydrogen column
1204: density, $N_{\rm H}$, to vary
1205: only for the first two observations. For the later
1206: observations we fix $N_{\rm H}$ at the interstellar value
1207: of $N_{\rm H}=2.4\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$.
1208: The effects of $N_{\rm H}$ have a stronger influence on the
1209: cooler component and may affect the abundances of elements
1210: whose lines are formed at longer wavelength (i.e., nitrogen
1211: and oxygen).
1212:
1213: We use the optimization procedures provided by the
1214: {\sc xspec} programme to obtain best fits and the {\sc xspec}
1215: command {\tt error} to calculate the parameter uncertainties,
1216: yielding 90-per cent uncertainties. This command steps through
1217: a range for a given parameter, and in the course of this
1218: process further improvements of the fit can be found.
1219: The uncertainties returned by the {\tt error} command are
1220: only statistical uncertainties that describe the precision
1221: of the measurement but not necessarily the accuracy
1222: of the respective parameters (see \S\ref{syserr}). The
1223: results are listed in Table~\ref{xspec}, and some of the
1224: corresponding models are shown in Fig.~\ref{mepic}. The
1225: elemental abundances are only varied for day 13.8, because
1226: this is the best dataset. The values relative to
1227: \cite{agrev89} adopted for all observations are given in
1228: Table~\ref{abutab}, middle column.
1229:
1230: While the true EMD is most likely a continuous distribution,
1231: we use multi-temperature models. The only continuous EMD
1232: models to chose from in {\sc xspec} are Chebyshev polynomials
1233: of no more than six
1234: orders and are not constrained to be positive. We regard
1235: these EMDs as not sufficient for our purposes and therefore
1236: use the more standard multi-$T$ models. The number of free
1237: parameters, and thus the number of temperature components,
1238: has to be chosen to be as small as possible while still
1239: achieving a good fit. The spectra taken on day 13.8 have high
1240: statistical quality, and a 3-temperature (=3-$T$) model yields
1241: significantly better reproduction of the data than 2-temperature
1242: models. With variable abundances, no fourth temperature component
1243: is required to improve the fit. The APEC model has
1244: a redshift parameter that we allow to vary in order to
1245: account for line shifts (see \S\ref{lprofiles}),
1246: however, we cannot account for line broadening in excess
1247: of the instrumental line broadening function. While the
1248: model could be folded with a Gaussian with variable width,
1249: this is computationally expensive and unfeasible with the
1250: given high number of spectral bins and free parameters to be
1251: iterated. The long-wavelength lines and the associated
1252: elemental abundances (particularly of N and O) may thus
1253: be poorly determined, and our second approach (\S\ref{lfluxes})
1254: is more reliable for the abundances of these elements.
1255: Meanwhile, the lines at
1256: shorter wavelengths are not broadened by as much, and the
1257: abundances of the other elements are less affected.
1258: We fit the model
1259: simultaneously to the HEG and MEG spectra plus the RGS1
1260: and RGS2 spectra (top panels in Fig.~\ref{mepic}).
1261: Our model agrees better with the RGS data (top panel) than
1262: that presented by \cite{nelson07}, fig.~3, who have not
1263: varied the abundances but used four temperature components.
1264: No formal value of $\chi^2$ was given, but visual inspection
1265: clearly shows that their model does not reproduce the
1266: RGS spectrum. This demonstrates that the effects from
1267: non-solar abundances are indeed detectable.
1268:
1269: Since on day 26.1 the source was still bright, the observed
1270: spectra are also of high statistical quality, and 3-$T$
1271: models are better than 2-temperature models. Since we expect no
1272: detectable changes in the composition, we use the elemental
1273: abundances found from the day 13.8 observations for this and
1274: the following datasets. We discard all
1275: spectral bins longward of 20\,\AA\ because the emission does not
1276: originate from the shock (third and fourth panels in
1277: Fig.~\ref{mepic}). The N abundance is now less certain because
1278: the strong N\,{\sc vii} line at 24.78\,\AA\ is excluded.
1279: We concentrate on the RGS spectra but
1280: also compute a model including the MOS1 spectra which
1281: are sensitive at higher energies and are thus suited
1282: to constrain the hotter component. As can be seen from
1283: Table~\ref{xspec}, the model parameters are identical, and
1284: only the
1285: uncertainties of the model with the MOS1 data included
1286: are smaller. The hot component is thus detectable with
1287: the RGS alone.
1288:
1289: Since the spectra taken on days 39.7-66.9 are compromised
1290: by the SSS emission (bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{mepic})
1291: the X-ray emission from the low-temperature shocked plasma
1292: cannot be probed. The spectrum shortwards of $\sim 14$\,\AA\
1293: is not well enough exposed to require three temperature
1294: components. However, in order to compare the results, we allow
1295: three temperature components with the option that the fitting
1296: procedure can assign small values of emission measure to
1297: those components that are not detectable. We caution, however,
1298: that the hottest temperature component that probes the
1299: bremsstrahlung continuum may be overestimated due to
1300: systematic uncertainties in the instrumental background
1301: (see \S\ref{syserr}).
1302: If the theoretical continuum is of the same order as the
1303: noise in the background, arbitrarily high temperatures
1304: may result which will have to be treated with caution.
1305: Since the spectra taken after day 26.1 contain many bins with
1306: low counts, we use C-statistics \citep{cash79}. This approach
1307: is the based on the maximum likelihood (ML) method
1308: described in the appendix. We calculate
1309: a formal value of $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ after fitting with
1310: {\tt cstat} for comparison with the other fits. We use the
1311: errors on the count rates from the extracted spectra.\\
1312:
1313: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
1314: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{xspec}}
1315: \caption{\label{mepic}Best-fit APEC models (from top
1316: to bottom) to the
1317: \xmm/RGS and \chandra/MEG spectra on day 13.8
1318: \xmm/MOS1 and RGS spectra taken on day 26.1, and the
1319: \chandra/LETG spectrum taken on day 39.7. For day 26.1
1320: the soft component longwards of 20\,\AA\ was excluded from
1321: the fit, and for day 39.7 the SSS spectrum had to be excluded.
1322: }
1323: \end{figure*}
1324:
1325: \begin{figure}[!ht]
1326: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{absabu}}
1327: \caption{\label{absabu}Elemental abundances relative to solar
1328: \citep{agrev89} from APEC fits to the spectra of days
1329: 13.8 and 26.1. Each grid point is the result of
1330: iterating all free parameters with the absolute abundance
1331: fixed at the respective grid value. Plotted are the changes in
1332: $\chi^2$ compared to the best fit. The dashed horizontal
1333: lines mark the 68-\% and 95-\% confidence ranges.
1334: }
1335: \end{figure}
1336:
1337: Because the spectra on days 13.8 and 26.2 are of such high
1338: quality, we investigate absolute abundances using these
1339: two datasets
1340: (Fig.~\ref{absabu}). Although no hydrogen lines are present in
1341: the X-ray range, the absolute abundances can be determined
1342: from the strength of the continuum relative to the lines.
1343: The brightness of the continuum depends on the number of free
1344: electrons which, in an ionized plasma, scales with the
1345: hydrogen abundance. We thus need spectra with sufficient
1346: continuum emission. We step
1347: through a grid of (fixed) abundances and fit the remaining
1348: parameters to minimize $\chi^2$. In Fig.~\ref{absabu}
1349: we show the relative changes in $\chi^2$ for each grid
1350: point in comparison with the 68-\% and 95-\% confidence ranges
1351: (for 14 free parameters). While for day 13.8, solar abundances
1352: are preferred, the spectrum taken on day 26.1 suggests a
1353: somewhat lower metallicity, but from the confidence intervals one
1354: can see that their determination is highly uncertain.
1355: We therefore fix the absolute abundance at
1356: solar values and concentrate on the relative abundances.
1357:
1358: The final model parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{xspec}.
1359: From top to bottom we list $\log T$ and $\log VEM$ for each
1360: component, value of $N_{\rm H}$, and $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ with
1361: number of degrees of freedom ($dof$). The elemental abundances
1362: relative to solar \citep{agrev89} as determined from the day 13.8
1363: dataset are given in Table~\ref{abutab} and have been used for
1364: all models.
1365:
1366: \begin{figure}[!ht]
1367: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{evol_v}}
1368: \caption{\label{evol_v}Evolution of the shock velocity obtained
1369: from the temperatures found by \cite{bode06}, from the
1370: temperatures of the first and second components of the APEC
1371: models (Table~\ref{xspec}), and the highest temperatures measured
1372: from line ratios (Table~\ref{lytemps}).
1373: The dashed and dotted lines indicate the expected power law decay
1374: in an adiabatic plasma ($t^{-1/3}$) and
1375: in a radiatively cooling plasma ($t^{-1/2}$), respectively.
1376: The error bars are statistical errors. For additional
1377: systematic errors see \S\ref{syserr}.
1378: }
1379: \end{figure}
1380:
1381: In the same way as \cite{bode06} we compute shock velocities,
1382: $v_{\rm shock}$, from the temperatures of the first and second
1383: component of the APEC models (see Table~\ref{xspec}), and from
1384: the highest temperatures found from line ratios (Table~\ref{lytemps}).
1385: In Fig.~\ref{evol_v} we compare these results with those from
1386: \cite{bode06}. The dotted and dashed lines indicate the expected
1387: evolution for a radiatively cooling plasma and an adiabatic plasma,
1388: respectively \citep{bodekahn85}. The velocities derived from
1389: $T_1$ of our 3-$T$ APEC models for days 13.8 and 26.1 are slightly
1390: higher than the Bode values. The reason is that the 1-$T$ models
1391: used by \cite{bode06} are an average of all temperature
1392: components, accounting for some of the cooler plasma that in
1393: our 3-$T$ models are accounted for by the two cooler components.
1394: The evolution of $T_1$ follows the same trend as observed by
1395: \cite{bode06}. After day 26.2, the hottest component is much
1396: fainter, and $T_1$ is less certain. In Figs.~\ref{day39.7} and
1397: \ref{day111.7} one can see that the continuum emission level
1398: is significantly lower than that seen in Figs.~\ref{day13.8}
1399: and \ref{day26.1}. Since the parameters of the hottest
1400: temperature component are dominated by the continuum,
1401: systematic uncertainties from background noise have a
1402: stronger effect, and the velocities derived from the hottest
1403: temperature components may be overestimated for the observations
1404: taken after day 26.1 (see \S\ref{syserr}).
1405:
1406: The second plasma component is very similar to the values
1407: derived from the line ratios (Table~\ref{lytemps}), but these
1408: curves follow a different trend than the hottest component.
1409: For the observations of days
1410: 13.8 and 26.1, the line ratios yield much lower velocities
1411: than those from the APEC models. We attribute this
1412: difference to the stronger continuum observed for these
1413: two days. Since the continuum is dominated by the hottest
1414: plasma, the hottest temperature in the APEC models is driven
1415: by the continuum which, during the early observations,
1416: reflects a higher temperature than any of the emission
1417: lines can probe. Meanwhile, the emission lines can probe
1418: the structure of the temperature distribution better, and
1419: in the next section we describe an approach that focuses on
1420: a few selected emission lines.
1421:
1422: \subsection{Emission measure modeling}
1423: \label{lfluxes}
1424:
1425: \begin{table}[!ht]
1426: \begin{flushleft}
1427: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
1428: \caption{\label{fluxpred}Comparison of line flux measurements with predictions for day 13.8}
1429: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1430: \hline
1431: Ion$^a$ & $\lambda$ & $F_{\rm meas}^b$ & $\frac{F_{\rm meas}}{F_{\rm pred}}^c$ \\
1432: \hline
1433: {\bf N\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{VI}}} & 28.79 & 543 & $0.93\,\pm\,0.23$\\
1434: {\bf N\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{VII}}} & 24.78 & 1514 & $1.03\,\pm\,0.04$\\
1435: {\bf O\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{VII}}} & 21.60 & 1200 & $1.13\,\pm\,0.14$\\
1436: O\,{\scriptsize VII} & 22.10 & 686 & $1.00\,\pm\,0.20$\\
1437: {\bf O\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{VIII}}} & 18.97 & 1871 & $0.86\,\pm\,0.19$\\
1438: {\bf Ne\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{IX}}} & 13.45 & 358 & $0.95\,\pm\,0.12$\\
1439: Ne\,{\scriptsize IX} & 13.70 & 183 & $0.96\,\pm\,0.19$\\
1440: {\bf Ne\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{X}}} & 12.14 & 927 & $0.99\,\pm\,0.07$\\
1441: {\bf Mg\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XI}}} & 9.17 & 705 & $1.03\,\pm\,0.08$\\
1442: {\bf Mg\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XII}}} & 8.42 & 669 & $0.99\,\pm\,0.03$\\
1443: {\bf Si\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XIII}}} & 6.65 & 816 & $1.05\,\pm\,0.05$\\
1444: {\bf Si\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XIV}}} & 6.19 & 438 & $0.94\,\pm\,0.03$\\
1445: {\bf S\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XV}}} & 5.04 & 708 & $1.10\,\pm\,0.15$\\
1446: {\bf S\,{\boldmath \scriptsize{XVI}}} & 4.73 & 245 & $0.72\,\pm\,0.07$\\
1447: Fe\,{\scriptsize XVII} & 12.26 & 65.0 & $1.13\,\pm\,0.61$\\
1448: Fe\,{\scriptsize XVII} & 15.02 & 448 & $0.85\,\pm\,0.10$\\
1449: Fe\,{\scriptsize XVIII} & 14.21 & 216 & $1.17\,\pm\,0.26$\\
1450: Fe\,{\scriptsize XX} & 12.83 & 69.8 & $0.69\,\pm\,0.39$\\
1451: Fe\,{\scriptsize XX} & 12.85 & 97.7 & $1.08\,\pm\,0.44$\\
1452: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXI} & 12.28 & 174 & $0.96\,\pm\,0.39$\\
1453: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXII} & 11.77 & 92.5 & $1.07\,\pm\,0.20$\\
1454: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXIII} & 10.98 & 69.6 & $1.33\,\pm\,0.26$\\
1455: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXIII} & 11.74 & 99.8 & $1.49\,\pm\,0.25$\\
1456: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXIV} & 11.17 & 46.8 & $1.46\,\pm\,0.41$\\
1457: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXV} & 1.85 & 1045 & $29.4\,\pm\,5.40$\\
1458: Fe\,{\scriptsize XXVI} & 1.78 & $<145$ & $<5.19$\\
1459: \hline
1460: \end{tabular}
1461:
1462: $\bullet\ ^a$Lines used in deriving the mean EMD are given in bold face.\
1463: $\bullet\ ^b$Fluxes from Table~\ref{elines} in $10^{-14}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$, corrected for absorption assuming
1464: $N_{\rm H}=5\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$\
1465: $\bullet\ ^{c\,}$Predicted from the derived EMD, assuming constant pressure $\log P_{\rm e}=13.0$\
1466: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1467: \end{flushleft}
1468: \end{table}
1469:
1470: \begin{table}[!ht]
1471: \begin{flushleft}
1472: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
1473: \caption{\label{abutab}Elemental abundances relative to solar}
1474: \begin{tabular}{lrrr}
1475: \hline
1476: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{day 13.8}&day 111.7\\
1477: &EMD model&APEC model&EMD model\\
1478: \hline
1479: \multicolumn{4}{l}{correction factors}\\
1480: O&1.0&$0.77\,\pm\,0.03$&1.0\\
1481: N&$6.94\,\pm\,0.44$&$7.12\,\pm\,0.70$&$7.54^{+12}_{-5}$\\
1482: Ne&$1.39\,\pm\,0.11$&$0.68\,\pm\,0.03$&$1.36\,\pm\,0.16$\\
1483: Mg&$2.29\,\pm\,0.08$&$1.06\,\pm\,0.03$&$1.91\,\pm\,0.70$\\
1484: Si&$2.04\,\pm\,0.08$&$0.88\,\pm\,0.03$&$1.62\,\pm\,1.0$\\
1485: S&$3.16\,\pm\,0.21$&$0.69\,\pm\,0.12$&--\\
1486: Fe&$0.50\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.29\,\pm\,0.01$&$0.43\,\pm\,0.10$\\
1487: \hline
1488: \multicolumn{4}{l}{relative to oxygen}\\
1489: $[$N/O$]$&$0.84\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.95\,\pm\,0.05$&$0.88^{+0.41}_{-0.47}$\\
1490: $[$Ne/O$]$&$0.14\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.04\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.13\,\pm\,0.05$\\
1491: $[$Mg/O$]$&$0.36\,\pm\,0.02$&$0.24\,\pm\,0.02$&$0.28\,\pm\,0.20$\\
1492: $[$Si/O$]$&$0.31\,\pm\,0.02$&$0.16\,\pm\,0.02$&$0.21\,\pm\,0.42$\\
1493: $[$S/O$]$&$0.50\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.17\,\pm\,0.08$&--\\
1494: $[$Fe/O$]$&$-0.30\,\pm\,0.03$&$-0.50\,\pm\,0.03$&$-0.37\,\pm\,0.11$\\
1495: %$[$Mg/Ne$]$&$0.22\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.20\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.15\,\pm\,0.25$\\
1496: %$[$Mg/Si$]$&$0.05\,\pm\,0.02$&$0.08\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.07\,\pm\,0.41$\\
1497: %$[$Mg/S$]$&$-0.14\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.06\,\pm\,0.09$&--\\
1498: \hline
1499: \multicolumn{4}{l}{relative to iron}\\
1500: $[$N/Fe$]$&$1.14\,\pm\,0.05$&$1.43\,\pm\,0.07$&$1.24\,\pm\,0.58$\\
1501: $[$O/Fe$]$&$0.30\,\pm\,0.05$&$0.50\,\pm\,0.03$&$0.37\,\pm\,0.09$\\
1502: $[$Ne/Fe$]$&$0.45\,\pm\,0.05$&$0.53\,\pm\,0.05$&$0.47\,\pm\,0.15$\\
1503: $[$Mg/Fe$]$&$0.66\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.73\,\pm\,0.03$&$065\,\pm\,0.23$\\
1504: $[$Si/Fe$]$&$0.61\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.65\,\pm\,0.04$&$0.58\,\pm\,0.35$\\
1505: $[$S/Fe$]$&$0.80\,\pm\,0.05$&$0.67\,\pm\,0.12$&--\\
1506: \hline
1507: \end{tabular}
1508:
1509: all values relative to \cite{grev}
1510: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1511: \end{flushleft}
1512: \end{table}
1513:
1514: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
1515: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{emd3}}
1516: \caption{\label{emd}{\bf Upper panel}:
1517: Emission measure loci $L_\lambda(T)$, calculated for each line using
1518: Eq.~\ref{locieq} with line fluxes measured on day 13.8, and
1519: line emissivities assuming rescaled solar abundances
1520: \citep{grev} using the scaling factors
1521: listed in the top part of Table~\ref{abutab}.
1522: The black bullets, connected by a thick solid line
1523: indicate the mean emission measure distribution (EMD)
1524: yielding the best reproduction of the measured line fluxes.
1525: The loci for some lines that are not used to optimize the
1526: EMD are shown with light gray. The black X symbols indicate
1527: the results from 3-$T$ APEC models listed in Table~\ref{xspec}
1528: (see \S\ref{xspecsect} and discussion in \S\ref{cmpmodels}).
1529: {\bf Middle panel}: Emission measure loci only for
1530: Fe lines (gray: assuming solar abundances, black:
1531: corrected by factor 0.46 times solar) and the best-fit
1532: EMD from the top panel in purple.
1533: The bulk of the lines demands a reduction of the Fe abundance,
1534: but the Fe\,{\sc xxv} locus (top right curve) is then too high.
1535: The locus of Fe\,{\sc xxvi} (far right curve) is an upper
1536: limit. The contribution function of H-like Fe\,{\sc xxvi} above
1537: $10^8$\,K is estimated by extrapolating from the data below
1538: $10^8$\,K assuming the same shape as the H-like line of S\,{\sc xvi}.
1539: {\bf Bottom panel}: Same as top panel for line fluxes measured
1540: on day 111.7. The same elemental abundances are used. The black
1541: X symbols indicate the results from APEC models listed in
1542: Table~\ref{xspec}.
1543: }
1544: \end{figure*}
1545:
1546: We use the measured line fluxes listed in Table~\ref{elines}
1547: (corrected for absorption; see below) in order to reconstruct
1548: a continuous mean emission measure distribution (EMD) as a
1549: function of temperature, i.e., $VEM(T)$. We assume a constant
1550: electron pressure of $\log(P_{\rm e})=13.0$ (in units
1551: K\,cm$^{-3}$), which is equivalent to a density
1552: $\log(n_{\rm e} [{\rm cm}^{-3}])\lesssim 7$, depending on
1553: temperature. While this assumption is more realistic than
1554: $\log(n_{\rm e})=0$ (as used for the APEC models) this is still
1555: very crude, however, we use only lines that are not
1556: density-sensitive such that the results do not depend on the
1557: assumed pressure.
1558:
1559: We concentrate on the two simultaneous observations taken on day
1560: 13.8 because the combined \chandra\ and \xmm\ data provide the
1561: largest coverage in lines and most reliable line flux
1562: measurements. Details of the method are described in
1563: \cite{nejor07}. A similar approach has been described by
1564: \cite{ness_vel}. A continuous EMD is a more realistic
1565: representation than multi-temperature models, and it is a
1566: way to overcome
1567: the extreme simplification of assuming an isothermal plasma
1568: \citep[e.g.,][]{bode06}. We use Eq.~\ref{fpred} to compute line
1569: fluxes from a given EMD and compare the predicted fluxes to the
1570: measured fluxes. For Eq.~\ref{gte} we assume the same
1571: ionization balance that \cite{nejor07} used. The elemental
1572: abundances are relative to solar by \cite{grev}.
1573:
1574: As a guide to construct a starting EMD we compute the so-called
1575: emission measure loci $L_\lambda(T)$, which are the ratios of
1576: the measured line fluxes, $f_\lambda$, and the line contribution
1577: functions, $G_\lambda(T)$ (Eq.~\ref{gte}), i.e.,
1578: \begin{equation} \label{locieq}
1579: L_\lambda(T)=\frac{f_\lambda}{G_\lambda(T)}\,.
1580: \end{equation}
1581: In Fig.~\ref{emd} we show these loci for a set of lines selected
1582: on the grounds that the atomic physics are reliable and that
1583: the measured line fluxes (corrected for $N_{\rm H}=5\times
1584: 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for day 13.8 and $N_{\rm H}=2.4\times
1585: 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for day 111.7) are either not blended
1586: with other lines or
1587: are easy to deblend (see comments in Table~\ref{elines}). A few
1588: other lines are shown for comparison in light gray with the label
1589: at their minima. Since the line contribution functions
1590: $G_\lambda(T)$ scale with the elemental abundances (see
1591: Eq.~\ref{gte}), a reduction in abundances leads to an increase
1592: of $L_\lambda(T)$ at all temperatures and vice versa.
1593: Because most Fe lines are quite weak, difficult to
1594: measure, and are subject to less certain atomic physics
1595: because of the complex ion structures, we exclude all Fe
1596: lines from constraining the mean EMD.
1597:
1598: To find a model that reproduces the selected line
1599: fluxes we construct an initial EMD by eye. We
1600: start with the envelope curve below the minima of all
1601: $L_\lambda(T)$ curves and make
1602: successive changes to the EMD and to the elemental abundances
1603: until the predicted line fluxes agree qualitatively with the
1604: measured values. We adjust only the abundances of elements
1605: that produce strong lines, except for oxygen. The oxygen line
1606: fluxes pose a constraint on the normalization, and all
1607: abundances are thus relative to oxygen. Since the line
1608: contribution functions are
1609: broader than 0.2 dex, no narrow features in the temperature
1610: distribution can uniquely be resolved, and we thus allow no
1611: features in the EMD that are narrower than the line contribution
1612: functions. We stress that with our approach we are determining
1613: only one possible representation of the true nature of the shocked
1614: plasma since Eq.~\ref{fpred} represents a Fredholm integral
1615: equation which is not uniquely solvable.
1616: However, \cite{nejor07} pointed out that the determination of
1617: elemental abundances seems fairly robust against the precise
1618: form of the assumed mean emission measure distribution.
1619:
1620: Once a reasonable model is found we fine-tune the model
1621: by iteration of the mean EMD, optimizing the predicted
1622: line fluxes using the method described by \cite{nejor07}.
1623: Based on the ratios of measured to predicted line fluxes
1624: for the best-fit models, we modify the abundances of
1625: elements where systematic discrepancies can be identified
1626: and repeat the fine-tuning of the EMD. In this way we
1627: consecutively approach a good representation of all lines
1628: included in the fit as well as some other lines that are not
1629: included.
1630:
1631: The final model is indicated with the thick solid line in
1632: the top panel of Fig.~\ref{emd}. The best fit yields two
1633: peaks at $\sim 10^7$\,K and $\sim 2\times 10^6$\,K.
1634: The high-temperature regime is poorly determined because the
1635: only lines formed at temperatures above $\log T=7.5$ are
1636: those of Fe\,{\sc xxv} and Fe\,{\sc xxvi}. For the latter
1637: line we only have an upper limit to the flux.
1638: The use of these lines is limited by the unknown Fe
1639: abundance at this stage.
1640:
1641: In the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{emd} we show
1642: emission measure loci of ten Fe lines measured from the
1643: MEG and HEG spectra taken on day 13.8. The grey curves are
1644: the loci calculated with solar Fe abundance, and all loci
1645: around $\log T\sim 7$ need to be raised (yielding a
1646: reduction of the Fe abundance) in order to be
1647: consistent with the mean EMD derived from the other lines.
1648: If the Fe abundance is reduced by a factor
1649: 0.5 (black loci), the reproduction of the Fe lines improves
1650: significantly. Only, the Fe\,{\sc xxv} line is not reproduced,
1651: yielding an underprediction by a factor of 30.
1652:
1653: The excessively high Fe\,{\sc xxv} flux in combination with
1654: the non-detection of the Fe\,{\sc xxvi} line is difficult to
1655: explain. While the underestimated flux for Fe\,{\sc xxv}
1656: could be fixed with more emission measure at high
1657: temperatures, such a modification demands a detectable flux
1658: of the Fe\,{\sc xxvi} line. When increasing the emission
1659: measure only at temperatures where the Fe\,{\sc xxv} lines
1660: are formed, the S\,{\sc xvi} line is significantly
1661: overpredicted. We are confident that the
1662: Fe\,{\sc xxv} emissivity function is not underestimated,
1663: as the two atomic data bases APEC and CHIANTI give
1664: consistent emissivities and it seems unlikely to us that both
1665: databases would give the wrong emissivities for such a
1666: relatively simple (He-like) ion.
1667:
1668: Another possibility is that the underlying assumptions
1669: for the calculation of the predicted line fluxes for
1670: Fe\,{\sc xxv} are incorrect. Our assumption of constant pressure
1671: $\log P=13$ implies that Fe\,{\sc xxv} is formed in an
1672: environment of $\log n_e\sim 5-6$, thus a rather low density.
1673: However, in order to make a significant difference in
1674: the predicted Fe\,{\sc xxv} lines the density would
1675: have to be in excess of $10^{16}$\,cm$^{-3}$, and we
1676: reject this possibility (see also lower part of
1677: Table~\ref{lytemps}). The Fe\,{\sc xxv}
1678: flux could be enhanced by resonant scattering into the
1679: line of sight if the plasma is not optically thin. This
1680: would only affect the resonance lines, and the Fe\,{\sc
1681: xxvi} line would also have to be enhanced but it is not detected.
1682: While the emissivities used to compute the Fe\,{\sc xxv}
1683: locus curve uses the combined emissivities from the resonance,
1684: intercombination, and forbidden lines, contributions from
1685: unresolved satellite lines are neglected. These can dominate
1686: the Fe\,{\sc xxv} complex at temperatures below the peak
1687: formation temperature (i.e., at $\log T<7.8$;
1688: \citealt{fe25_satellites}). Lastly, a number of
1689: non-equilibrium processes have significant effects
1690: on the Fe\,{\sc xxv} complex (see \citealt{fe25}).
1691: For example, recombination into excited states would
1692: enhance the Fe\,{\sc xxv} lines at the expense of
1693: Fe\,{\sc xxvi} and could explain the unusually high locus
1694: of the Fe\,{\sc xxv} lines. While significant effects of
1695: recombination of Fe\,{\sc xxvi} into Fe\,{\sc xxv}
1696: violates the underlying assumption of collisional
1697: equilibrium, this does not necessarily imply that the
1698: other lines are also affected. Recombination affects
1699: only the ionization stages whose ionization energy is
1700: higher than the kinetic energy of the hottest plasma
1701: component. The energy required to ionize Fe\,{\sc
1702: xxv} into Fe\,{\sc xxvi} is 8.8\,keV (equivalent to
1703: $10^8$\,K), and that is higher than the hottest
1704: plasma component found from the APEC models
1705: of $\log T=7.69$ (Table~\ref{xspec}). Meanwhile,
1706: the ionization temperature of Fe\,{\sc xxiv} into
1707: Fe\,{\sc xxv} is only 2.04\,keV ($10^{7.38}$\,K)
1708: which is clearly lower than the hottest plasma
1709: component, and Fe\,{\sc xxiv} and Fe\,{\sc xxv}
1710: can be considered to be in equilibrium. Also,
1711: S\,{\sc xvi} and S\,{\sc xv} are in equilibrium, since
1712: the ionization energy is 3.224\,keV ($=10^{7.57}$\,K).
1713: We therefore conclude that only Fe\,{\sc xxv} and Fe\,{\sc
1714: xxvi} might not be in equilibrium while all other lines
1715: are, and our underlying assumptions are valid for these
1716: lines.
1717:
1718: In Table~\ref{fluxpred} we list the measured and predicted
1719: line fluxes for our best EMD for day 13.8 (Fig.~\ref{emd}),
1720: giving element, rest wavelength,
1721: measured fluxes (after deblending and correction for
1722: $N_{\rm H}=5\times 10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$), and ratios of measurements
1723: and predictions. We assume a value of $N_{\rm H}$ that is lower
1724: than that found from the APEC models (Table~\ref{xspec})
1725: because we are unable to find an EMD model with that value
1726: that gives such good reproduction of all line fluxes. Also,
1727: with lower values of $N_{\rm H}$ we are having difficulties
1728: to find a good EMD model, and values as low as the interstellar
1729: value of $N_{\rm H}=2.4\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ can be
1730: excluded. We note that the EMD modeling is not an ideal way
1731: to determine $N_{\rm H}$, and we refrain from determining
1732: a confidence range for $N_{\rm H}$ but consider it an
1733: uninteresting parameter, thus concentrating on the elemental
1734: abundances. We note that the chosen value of $N_{\rm H}$ is
1735: consistent with the total column density found by \cite{bode06}.
1736:
1737: In Table~\ref{abutab} we give the correction factors
1738: applied to the abundances. The EMD is scaled to reproduce the
1739: oxygen lines assuming solar O abundance (correction is 1.0),
1740: and the correction factors are thus equivalent to the
1741: respective abundances relative to solar. We also
1742: give the logarithmic abundances in the standard notation
1743: and list abundances relative to Fe (computed from the respective
1744: values relative to oxygen) in the bottom of Table~\ref{abutab}.
1745: We determine the
1746: uncertainties of abundances by stepping through a grid of
1747: values, each time readjusting the EMD and computing a value
1748: of $\chi^2$ from the measured fluxes with their uncertainties
1749: for the selected lines. The listed uncertainties are derived
1750: from increases of $\chi^2$ by one, which in the case of a
1751: 1-parameter model would be the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties. We
1752: note that our model is not a parameterized model.
1753:
1754: In the absence of any hydrogen lines, absolute abundances
1755: can only be determined via the strength of the
1756: continuum relative to the lines (see above). Since the
1757: mean EMD is not well constrained at high temperatures, the shape
1758: of a continuum model predicted by the EMD disagrees with the
1759: observed spectrum. It is not possible to adjust the EMD without
1760: conflicts with some of the emission lines, and we thus refrain
1761: from determining absolute abundances with this method.
1762:
1763: We apply the same approach using the line fluxes from
1764: other observations listed in Table~\ref{elines}, and show the
1765: results in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{emd} for day 111.7.
1766: All emission measure values are significantly lower, and
1767: there is no indication for plasma hotter than $\log T=7$.
1768: The abundances are given in the last column of
1769: Table~\ref{fluxpred}, and they are all consistent with
1770: those found on day 13.8.
1771: This conclusion also holds for the other datasets,
1772: although it is more difficult to distinguish between different
1773: EMD models. The reasons are lack of lines
1774: formed at low temperatures for the observations taken on
1775: days 26.1, 39.7, 54.0, and 66.9 and lack of lines formed at
1776: high temperatures for the observations taken after day 111.7.
1777: Also, some lines are blended with other nearby lines which
1778: can be disentangled with the \chandra\ HETGS, but not
1779: with the \xmm\ RGS and \chandra\ LETGS.
1780:
1781: In Fig.~\ref{loci} we show the minima of the emission
1782: measure loci for all observed line fluxes using different
1783: plot symbols for each observation as explained in the
1784: legend. To guide the eye we connect the datapoints belonging
1785: to the same observations with solid and dotted lines in order
1786: that the evolution of the temperature structure can be
1787: identified. A similar plot has been presented by
1788: \cite{schoenrich07} who assumed the same value of
1789: $N_{\rm H}=2.4\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for all observations
1790: and solar abundances. They found significantly higher
1791: loci for the N and O lines for days 39.7 and 66.9 compared
1792: to all other observations. Since during the SSS phase these
1793: lines appeared on top of the SSS continuum, they concluded
1794: that these lines are formed within the outflow or are at
1795: least affected by the SSS radiation. We now use the new
1796: abundances from Table~\ref{abutab} and
1797: $N_{\rm H}=5\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for days 13.8 and 26.1
1798: and $N_{\rm H}=2.4\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for the rest
1799: (see Table~\ref{xspec}). The higher value of $N_{\rm H}$
1800: for days 13.8 and 26.1 leads to higher loci of the
1801: low-temperature lines of O and N which are now consistent
1802: with those measured for day 39.7 and 66.9. In order to
1803: attribute these lines to either the outflow or the shock
1804: therefore requires accurate knowledge of the value of
1805: $N_{\rm H}$. But even with our improved measurements of
1806: $N_{\rm H}$ the situation remains ambiguous because,
1807: if the O and N lines observed on top of the SSS continuum
1808: are formed somewhere within the outflow, they might be
1809: subject to higher values of $N_{\rm H}$ as is suggestive
1810: from the shock plasma. This would increase the
1811: discrepancies again, and with these uncertainties, it may
1812: never be possible to decide whether these emission lines
1813: are formed in the outflow or in the shock.
1814:
1815: At the other end of the temperature distribution, at
1816: $\log T>6.8$, a steady decrease of emission measure can be
1817: identified. The slope of the temperature distribution
1818: toward the highest temperatures seems to become steeper,
1819: indicating that the hot plasma is cooling rapidly, while
1820: below $\log T=6.8$ the line emission measures also decrease,
1821: but the slope remains about the same, and the cool component
1822: thus cools at a slower rate.
1823:
1824: %\clearpage
1825:
1826: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
1827: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{emd_loci}}
1828: \caption{\label{loci}Volume emission measures ($VEM$) at the peak
1829: formation temperature for selected strong lines, assuming
1830: the abundances listed in Table~\ref{abutab}. The connecting
1831: lines guide the eye, but are not EMD models. The plot symbols
1832: indicate the time of observation after outburst according to
1833: the key in the bottom right legend. We use dark gray for
1834: observations taken before the SSS appeared, light gray for
1835: observations during the SSS phase and black for
1836: after the SSS spectrum had disappeared.}
1837: \end{figure*}
1838:
1839:
1840: \subsection{Comparison of models}
1841: \label{cmpmodels}
1842:
1843: While the APEC models introduced in \S\ref{xspecsect} include all
1844: available atomic information, the line-based approach used in
1845: \S\ref{lfluxes} has the advantage that only the most reliable
1846: information is
1847: selected. Less certain lines (e.g., lines with transitions
1848: involving higher principal quantum numbers) are discarded. In
1849: \S\ref{lfluxes} the crude assumption of constant pressure
1850: is sufficient because only lines that are not density-sensitive
1851: are selected. The APEC model makes the even cruder assumption
1852: of a low-density plasma \citep[$\log n_e=0$:][]{smith01},
1853: while density-sensitive
1854: lines are not excluded. However, most density-sensitive lines
1855: are weak. Another difference is the assessment of
1856: the goodness of a model. In our line-based approach the fitting
1857: yields best reproduction of measured line fluxes (taking line
1858: broadening into account), while with {\sc xspec} the count rate
1859: in each spectral bin has to be reproduced. In cases where lines
1860: are present in the observed spectra that are missing in the atomic
1861: database, we can ignore them with the line-based approach, while
1862: with {\sc xspec} the existing lines in the atomic database can be
1863: used to force an acceptable fit of these spectral regions.
1864: Furthermore, the individual emission lines contribute only to a few
1865: spectral bins such that negligence of emission lines is
1866: badly penalized compared to negligence of the continuum.
1867: On the other hand, the APEC models are much better suited to
1868: assess the hottest temperature component via the continuum, and
1869: the corresponding shock velocities can only be derived from the
1870: APEC models (see Fig.~\ref{evol_v}).
1871: For more discussion on line-based and global fitting approaches
1872: we refer to \cite{cospar04}.
1873: We thus need both approaches for robust conclusions.\\
1874:
1875: In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{emd} we include the
1876: temperatures and volume emission measures of the three
1877: components derived from the 3-$T$ APEC models fitted to
1878: the spectra of day 13.8 for comparison with the mean EMD.
1879: All three components yield higher values of emission measure
1880: than the continuous EMD, because all emission from the
1881: smooth distribution of the EMD model is concentrated in
1882: only three isothermal components. The emission measure of the
1883: hottest component of the APEC model is much higher than in
1884: the EMD model. Since not enough emission lines are
1885: formed above $10^{7.5}$\,K to constrain the EMD,
1886: the line-based approach is clearly inferior in this
1887: temperature regime, and the hottest component
1888: is driven by the continuum. We further find that only
1889: the lines that are formed at high temperatures are
1890: affected by recombination (see \S\ref{lfluxes}).
1891: The second temperature component of the APEC model
1892: coincides with the temperature of the hotter peak of the
1893: mean EMD. The
1894: third component is closer to the minimum between the two
1895: peaks of the mean EMD (see Fig.~\ref{emd}). The higher
1896: temperature in the APEC model could explain why the N
1897: abundance is higher than that derived from the EMD
1898: modeling. Since each temperature component is isothermal,
1899: the N lines are not as efficiently produced by the cool
1900: component, which has to be compensated by a higher N
1901: abundance in order to fit the N lines. We also note that
1902: the N\,{\sc vi} line at 28.78\,\AA, which is clearly
1903: detected (see Table~\ref{elines}), is completely ignored
1904: by the APEC models but represents an important constraint
1905: on the EMD model. Finally, in the {\sc xspec} fits we
1906: could not account for line broadening (see
1907: \S\ref{xspecsect}), while we used the line fluxes
1908: integrated over the entire profile for the EMD reconstruction
1909: method. We therefore regard the abundances of O and N
1910: derived from the EMD model as more reliable than the
1911: values derived from the APEC model.
1912:
1913: For all models, we give only statistical uncertainties.
1914: Uncertainties from the atomic physics are not included
1915: and are a source of additional systematic uncertainty
1916: (\S\ref{syserr}). Since many lines with poorly-known
1917: atomic physics are included in the APEC models the
1918: systematic uncertainties of the APEC models are higher
1919: than those from the EMD models.
1920:
1921: For comparison of the elemental abundances derived from
1922: the two approaches, we rescale those obtained in
1923: \S\ref{xspecsect} because the reference abundances used
1924: in the APEC models are those by \cite{agrev89}, while
1925: for the EMD reconstruction method we have used
1926: those by \cite{grev}. We rescale by a factor
1927: $(N_{\rm X}/N_{\rm O})_{\rm grev}/(N_{\rm
1928: X}/N_{\rm O})_{\rm and}$, where the subscripts
1929: 'grev' and 'and' denote the abundance ratios from \cite{grev}
1930: and \cite{agrev89}, respectively. The correction
1931: factors are 0.933, 1.23, 1.259, 1.259, 1.66, and 0.85
1932: for N, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe, respectively. In Table~\ref{abutab}
1933: all derived abundances are listed for comparison. While
1934: the abundance ratios relative to O are discrepant, those
1935: relative to Fe agree much better, except for N/Fe.
1936: We attribute these differences to the low formation
1937: temperatures of the N and O lines. We attribute these
1938: differences to the less certain N and O abundances
1939: derived from the APEC models that underestimate the
1940: amount of cool plasma (see above). We expect overestimated
1941: N and O abundances and possibly also Ne in the APEC model
1942: which explains that all abundances relative to O are lower
1943: in the APEC model compared to the EMD model. Since the N
1944: lines are formed at lower temperatures than the O lines,
1945: the N abundance is affected to a higher degree. The Fe
1946: lines are formed over a large range of temperatures and are
1947: therefore not as strongly affected, leading to the overall
1948: better agreement of all ratios relative to Fe. For the
1949: observation taken on day 111.7 only the EMD modeling yields
1950: some constraints on the elemental abundances, which
1951: demonstrates the strength of this approach over the
1952: spectral fitting.
1953:
1954: \subsection{Uncertainties}
1955: \label{syserr}
1956:
1957: While the results from \S\ref{obssect} are directly based on
1958: the observations, all results from this section, \S\ref{anal},
1959: depend on model assumptions which are described in
1960: \S\ref{methods}. All error estimates given in this paper
1961: are statistical 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties which give the 68.3-per
1962: cent probability that fitting the same model to a new observation
1963: with the same instrumental setup results in parameters within
1964: the given uncertainty ranges. They thus only describe the
1965: precision of our measurements, but not the accuracy (sum of
1966: statistical and systematic uncertainties) which depends on
1967: the calibration of the observations but also on the choice of a
1968: model. For comparisons of measurements taken with the same
1969: instrument (given in Table~\ref{tab1}), the systematic
1970: calibration uncertainties can
1971: be neglected but have to be kept in mind for absolute
1972: numbers and comparisons with different instruments (e.g.
1973: the flux evolution shown in Fig.~\ref{evol}). For line
1974: profiles (Fig.~\ref{v13}) and line ratios (Fig.~\ref{lrats}),
1975: the cross-instrument calibration uncertainties are
1976: negligible.
1977:
1978: For the flux measurements presented in Fig.~\ref{evol},
1979: systematic uncertainties arise from the choice of band width
1980: which excludes a fraction of the total X-ray emission.
1981: Owing to the presence of the SSS spectrum between days 39.7
1982: and 66.9, the contribution from emission between
1983: 11 and 38\,\AA\ to the shock emission can not be
1984: determined, yet the fraction of soft emission may be higher
1985: compared to before day 39.7. Attempts to determine this
1986: contribution from the {\sc xspec} models failed because
1987: we have no constraints from observations because the
1988: much stronger SSS emission dominates at long wavelengths.
1989: We estimate that the systematic
1990: uncertainties on the \swift\ light curve shown in
1991: Fig.~\ref{evol} are small,
1992: because the spectral shape hardly changes after day 100
1993: (see Table~\ref{xspec}), and the X-ray
1994: flux thus scales directly with the observed count rate.
1995: We note that systematic uncertainties from direct rescaling
1996: are smaller than the method of flux determination via
1997: model fitting to each individual \swift\ spectrum.
1998:
1999: For the line shift measurements presented in Fig.~\ref{v13}
2000: and \S\ref{lprofiles}, systematic uncertainties can arise
2001: from line blends and background noise, which affects the
2002: weaker lines more than stronger lines. For the
2003: measurement of line fluxes we have not accounted for
2004: uncertainties from choice of a source background
2005: (continuum) underneath the lines and from the line
2006: widths. \cite{nejor07} found that the uncertainties
2007: in the line widths have less effect than the choice of
2008: continuum. For the line ratios
2009: presented in Fig.~\ref{lrats}, additional systematic
2010: uncertainties from the continuum are less than
2011: 5\,per cent if the continuum is assumed to be
2012: uncertain at the 20\,per cent level.
2013:
2014: For the model fits, the main sources of systematic
2015: uncertainty are the model assumptions and uncertainties
2016: in the atomic data. Both are difficult to quantify. The
2017: hottest temperature components of the 3-$T$ fits presented
2018: in Table~\ref{xspec} are
2019: driven by the continuum. The Fe\,{\sc xxv} and
2020: Fe\,{\sc xxvi} lines are the only strong lines formed
2021: at temperatures higher than $\sim 10^7$\,K, and their
2022: absence in a model poses little resistance against an
2023: overestimated continuum temperature. For observations
2024: with weak continuum, arbitrarily high temperatures
2025: can thus result, and we give higher confidence to
2026: the temperatures of the hottest component determined
2027: from observations before day 39.7 (see Table~\ref{xspec}).
2028: In view of these large systematic uncertainties of
2029: the later observations, the trends of shock velocities
2030: plotted in Fig.~\ref{evol_v} are only reliable for the
2031: early observations. Since the apparent $t^{-1/3}$ trend
2032: that is suggestive from the values derived for
2033: day 39.7 and 111.7 is based on the higher temperature
2034: estimates compared to the expected $t^{-1/2}$ trend,
2035: the conclusion of adiabatic cooling instead of
2036: the theoretically expected radiative cooling has
2037: to be treated with caution.
2038:
2039: The uncertainties in
2040: elemental abundances resulting from the emission
2041: measure modeling (Table~\ref{abutab}) are extremely
2042: difficult to quantify. They mainly depend on the
2043: uncertainties in the line flux measurements and
2044: the uncertainties in the determination of the
2045: mean EMD. \cite{nejor07}
2046: found from comparison to independent analyses
2047: of the same spectrum by \cite{jsf03} that the
2048: abundances are quite robust against changes in
2049: the assumed mean EMD. Since the abundance
2050: determination is based on strong lines originating
2051: from few-electron ions (thus well-known atomic physics),
2052: we are confident that the given uncertainties
2053: that are based on the measurement uncertainties
2054: of line fluxes are realistic.
2055:
2056: \section{Discussion}
2057: \label{disc}
2058:
2059: The X-ray grating spectra give the deepest insight
2060: into the properties of the shocked plasma. With 12 grating
2061: observations we can follow the changes in the X-ray flux and
2062: plasma temperature, and we have determined the elemental abundances
2063: from the emission lines. The X-ray flux can directly be
2064: integrated over the spectrum without the need of a model
2065: and can thus be considered an observed quantity. We are
2066: further able to
2067: determine temperatures independently from line flux ratios
2068: and from spectral models, and we are able to detect different
2069: temperature components. The ability to measure line fluxes
2070: also enables us to pursue two independent approaches to determine
2071: the elemental abundances, yielding robust results.
2072: We confirm that the underlying assumptions are generally
2073: satisfied, but we find evidence for recombination in the
2074: Fe\,{\sc xxv} He-like triplet lines and the Fe\,{\sc xxvi}
2075: lines. Since these
2076: are the only ions whose ionization energy exceeds the
2077: kinetic energy of the hottest plasma component, we regard
2078: the assumptions discussed in \S\ref{anal} valid for all other
2079: lines.
2080:
2081: We observe a power-law decay in X-ray flux, and the power-law
2082: index changes from $\alpha=-5/3$ before day $\sim
2083: 70$ to $\alpha=-8/3$ during the later evolution (see
2084: Fig.~\ref{evol}). While the $t^{-5/3}$ decay is predicted for
2085: a radiatively cooling shock traversing an $r^{-2}$ density
2086: distribution, the change to a t$^{-8/3}$ decay at late times
2087: cannot be simply explained. However, note that \cite{vaytet07}
2088: found that in some circumstances the forward shock could
2089: decelerate faster than the standard cooled momentum-conserving
2090: models predict. In addition, it is interesting to note that a
2091: steeper decay may
2092: result from the breakout of the forward shock into a lower density
2093: environment when it reaches the edge of the red giant wind re-established
2094: in the 21 year interval between explosions. Indeed, simple calculations
2095: suggest that this breakout may happen around the time of the apparent
2096: break in decay curves (see, e.g., \citealt{mason87}; \citealt{obrien92}).
2097: One possible problem with this conclusion however is that the
2098: immediate post-shock temperature increases, rapid
2099: adiabatic expansion of the emitting material will likely lead to a drop in
2100: the temperature derived from fits to the X-ray spectra, which does not seem
2101: to be the case. Furthermore,
2102: \cite{bode_keele} conclude from the apparent early onset
2103: of the adiabatic expansion phase in the forward shock that shock breakout
2104: will occur much later than realized from X-ray observations that in 1985
2105: started only at 55 days post-outburst.
2106:
2107: The two peaks
2108: in the emission measure distribution (see Fig.~\ref{emd})
2109: could represent the forward and reverse shocks, where the
2110: cooler component would be the reverse shock. But according to
2111: models by \cite{bodekahn85}, the reverse shock may not be a
2112: significant source of X-ray emission at this time. Alternatively,
2113: the two temperature regimes could relate to forward shocks
2114: propagating into two distinct circumstellar density regimes,
2115: e.g., denser equatorial regions and less dense polar regions
2116: as suggested by VLBA/EVN and HST observations
2117: \citep{bode07,obrien06}. More realistic hydrodynamic modelling
2118: is needed, and this is underway \citep[see][]{vaytet07}.
2119:
2120: In several Classical Novae, e.g., V382\,Vel, X-ray spectra
2121: similar to those of the late evolution in RS\,Oph have been
2122: obtained after the nova had turned off and were attributed
2123: to the ejecta that are radiatively cooling \citep{ness_vel}.
2124: It is thus possible that the cooler component observed after
2125: day 70 originates from the expanding ejecta, while the early
2126: hot and cool components represent the shock emission.
2127:
2128: \subsection{Elemental Abundances}
2129:
2130: For our EMD models and multi-temperature fits, we have
2131: assumed uniform abundances throughout the X-ray emitting
2132: plasma. If the relative contributions from each component
2133: to the observed X-ray emission change with time and their
2134: compositions are significantly different, then in principle,
2135: changes in observed abundances derived from different
2136: observations are possible. However, the relative abundances
2137: obtained for days 13.8 and 111.7 do not differ significantly,
2138: and we conclude that no signs of changes in the composition
2139: are detectable. We therefore focus on our
2140: measurements for the best dataset taken on day 13.8.
2141: There are several issues for which the accurate determination
2142: of elemental abundances is of interest.
2143: The composition of the WD can be used as an argument
2144: whether or not RS\,Oph will explode as a canonical SN\,Ia. The
2145: WD may be near the Chandrasekhar limit, because of the short
2146: recurrence time scale, but if the WD consists of too many
2147: heavy nuclei (Mg, Ne rather than C, O), the amount of
2148: available nuclear binding energy is not sufficient to totally
2149: disrupt the WD. Note that it is the explosions of CO
2150: WDs that best fit the observations of SN\,Ia
2151: \citep{leibundgut2000,hillnie2000}.
2152:
2153: Since hydrogen is fully ionized in X-ray emitting plasma
2154: no H lines can be observed, and we cannot determine
2155: absolute abundances. In both of our approaches the attempt
2156: to determine absolute abundances from the strength of the
2157: continuum relative to the lines leads to ambiguous results,
2158: and we thus focus on relative abundances.
2159:
2160: \begin{figure}[!ht]
2161: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{cno_abus}}
2162: \caption{\label{cno_abus}Photospheric abundance ratios
2163: of 20 M giants given by \cite{smithlambert85,smithlambert86}.
2164: The star symbol is our measurement for RS\,Oph as listed
2165: in Table~\ref{abutab}. Uncertainties are given by
2166: gray error bars.}
2167: \end{figure}
2168:
2169: \noindent {\em CNO-cycled material}\\
2170: There is no doubt, from both of our approaches, that
2171: nitrogen is overabundant. This points to CNO-cycled
2172: material, which could have been produced during the
2173: outburst. However, the companion is a red giant and is
2174: as such likely overabundant in nitrogen as well
2175: \citep[see Fig.~\ref{cno_abus}
2176: and][]{smithlambert85,smithlambert86,cno}.
2177: The accreted material on the WD is thus already N-enhanced
2178: \citep{snijders87}, as is the wind into which the ejecta run.
2179: In addition, nuclear burning during the outburst can contribute
2180: with more CNO-cycled material. Furthermore,
2181: N-enhanced material from previous outbursts may also
2182: contribute to the X-ray emitting plasma. Note that
2183: \cite{walder08} have determined from theoretical models
2184: that the ejecta are dominated by the RG material.
2185: In Fig.~\ref{cno_abus} we show the N abundance measurements
2186: of 20 M giants presented by \cite{smithlambert85,smithlambert86}
2187: versus their O measurements. The star symbol indicates
2188: our result for RS\,Oph, and it is clearly higher than any of the
2189: M giants, while the O abundance is consistent with most
2190: of the M stars. The comparison with other M giants thus
2191: suggests that CNO-processed material may have been added by the
2192: outburst. In support of this, the N/O abundance ratio derived
2193: from our two approaches is roughly similar to the value
2194: determined by \cite{schoenrich07} ($[$N/O$]=0.7$), who
2195: determined the ratio from the line column densities in the
2196: SSS spectra. Our result is also consistent with
2197: the abundance measurements by \cite{contini95} which yield
2198: an abundance ratio of $[$N/Fe$]=1.18$.
2199: The photospheric abundance measurements of the RS\,Oph
2200: secondary presented by \cite{pavlenko} yield $[$N/Fe$]=0.9$
2201: which can be compared to our abundance ratio $[$N/Fe$]=1.14$.
2202: This is lower than either our value or that determined by
2203: \cite{schoenrich07} ($[$N/Fe$]=1.0$ under the assumption
2204: of $[$O/Fe$]=0.3$), suggesting that the outburst has
2205: added about 20-40\% of nitrogen into the X-ray
2206: detected material. We note that $[$N/Fe$]$ as derived by
2207: \cite{pavlenko} is higher than any of the values plotted in
2208: Fig.~\ref{cno_abus}. This indicates that the secondary in the
2209: RS\,Oph system is not a typical M giant which may be caused
2210: by the fact that the RS\,Oph secondary has lost
2211: significant amounts of material from its outer envelope
2212: during accretion to the WD.
2213:
2214: If the material was CNO cycled, then we would expect it to
2215: be underabundant in carbon \citep[see, e.g.,][]{cno}, but
2216: all carbon lines are at wavelengths where strong effects by
2217: interstellar and circumstellar absorption dominate. Moreover,
2218: uncertainties in $N_{\rm H}$ propagate to large uncertainties
2219: in any line fluxes or upper limits of the C lines (see
2220: Table~\ref{elines}). For any quantitative assessment of CNO
2221: burning, the carbon abundance is essential
2222: \citep{ghoul}.
2223:
2224: \cite{nelson07} discussed the carbon abundances and
2225: obtained an underabundance of C/N by a factor of 0.001 in
2226: order to explain the absence of the C\,{\sc vi} K-shell absorption
2227: edge in the SSS spectra at 25.37\,\AA. This is much lower
2228: than the C/N abundance ratio of 0.05 that one derives from the
2229: $[$C$]=-0.4$ and $[$N$]=+0.9$, estimated by \cite{pavlenko} for
2230: the secondary. Strong carbon lines were also observed
2231: in the IUE spectra by \cite{shore96}. The absence of the
2232: C\,{\sc vi} edge is not sufficient evidence for a C
2233: underabundance because other high-ionization
2234: absorption edges are also absent in the SSS spectra of
2235: RS\,Oph. For example, the ionization edges of O\,{\sc viii}
2236: at 14.23\,\AA, O\,{\sc vii} at 16.77\,\AA, N\,{\sc vii} at
2237: 18.50\,\AA, and N\,{\sc vi} at 22.457\,\AA\ are not present
2238: although these elements are not underabundant (see figs.~3 and 4 in
2239: \citealt{ness_rsoph} and figs.~8 and 9 in \citealt{nelson07}).
2240: Since \cite{ness_rsoph} measured considerable blue shifts
2241: in the absorption lines observed during the SSS phase of
2242: RS\,Oph, the shell around the WD must be expanding with
2243: high velocities. While \cite{nelson07} found no blue-shifts
2244: in the same lines, they quote high velocities derived from
2245: line shifts of emission lines of C\,{\sc vi} Ly series
2246: lines, however, without the presence of the Ly$\alpha$
2247: line (Table~\ref{elines}). For an environment with high
2248: expansion velocities, the absorption edges may be washed out by
2249: the expansion. We therefore argue that without measurements
2250: of emission line fluxes of carbon, the C abundance cannot
2251: be determined from the X-ray spectra.
2252: Finally, a C/N abundance of 0.001 is far too low for any
2253: material that has undergone CNO cycle processing. The large
2254: N abundance requires some processing back to C
2255: \citep{starrfield08}.\\
2256:
2257: \noindent {\em $\alpha$ elements ($Z<22$)}\\
2258: The abundances of the $\alpha$ elements Ne, Mg, Si, S are
2259: significantly higher than O and Fe using both approaches. We
2260: use O as the reference element for our analysis, and our
2261: Ne/O abundance ratio is consistent the value found from
2262: IR observations by \cite{nye07}. This indicates that
2263: either Ne is overabundant or O is underabundant.
2264: \cite{contini95} found significant underabundance of O/H
2265: and of Ne/H of $\sim 10$\% solar. We also list the ratios
2266: relative to Fe in Table~\ref{abutab}. The abundance
2267: determinations by \cite{contini95} also yield high
2268: abundance ratios of $[$Mg/Fe$]=0.73$ and $[$Si/Fe$]=0.86$,
2269: which are roughly consistent with our results.
2270: Since Fe is neither produced nor destroyed in the outburst,
2271: we argue that all $\alpha$ elements are overabundant
2272: in the X-ray emitting plasma. Since we determined these
2273: values with two independent approaches using spectra with
2274: strong lines of relatively simple ions with well-known atomic data,
2275: we regard these results as reliable.
2276:
2277: There are three possible explanations: (1) the $\alpha$ elements
2278: were produced during the outburst, (2), the composition of
2279: the secondary, which provides the accreted material and
2280: dominates the composition of the stellar wind, is overabundant
2281: in these elements (3) WD core material is enriched in the
2282: $\alpha$ elements, and that material has been mixed into the
2283: outflowing material.
2284:
2285: (1) The production of $\alpha$ elements via nuclear burning
2286: requires high temperatures and densities. While the
2287: required temperatures are likely reached during the TNR,
2288: the densities are too low in order to produce significant
2289: amounts of $\alpha$ elements, even if the WD mass is near
2290: the Chandrasekhar mass.
2291:
2292: \begin{figure}[!ht]
2293: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{alpha_abus}}
2294: \caption{\label{alpha_abus}Photospheric abundance ratios
2295: (relative to solar by \citealt{grev}) of 17 M
2296: giants given by \cite{rich07}. The star symbol is
2297: our measurement for RS\,Oph as listed in Table~\ref{abutab}.
2298: Uncertainties are given by gray error bars.}
2299: \end{figure}
2300:
2301: (2) Direct abundance measurements of $\alpha$ elements
2302: for the secondary are not available, and
2303: \cite{pavlenko} only determined Fe, C, and N abundances.
2304: \cite{rich07} measured photospheric
2305: abundances for 17 M giants in the inner bulge of the
2306: galaxy from IR spectroscopy. In Fig.~\ref{alpha_abus}
2307: we show their abundances of $[$Si/Fe$]$ versus
2308: $[$O/Fe$]$ (top) and versus $[$Mg/Fe$]$ (bottom),
2309: relative to
2310: \cite{grev}. All M giants are overabundant in Si,
2311: O and Mg. Stars with a higher Si abundance are also
2312: higher in Mg and O, indicating different concentrations
2313: of the ashes of He shell flashes, probably due to different
2314: stellar ages. Our Si and Mg abundances
2315: for RS\,Oph are significantly higher than any of the M giants
2316: in the sample, but the O abundance is not higher. The
2317: bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{alpha_abus} shows that our
2318: value is significantly higher in both elements than any
2319: of the M giants in the sample,
2320: and the concentration of all $\alpha$-elements
2321: could be higher. Since the outer envelope
2322: of the RS\,Oph secondary has been stripped away and
2323: accreted by the WD, higher abundances of all
2324: elements produced by He-burning can be expected.
2325: The surface composition may resemble that of the inner
2326: regions of normal M giants. Meanwhile, the O abundance could
2327: reflect a balance between a higher O abundance produced by
2328: He burning and a lower O abundance in
2329: material that has a higher concentration of CNO processed material
2330: as evident from
2331: Fig.~\ref{cno_abus}. Our measurements can thus reflect
2332: the composition of the accreted material.
2333:
2334: (3) If direct abundance measurements of the $\alpha$ elements
2335: of the secondary are different from our values, then the only
2336: remaining possibility would be that the WD contributes significantly
2337: to the composition of the observed plasma.
2338: The composition of the WD is dominated by elements
2339: that have been produced in the progenitor star.
2340: In order to be observable, WD material has to be
2341: dredged up and mixed into the outflowing material. While
2342: this is possible, no observations have so far
2343: revealed any signatures of WD material in the emitting
2344: regions of RS\,Oph.
2345:
2346: \subsection{Is RS\,Oph a SN\,Ia progenitor?}
2347:
2348: There is some speculation that
2349: RS\,Oph is a SN\,Ia progenitor. The short recurrence
2350: time scale suggests that the underlying WD is of high
2351: mass, possibly near the Chandrasekhar limit
2352: \citep[e.g.,][]{dobrKen94,shore96,fek00}. \cite{hachisu01}
2353: reported a high-mass WD of $\sim 1.35\,\pm\,0.01$\,M$_\odot$
2354: (for both, high- and low-metallicity models), but their
2355: modelling neglects the environment and is not realistic.
2356: An even higher WD mass was estimated by \cite{sokoloski06},
2357: and \cite{hachisu07} also found that the WD is growing in
2358: mass. According to their estimated growth rate, the
2359: Chandrasekhar limit would be reached in a few times
2360: $10^5$ years.
2361:
2362: ONe WDs do not provide
2363: enough nuclear binding energy (see, e.g., total binding
2364: energy calculations by \citealt{gamezo03} or \citealt{calder07}),
2365: and when reaching the Chandrasekhar mass limit, they implode
2366: in a core collapse without an explosion. The explosion models
2367: of SN\,Ia predict that the WD has to be a CO WD for the supernova
2368: to be a canonical Ia explosion. However, the WD composition is
2369: not unambiguously determined.
2370:
2371: A strong argument against RS\,Oph being a SN Ia progenitor is
2372: the large amount of hydrogen and helium in the system
2373: \citep[e.g.][]{nye06} that has to be removed before the WD reaches
2374: the Chandrasekhar limit in order for the SN Ia outburst to be
2375: consistent with observations of hydrogen-deficiency
2376: \citep{filippenko97}.
2377: While the secondary loses hydrogen during the evolution of
2378: accretion and repeated outbursts, it would have to be considered
2379: too much of a coincidence if all the hydrogen is consumed in
2380: nova outbursts at the same time as the Chandrasekhar limit is
2381: reached. Considering these points, we believe that it is
2382: unlikely that RS\,Oph is a SN\,Ia progenitor.
2383:
2384: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
2385: \label{concl}
2386:
2387: The high-resolution X-ray spectra of the 2006 outburst of
2388: RS\,Oph provide unique insights into the properties and
2389: evolution of the outburst. The properties are best
2390: determined from the dataset taken on day 13.8.
2391: At this time of the evolution the nova was brightest
2392: in hard X-rays, and we have the best coverage with almost
2393: simultaneous \chandra\ and \xmm\ observations. From these
2394: observations we have derived the elemental abundances with
2395: an overabundance of N, Ne, Mg, Si, and S, relative to Fe,
2396: indicating that this material has undergone CNO burning
2397: and He burning, respectively.
2398: Both processes can occur in the RG companion star, and our
2399: observations could reflect the donor material. CNO
2400: burning also occurs during the outburst, and by
2401: comparison of our results with direct measurements of
2402: the N abundance for the secondary by \cite{pavlenko}, we
2403: estimate that about 20-40\% of the nitrogen could have
2404: been produced during the outburst. Meanwhile, no $\alpha$
2405: elements can be produced during the outburst, but the
2406: underlying WD might be enriched in $\alpha$ elements.
2407:
2408: We find Mg and Si significantly higher than in any M giant
2409: in the sample by \cite{rich07} which can either be explained
2410: by the RG being different from other M giants, or WD material
2411: has been dredged up during the outburst and mixed into the
2412: ejecta. Similarly high values have been found by
2413: \cite{contini95}. Since the secondary has likely been stripped off
2414: it's outer layers by mass loss onto the WD which has then
2415: been ejected during the outburst, the composition of the
2416: ejecta may be sampling deeper layers of the M giant
2417: companion as compared to the photospheric composition
2418: of normal M giants.
2419: In order to determine whether WD material is
2420: observed, direct measurements of the Mg and Si abundance
2421: in the photosphere of RG are needed for comparison.
2422:
2423: We also determined the evolution of the temperature
2424: structure. The early observations show both a hot and
2425: a relatively cooler plasma component, while the later
2426: observations only
2427: display a cool component. Both components decay with
2428: time. Before day $\sim 70$, while the plasma is dominated
2429: by the hot component, the decay rate is slower than later
2430: in the evolution. The early decay rate is consistent
2431: with a radiatively cooling plasma while the later evolution
2432: can be explained by the expansion of the ejecta. The
2433: temperature evolution derived from models are consistent
2434: with radiative cooling of the hot component.
2435:
2436: While it has been suggested that the WD is close to
2437: the Chandrasekhar limit, we note that there is currently
2438: too much hydrogen in the system for a supernova explosion
2439: to satisfy the spectroscopic features of a Ia explosion
2440: \citep{filippenko97}. The hydrogen and helium will have to
2441: be removed before the Chandrasekhar
2442: limit is reached. Further, the underlying WD has to be a
2443: CO WD, but the composition of the WD is difficult to determine
2444: since WD material has to be dredged up and ejected. Our
2445: abundance analysis suggests that this may be
2446: the case, but the composition of the accreted material is
2447: not well-enough known for solid conclusions at this time.
2448:
2449: \acknowledgments
2450:
2451: J.-U.N. gratefully acknowledges support provided by NASA through \chandra\ Postdoctoral
2452: Fellowship grant PF5-60039 awarded by the \chandra\ X-ray Center, which is operated by
2453: the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
2454: S.S. received partial support from NSF and NASA grants to ASU.
2455: J.P.O. and K.L.P. acknowledge support from STFC.
2456: We thank Dr. V. Kashyap for technical assistance using the
2457: PINTofAle tools.
2458: We thank Dr. Y.V. Pavlenko for sharing the results of his abundance
2459: analyses of the RS\,Oph secondary with us.
2460: We are grateful to Harvey Tananbaum and the Chandra
2461: Observatory for a generous allotment of Directors Discretionary
2462: Time to observe this unique outburst.
2463: Some of the observations have been obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science
2464: mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA.
2465: CHIANTI is a collaborative project involving the NRL (USA), RAL (UK), MSSL (UK), the Universities of Florence (Italy) and Cambridge (UK), and George Mason University (USA)
2466:
2467: \bibliographystyle{apj}
2468: \bibliography{cn,astron,jn,rsoph}
2469:
2470: \appendix
2471: \subsection{Statistics}
2472: \label{appendix}
2473:
2474: Some of the spectra are sufficiently bright for standard
2475: $\chi^2$ minimization, while others are extremely faint, and
2476: low-count statistics, as recommended by \cite{cash79}, have to
2477: be applied. According to Wilks theorem \citep{wilks38}, the
2478: Maximum Likelihood (ML) technique converges to the $\chi^2$
2479: statistics in the high-count limit, and we thus apply the ML
2480: technique to all observations. The likelihood is defined as
2481: \begin{equation}
2482: \label{like}
2483: {\cal L}=-2 \sum_{i=1}^{N}(n_i \ln m_i - m_i)
2484: \end{equation}
2485: with $n_i$ being an observation and $m_i$ a model,
2486: both defined on the same grid of $N$ bins.
2487: According to Wilks theorem ${\cal L}$
2488: serves as a goodness criterion in an equivalent way as
2489: $\chi^2$, but it is derived from the
2490: Poissonian probability distribution function (PDF) rather
2491: than a Gaussian PDF. In order to conserve the Poissonian
2492: nature of the data, the instrumental background must not be
2493: subtracted. Instead, the model has to be added to the background
2494: for comparison with the raw data, because the sum
2495: of two Poissonian statistics is
2496: Poissonian, while the difference is not \citep{cash79}.\\
2497:
2498: To assess the statistical uncertainty ranges of each
2499: parameter in a multi-parameter model we compute the
2500: curvatures of the likelihood at
2501: the respective best-fit values from the
2502: second derivatives. In order to assess the correlated
2503: uncertainties, we also compute mixed derivatives, thus the
2504: full Hessian matrix which, for $n$ free parameters, is
2505: an $n\times n$ matrix with the partial second derivatives of
2506: the likelihood curve, ${\cal L}={\cal L}(A_i, A_j)$,
2507: \begin{equation}
2508: \label{hesse}
2509: H_{i,j}= \frac{\partial {\cal L}^2}{\partial A_i\partial A_j}
2510: \end{equation}
2511: where
2512: $A_i$ and $A_j$ represent two free parameters with $i$
2513: and $j$ ranging from 1 to $n$. We determine Eigenvectors,
2514: $EV_i(A_j)$ and Eigenvalues, $ev(A_j)$, and compute the
2515: correlated uncertainties from
2516: \begin{equation}
2517: \label{correrr}
2518: \Delta A_j^2=\Delta{\cal L}\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{EV_i(A_j)^2}{ev(A_j)}
2519: \end{equation}
2520: with $\Delta{\cal L}=2.3$ and $\Delta{\cal L}=3.53$ for
2521: 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties in the cases of two and three free
2522: parameters, respectively \citep{strong85}. Uncorrelated errors
2523: can be computed by setting all off-diagonal elements to zero
2524: before computing Eigenvectors and -values.
2525:
2526: \end{document}
2527:
2528: