1: %\documentclass[]{article}
2: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
4: \documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}
5: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
7:
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Testing the multiple supernovae versus $\gamma$-ray burst
12: scenarios for giant HI supershells}
13: \author{Rosalba Perna\altaffilmark{1} and John Raymond}
14: \medskip
15: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
16: Cambridge, MA 02138}
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard Junior Fellow}
18: \begin{abstract}
19:
20: The energy source of the giant HI supershells in nearby galaxies and
21: in our own is still an unsettled issue. Proposed scenarios for
22: production of near-complete ringlike supershells are multiple
23: supernovae (SNe) and $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs). In the late phase
24: of evolution it is difficult to tell these models apart. We show that,
25: if a supershell has been powered by multiple SNe, peculiar metal
26: abundances should be found in the medium within the bubble. We
27: present line diagnostics that could detect such unusual abundances,
28: such as unusually high ratios of [O]/[Fe] and [Ne]/[Fe].
29: Among ions of the same element, a higher enhancement is
30: expected in lines from a high-ionization state than
31: in lines from a low-ionization state.
32: Identification of the energy
33: source of HI supershells would set strong constraints on the rates and
34: energetics of GRBs, as well as on their location within a galaxy.
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \keywords{ISM: bubbles --- gamma rays: bursts --- stars: supernovae}
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42:
43: For several decades, 21 cm surveys of spiral galaxies have revealed the
44: puzzling existence of expanding giant HI supershells (see e.g. Tenorio-Tagle
45: \& Bodenheimer 1988 for a review). These nearly spherical structures have
46: very low density in their interiors and high HI
47: density at their boundaries, and they expand at velocities of several tens of
48: ${\rm km~{s}^{-1}}$. The radii of these shells are much larger than those
49: of ordinary supernova remnants and often exceed $\sim 1$ kpc;
50: their ages are typically in the range of $10^6$--$10^8$ years.
51: Heiles (1979) denominated as supershells the ones whose
52: inferred kinetic energies are $\ga 3\times 10^{52}$ ergs.
53: The Milky Way contains several tens
54: of them (Heiles 1979; Heiles, Reach, \& Koo 1996), and in one case
55: the estimated kinetic energy is as high as $\sim 10^{54}$ ergs. Similar
56: supershells are also observed in other nearby galaxies.
57:
58: Whereas it is clear that these HI supershells result from deposition
59: of an enormous amount of energy in the interstellar medium,
60: the energy source is still a subject of
61: debate. Collisions with high-velocity clouds (Tenorio-Tagle 1981)
62: could account for those cases where only one hemisphere is present, and
63: the required input energy is not too large. However, it is unclear
64: how such collisions could produce the near-complete ringlike
65: appearance observed in some cases (Rand \& van der Hulst 1993).
66:
67: Small shells of radii $\sim 200$--400 pc and energies $\la 3\times
68: 10^{52}$ ergs are often explained as a consequence of the collective
69: action of stellar winds and supernova explosions originating from OB
70: star associations (McCray \& Kafatos 1987; Shull \& Saken 1995). The
71: winds from the stars of the association create a bubble in the
72: interstellar medium (ISM) that is filled with hot gas. The bubble
73: further grows when the stars explode as supernovae, releasing their
74: energy into the ISM. Multiple SN explosions are in principle a viable
75: scenario even for the largest supershells, although this would require very
76: large OB associations, not typically observed in nearby galaxies
77: (Kennicutt, Edgar \& Hodge 1989).
78:
79: Another possibility that has been put forward is that giant supershells
80: could be the remnants of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) (Efremov, Elmegreen \& Hodge 1998;
81: Loeb \& Perna 1998). In fact, if GRBs occur in galaxies and can have energies
82: $\ga 10^{53}$ ergs, then remnants in the form of giant bubbles are unavoidable.
83: Notice, however, that this conclusion relies on the assumption that the ratio
84: of $\gamma$-ray energy to kinetic energy of the ejecta is very small, as
85: required by the popular 'internal shock' models for GRBs. If, on the
86: other hand, this were not the case, as the analysis of GRB 970508 seems to imply,
87: then the kinetic energy of GRBs would not be sufficient to produce a giant
88: remnant (Paczy\'nski 1999).
89:
90: The nature of the energy source can be more easily identified in
91: young supershells. The ones due to multiple SNe would still show
92: ongoing activity. Bubbles powered by a GRB explosion could instead be
93: identified by signatures of the radiation emitted by the cooling gas,
94: which had been heated and ionized by the GRB afterglow (Perna, Raymond
95: \& Loeb 2000). However, after a time $t\ga 10^5$ yr, the imprints of
96: this radiation have faded away. Old supershells remain, therefore, the
97: most difficult to understand\footnote{Among the observed supershells only
98: about 10\% of them seem to contain OB associations and could therefore
99: be more naturally attributed to multiple SNe.}. However, given their
100: ages, they are by far the most abundant in galaxies. An attempt to
101: identify their energy source has been recently made by Rhode et
102: al. (1999). Assuming that the HI holes are created by multiple SNe,
103: and that the SNe represent the high-mass population (OB stars) of a
104: cluster with a normal initial mass function, they observed that the
105: upper main-sequence stars (late B, A and F) should still be present in the
106: cluster. However, their observations showed that in several of the holes
107: the observed upper limits for the remnant cluster brightness are inconsistent
108: with the expected values. Therefore their test suggested problems with the
109: multiple SNe scenario. On the other hand, no evidence that the holes could be
110: due to GRBs was found either. More recently, Efremov, Ehlerova \& Palous (1999)
111: discussed possible differences between the structures produced by a GRB and by an OB
112: association, based on their shapes, expansion velocities, and fragmentation times.
113:
114: Here we propose a new way of testing the multiple SNe versus GRB model to
115: power supershells. This is based on the fact that SNe inject
116: metals in the ISM in which they explode. As a result, if a supershell
117: has been powered by multiple SNe, the abundances of some specific
118: metals in its interior should be enhanced with respect to the typical
119: values in the ISM surrounding the shell\footnote{This is commonly
120: observed in young supernova remnants (e.g. Canizares \& Winkler 1981).}.
121: As the high-mass stars which power the supershell
122: explode as Type II SNe, the enhancement should be particularly
123: pronounced in elements such as Oxygen, Silicon, Neon, Magnesium, but
124: not in others (e.g. Nomoto et al. 1997). We present line diagnostics
125: that could help detect such unusual abundances.
126:
127: If a supershell has been powered by a GRB, on the other hand, no
128: peculiar metal enhancement is expected. The highly relativistic
129: expansion of the ejecta requires that the baryonic load be very small
130: \footnote{Even if GRBs were associated
131: with SNe (as it has been suggested in the case of SN 1998bw [Galama et al. 1998]),
132: and there were some mass ejected at later times, it would be just
133: that of a single SN, and therefore it would be highly diluted within
134: the large volume of the supershell.}($M\la 10^{-4}M_\odot$). Therefore,
135: detection of peculiar abundances in the medium within a supershell could
136: provide a clue to was the energy source that powered it.
137: Knowledge of the fraction of HI supershells that is likely
138: to be associated to a GRB event would lead to important constraints on the
139: energetics and rates of GRBs, as well as on their location within a galaxy.
140:
141: \section{Evolution of the remnant and metal injection}
142:
143: We consider a model in which the ambient ISM consists of gas of
144: uniform density $n_0$, and treat the dynamical evolution of the
145: supershell in a similar fashion to that of supernova remnants (SNRs).
146: Whereas the initial stages are very complex and
147: depend on details of environment and on how the energy is injected, the
148: late phases of the evolution are very similar in the two cases
149: and don't depend much on details. The late evolutionary phases are
150: what we are interested in.
151:
152: Once the mass of the swept-up material exceeds the initial mass of the ejecta
153: (but while radiative losses are still negligible by comparison with the
154: initial energy),
155: the remnant enters a phase of adiabatic expansion (Spitzer
156: 1978). This is described by the self-similar solution derived by
157: Sedov:
158: \beq
159: R_s=1.15\left[\frac{E_0t^2}{\rho_0}\right]^{1/5}\;,
160: \label{eq:rs}
161: \eeq
162: where $R_s$ is the radius of the shock, $E_0$ the energy of the explosion,
163: and $\rho_0=\mu m_p n_0$. Let $r$ be the radial coordinate
164: in the interior of the remnant, $x\equiv r/R_s$, and $v_s$ the shock velocity;
165: then the density profile can be approximated analytically by (Cox \& Anderson 1982)
166: \beq
167: \rho=4\rho_0\left[\frac{5}{8}+\frac{3}{8}x^8\right]x^{4.5}\exp\left[-\frac{9}{16}
168: (1-x^8)\right]\;,
169: \label{eq:n}
170: \eeq
171: the pressure by
172: \beq
173: p=\frac{3}{4}\rho_0v_s^2\left[\frac{5}{8}+\frac{3}{8}x^8\right]^{5/3}
174: \exp\left[-\frac{3}{8}(1-x^8)\right]\;,
175: \label{eq:p}
176: \eeq
177: and the velocity of an element of the shell at position $x$ by
178: \beq
179: v=\frac{3}{4}v_s\frac{x}{2}\left[\frac{1+x^8}{\frac{5}{8}+\frac{3}{8}x^8}\right]\;.
180: \label{eq:v}
181: \eeq
182: The temperature in the interior is then found from Equations (\ref{eq:n})
183: and (\ref{eq:p}) and the use of the equation of state, $p=nkT$.
184:
185: The remnant continues to expand adiabatically up to the time at which
186: radiative cooling begins to dominate, that is when the gas temperature
187: behind the front reaches the value $T\approx(5-6)\times 10^5$~K,
188: corresponding to the maximum of the cooling curve. By the time the
189: remnant has arrived at this stage, approximately half of its thermal
190: energy has been radiated away, and a cold dense shell is formed,
191: containing about half of the mass of the swept-up gas. The cavity
192: bounded by this shell contains hot, low-density gas that continues to
193: expand nearly adiabatically (Lozinskaya 1992; Cui \& Cox 1992 for the
194: cases where thermal conduction is neglected). The evolution of the
195: remnant following the formation of the cold shell is well described
196: by a pressure-driven snowplough (PDS; Cox 1972; McKee \& Ostriker
197: 1977; Lozinskaya 1992). The time at which the PDS phase starts is
198: given by Cioffi, McKee \& Bertschinger (1988),
199: \beq t_{\rm
200: PDS}=4\times 10^4 E^{0.23}n_0^{-0.3}\eta^{-0.35}\,{\rm yr}\;,
201: \label{eq:tPDS}
202: \eeq
203: where $\eta$ is the metallicity ($\eta=1$ for solar abundances).
204: This value is similar to that derived by other authors (e.g. Chevalier
205: 1974; Falle 1981). Differences are mainly due to the use of different
206: cooling functions, although the shell velocity predicted at the same
207: radius is very similar for all calculations. In the PDS phase,
208: the radius of the shell evolves as $R_s\propto t^{0.31}$ (Chevalier
209: 1974). During this phase
210: the remnant radiates most of its energy away, and therefore the physical
211: variables describing the shell evolution are expected to
212: deviate from the self-similar solution given in Equations
213: (\ref{eq:n}--\ref{eq:v}) (see eg. Weaver, McCray \& Castor 1977). However, as
214: already mentioned, when
215: thermal conduction is neglected the hot center of the bubble continues to
216: evolve nearly adiabatically, though cooling eats into it from the
217: outside. Here we only consider lines arising from gas at temperatures
218: $\ga 10^6$ K, for which cooling is not yet important, and therefore
219: it is a good approximation to
220: keep the evolution as given by Equations (\ref{eq:n}--\ref{eq:v}) in the
221: interior of the bubble, where these lines are produced.
222: Moreover, notice that metallicity effects can significantly alter
223: the early evolution of the remnants; however during the late PDS phase the differences
224: due to metallicity are found to be negligible (Thorton et al. 1998; Goodwin, Pearce
225: \& Thomas 2000).
226:
227: Observations of supershells yield their radii and expansion
228: velocities, from which their kinetic energies can be inferred
229: (e.g. Heiles 1979). The kinetic energy, however, is only a small
230: fraction of the total energy released in the ISM. A large fraction of
231: the energy is, in fact, radiated away by the cooling bubble.
232: Numerical simulations of supernova explosions show that only a
233: fraction $f\la 4\%$ of the energy of the explosion is found as
234: kinetic energy in the very late phase of evolution of the
235: remnant (Chevalier 1974; Goodwin, Pearce \& Thomas 2000). Therefore,
236: if an old supershell has an inferred kinetic energy $E_{\rm K}$,
237: and its energy input is provided by multiple SNe, the number of SNe required is
238: $N_*\approx E_{\rm K}/(fE_{\rm SN})$. The energy released by a SN
239: explosion is typically taken to be $E_{\rm SN}=10^{51}$ ergs, in
240: agreement with the value inferred from the modelling of SN 1987A and SN 1993J
241: (Shigeyama \& Nomoto 1990; Shigeyama et al. 1994).
242: However, before
243: they explode, the most massive stars of the OB association contribute
244: to the mechanical energy of the bubble with their winds (McCray \&
245: Kafatos 1987; Heiles 1987; Shull \& Saken 1995). The wind energy
246: varies with optical luminosity (Abbott 1982), but, as an average,
247: Heiles (1987) assumes a value of $1.17\times 10^{51}$ ergs
248: per star. This brings the number of required stars to $N_*\approx
249: E_{\rm K}/(fE_{\rm SN})$ with $f\approx 0.05$. Because of the
250: uncertainties in these estimates, we prefer to adopt
251: a more conservative value, and therefore we take $f=10\%$ in our
252: calculations.
253:
254: If multiple SNe have provided the power for
255: a supershell of energy $E_{\rm K}$, we
256: assume that initially there was a cluster of $N_*$ OB stars
257: distributed according to an initial mass function (IMF). The IMF for
258: such stars can be written as (Garmany, Chionti \& Chiosi 1982)
259: \beq
260: f_{\rm IMF}(M_*)\equiv dN_*/dM_*\propto M_*^{-\beta}\;,
261: \label{eq:IMF}
262: \eeq
263: where $\beta\sim 2.0-2.7$. Here we adopt
264: $\beta=2.3$, and normalize the distribution so that $\int_{M_{\rm
265: min}}^{M_{\rm max}} f_{\rm IMF}(M_*)dM_*=N_*$.
266:
267: The main-sequence lifetimes of massive stars are given
268: approximately by (Stothers 1972; Chiosi,
269: Nasi, \& Sreenivasan 1978)
270: \beq
271: t_*\sim \left\{
272: \begin{array}{ll}
273: 3\times 10^7(M_*/10M_\odot)^{-1.6}\; {\rm yr} \;\;
274: & \hbox{if $\;7\;\la M_*\la 30 M_\odot$}\\
275: 9\times 10^6(M_*/10M_\odot)^{-0.5} \;{\rm yr} \;\;
276: & \hbox{if $\;\;30\la M_*\la 80 M_\odot$} \\
277: \end{array}\right.\;.
278: \label{eq:tMS}
279: \eeq
280:
281: The least massive star that is expected to terminate as a Type II SN
282: has initial mass $M_{\rm min}=7 M_\odot$ (Trimble 1982). We take
283: $M_{\rm max}=100 M_\odot$ as the mass of the most massive star of the
284: association\footnote{We consider a model of an OB
285: association with coeval star formation (see e.g. Shull \& Saken 1995);
286: that is all stars are assumed to be formed at once with no age
287: spread. We don't expect very sensitive variations in our results with
288: the introduction of a spread in birth dates, as long as most of the stars
289: explode in the early phase of the supershell. This assumption is
290: consistent with the observation that most old supershells do not show any
291: more signs of an OB association within them.} (Shull \& Saken 1995).
292:
293: Metallicity yields in SNe have been obtained in numerical
294: simulations by a number of authors.
295: Here we use the results of the computation made by
296: Nomoto et al. (1997), who have calculated metallicity yields for
297: several values of the progenitor mass between 13 and 70 $M_\odot$.
298: For other values of masses between our $M_{\rm min}$ and $M_{\rm max}$,
299: we interpolate and extrapolate their values.
300: Metals are injected in the ISM when the stars of the association
301: become SNe. Let $X(M_*)$ be the yield of a star of mass $M_*$ in
302: element $X$, and let $M_*(t)$ be the mass of a star with lifetime $t$,
303: as given by Equation (\ref{eq:tMS}).
304: The amount of mass of element $X$ that is injected in
305: the ISM between the times $t_1$ and $t_2=t_1+\Delta t$ is then
306: \beq
307: \Delta M_X=\int_{M_*(t_2)}^{M_*(t_1)}f_{\rm IMS}(M_*)X(M_*)dM_*\;.
308: \label{eq:delm}
309: \eeq
310: We take the initial time of the supershell to be that at which the first
311: supernova goes off. Our final results are not very sensitive to this
312: particular choice as long as the time at which the first star explodes
313: is much smaller than the lifetime of the supershell. We assume
314: spherical symmetry, and slice the volume of the bubble into a number
315: of shells. Each shell is followed in time, and the concentrations of
316: the ions of each element are computed, allowing for
317: time-dependent ionization. The stepsize $\Delta t$ is chosen so that $\Delta
318: t/t\ll 1$ at every time. After each time increment $\Delta t$, a new
319: shell is added while the others evolve according to
320: Equations~(\ref{eq:n}-\ref{eq:v}). During each $\Delta t$, an amount
321: of mass $\Delta M_X$ as given by Equation (\ref{eq:delm}) is injected
322: into the expanding bubble. How these extra elements precisely mix with the medium in
323: the supershell is a very complicated problem, and its solution depends on
324: details of the model. However, we consider it reasonable to assume that mixing is
325: negligible between SN material that is injected in the supershell at a
326: given time, and ISM that is accreted by the supershell at much later
327: times\footnote{
328: %This is understandable considering the fact that the
329: %ejecta of each SN, being much faster than the supershell will reach
330: %its boundary soon, and there, because of the higher density, they are
331: %quickly slowed down
332: Notice that the lifetime of each SN (i.e. the time that it takes
333: the shock to slow down) is much smaller than the
334: lifetime of the supershell, in the case where $N_*\gg 1$.}. Within the
335: supershell, we then make the simplest assumption of uniform mixing of the
336: ejecta with the medium.
337:
338: Finally, a modified version of the Raymond-Smith emission code
339: (Raymond \& Smith 1977) is used to compute, at each time and for each
340: shell, ionization and recombination rates, the time-dependent
341: ionization state, and the $X$-ray spectrum.
342:
343: \section{Diagnostics of metal enhancements}
344:
345: Figure 1 shows the enhancements (relative to standard solar values
346: and for $n_0=1$ cm$^{-3}$)
347: in the abundances of Oxygen, Silicon
348: and Neon for a supershell of age $t=5\times 10^7$ yr and kinetic
349: energy\footnote{As long as $N_*\gg 1$ (and therefore we can apply our
350: assumption about mixing) our results at late times are roughly
351: independent of $E_{\rm K}$ (or equivalently $E_0$). In fact, as $R_s
352: \propto E_0^{0.32}$, the volume of the shell is $V\propto E_0$. The
353: mass injected in element $X$ is $\Delta M_X\propto E_0$, and therefore
354: the number density $n_X=\Delta M_X/V \sim$ independent of $E_0$.} $E_{\rm K} =
355: 5\times 10^{53}$ ergs. As explained in \S 2, the kinetic energy as
356: measured at late times is assumed to be on the order of 10\% of the total input energy
357: in SNe. The total amount of Oxygen mass injected by the SNe is then
358: $\sim 10^4$ $M_\odot$, for the assumed $E_{\rm K}$.
359: The enhancements in the abundances are more pronounced in the inner regions of
360: the supershell, as a consequence of the fact that most of the extra
361: mass is injected at early times, due to the shorter lifetimes of the
362: most massive stars. Notice that, whereas these results are shown for bubbles accreting from
363: an ISM with solar metallicity, a stronger enhancement in the abundances could
364: be observed for bubbles growing in a medium with low metallicity, such as
365: that of the Large Magellanic Cloud, where the abundance of Oxygen is about
366: half the solar value (Vancura et al. 1992). On the other hand, if mixing
367: is more efficient than assumed, then more Oxygen would be found in the
368: outer colder regions of the supershell, therefore reducing its enhancement.
369: As already emphasized, unusual metal enhancements are only
370: expected in supershells due to multiple SNe, but not in those powered
371: by GRBs.
372:
373: Figure 2 shows the emitted power in some of the
374: strongest $X$-ray lines as a function of the position within the supershell.
375: This is shown at various ages of
376: the supershell. Due to the overall cooling of the shell with time, the
377: hot region ($T\ga 10^6$ K) in which these lines are produced moves
378: towards its inner part. As a consequence, the enhancements
379: inferred from measurements of these lines will increase with
380: time. This is illustrated by the solid lines of Figure 3, where
381: several line ratios are shown at various ages of a supershell powered
382: by multiple SNe. Here we have plotted ratios between lines of elements
383: (such as O, Si, Ne, Mg) which are particularly enhanced by the
384: SN explosion, and lines of elements (such as Fe, N) which are less affected.
385: The enhancements are best inferred by using ratios of two lines of similar
386: energy from different elements. These depend on the relative abundances
387: of the two elements and on the ionization fractions for each element,
388: but have no other significant dependence on the electron
389: temperature\footnote{Ratios between two lines close in energy are not much affected
390: by interstellar absorption either.} $T$.
391: Thus the abundances can be determined once the ionization fractions
392: are known. These, in turn, can be found from ratios of lines at approximately
393: the same energy from different ionization stages of the same element.
394: In cases where the continuum is observable, measurements of line strengths
395: relative to the local continuum might permit the determination of absolute
396: abundances for an ionic species (Winkler et al. 1981).
397:
398: The dotted lines in Figure 3 show the same line ratios used for the
399: case of multiple SNe, but for standard solar abundances, as they would
400: appear if the supershell had been powered by a GRB. We find that
401: enhancements in some specific line ratios by a factor of a few are
402: expected in a supershell produced by multiple SNe with respect to a
403: supershell due to a GRB. However, we need to emphasize that the
404: precise value of the enhancement in each ion of each element will of
405: course vary depending on the details of mixing within the shell.
406: Nonetheless, what we hoped to identify are general features that a
407: supershell due to multiple SNe is expected to have, as opposed to a
408: supershell powered by a GRB. That is, a strong enhancement in the
409: abundances of some specific elements such as O, Si, Ne, Mg, but not
410: others. Moreover, among ions of the same element, a higher
411: enhancement is expected to be seen in lines from a high ionization
412: state as compared to lines from a low ionization state,
413: the latter being produced in the outer cold shell, which has
414: most of the mass accreted from the ISM at later times.
415:
416: An issue that we have neglected in our model is that of thermal conduction
417: across the interface between the dense outer shell and hot interior. Fast
418: electrons from the hot interior can penetrate significant distances in
419: the cold shell before depositing their energy in collisions with the
420: gas, thus transferring heat across the contact discontinuity. The
421: resulting heating raises the pressure of the inner edge of the shell,
422: which then expands into the hot interior. It has been shown that
423: tangled magnetic fields are able to partially suppress thermal
424: conduction, but Slavin \& Cox (1993) showed that even a small amount of conduction
425: can lead to effective cooling in the end. If thermal conduction
426: operates, in fact, bubbles and superbubbles would be colder but denser
427: in their interiors, and therefore their $X$-ray emission would be
428: suppressed. The importance of the effect of thermal conduction in
429: bubbles is still an open issue, and the observational evidence appears
430: mixed indeed. While some bubbles are fainter in $X$-ray than predicted by the
431: theory, others are brighter, by up to an order of magnitude (Mac Low
432: 1999). A detailed modelling of the $X$-ray emission under the various circumstances
433: is not within the scope of our paper, and therefore we have adopted a simple model.
434:
435: Within the framework of this model, the brightest $X$-ray lines in the
436: late phase of a supershell of $E_{\rm K}=5\times 10^{53}$ ergs are
437: expected to have luminosities in the range of $10^{31} - 10^{32}$ ergs.
438: For supershells at galactic distances of
439: a few kpcs, these lines are within the detection capability of {\em CHANDRA} or {\rm XMM}.
440: In cases where the emission lines are too faint to be detected, it
441: would be useful to probe supershells in absorption. In fact, given their
442: sizes on the sky ($\ga$ a few deg$^2$ [Heiles 1979] for those in our galaxy),
443: it is likely to find a bright source behind them. Metal enhancements could then
444: be detected by measuring the equivalent widths of absorption lines in the
445: spectrum of the source. Again, it would be useful to compare strengths of
446: absorption lines of the most enriched elements with those of elements which are
447: not affected by SNe yields, and, among ions of the same element, to compare
448: strengths of absorption lines from different ionization states.
449: It would be worthed to attempt this test, either in emission or in absorption,
450: especially with the most energetic supershells. Several have been observed
451: which require an input energy $\ga 10^{54}$, both in our Galaxy (Heiles 1979),
452: and in nearby ones, such as, for example, NGC 4631 (Rand \& Van der Hulst 1993) or
453: NGC 3556 (Giguere \& Irwin 1996).
454:
455: \section{Conclusions}
456:
457: The energy source which powers giant HI supershells is still a
458: subject of debate. Its identification is particularly difficult in
459: the late phases of evolution of the remnant.
460: While hemispherical supershells could be perhaps
461: attributed to collisions with high-velocity clouds, the near-complete
462: ringlike ones could be more easily explained by either multiple SNe from
463: an OB association or by a GRB.
464:
465: In this paper we have identified signatures that could help discriminate
466: between the two models. Namely, we have shown that supershells
467: powered by multiple SNe are likely to show enhanced abundances of the
468: metals produced by the SNe themselves, and we have proposed some line diagnostics that
469: could help reveal these unusual features.
470:
471: Being able to discriminate between the multiple SNe and the GRB scenario
472: for the production of HI supershells would help constrain GRB rates and energetics, as
473: well as their location within a galaxy.
474:
475: \begin{references}
476:
477: \reference{}
478: Abbott, D. C. 1982, ApJ, 263, 723
479: \reference{}
480: Canizares, C. R., \& Winker, P. F. 1981, ApJ, 246, L33
481: \reference{}
482: Chevalier, R. A. 1974, ApJ, 188, 501
483: \reference{}
484: Chiosi, C., Nasi, E., \& Sreenivasan, S. P. 1978, A\&A, 63, 103
485: \reference{}
486: Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F.\& Bertschinger, E. 1998, ApJ, 334, 252
487: \reference{}
488: Cox, D. P. 1972, ApJ, 178, 159
489: \reference{}
490: Cox, D. P. \& Anderson, P. R. 1982, ApJ, 253, 268
491: \reference{}
492: Cui, W. \& Cox, D. P. 1992, ApJ, 401, 206
493: \reference{}
494: Efremov, Y. N., Elmegreen, B. \& Hodge, P. W. 1998, ApJ, 501, L163
495: \reference{}
496: Efremov, Y. N., Ehlerova, S., \& Palous, J. 1999, A\&A, 350, 468
497: \reference{}
498: Falle, S. A. G. E. 1981, MNRAS, 195, 1011
499: \reference{}
500: Galama, T. J. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 672
501: \reference{}
502: Garmany, C. D., Conti, P. S., \& Chiosi, C. 1982, ApJ, 263, 777
503: \reference{}
504: Giguere, D. L. \& Irwin, J. 1996, AAS, 189, 680S
505: \reference{}
506: Goodwin, S. P., Pearce, F. R. \& Thomas, P. A., astro-ph/0001180
507: \reference{}
508: Heiles, C. 1979, ApJ, 229, 533
509: \reference{}
510: Heiles, C., Reach, W. T, \& Koo, B-C. 1996, ApJ, 466, 191
511: \reference{}
512: Heiles, C. 1997, ApJ, 315, 555
513: \reference{}
514: Kennicutt, R. C., Edgar, B. K. \& Hodge, P. W. 1989, ApJ, 337, 761
515: \reference{}
516: Loeb, A. \& Perna, R. 1998, ApJ, 503, L35
517: \reference{}
518: Lozinskaya, T. A. 1992, 'Supernovae and Stellar Wind in the Interstellar Medium',
519: (AIP: New York)
520: \reference{}
521: Mac Low, M.-M. 1999, astro-ph/9912536
522: \reference{}
523: McCray, R. \& Kafatos, M. 1987, ApJ, 317, 190
524: \reference{}
525: McKee, C. F. \& Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148
526: \reference{}
527: Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, L. Tsujimoto, T., Thielemann, F. K., Kishimoto, N.,
528: Kubo, Y., \& Nakasato, N. 1997, Nucl. Phys. A616
529: \reference{}
530: Paczy\'nski, B. astro-ph/9909048
531: \reference{}
532: Perna, R., Raymond, J. \& Loeb, A. 2000, ApJ in press, preprint astro-ph/9904181
533: \reference{}
534: Rand, R. J. \& van der Hulst, J. M. 1993, AJ, 105, 2098
535: \reference{}
536: Raymond, J. \& Smith, B. W. 1977, ApJS, 35, 419
537: \reference{}
538: Rhode, K., L., Salzer, J. J., Westpfahl, D. J. \& Radice, L. A. 1999, AJ, 118, 323
539: \reference{}
540: Slavin, J. D., Cox, D. P. 1993, ApJ, 417, 187
541: \reference{}
542: Spitzer, L. 1978, 'Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium' (PUP: Princeton)
543: \reference{}
544: Shigeyama, T. \& Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ, 360, 242
545: \reference{}
546: Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., Nomoto, K., Sayo, H., \& Yamaoka, H.
547: 1994, ApJ, 420, 341
548: \reference{}
549: Shull, J. M. \& Saken, J. M. 1995, ApJ, 444, 663
550: \reference{}
551: Stothers, R. 1972, ApJ, 175, 431
552: \reference{}
553: Tenorio-Tagle, G. 1981, A\&A, 94, 338
554: \reference{}
555: Tenorio-Tagle, G. \& Bodenheimer, P. 1988, ARA\& A, 26, 145
556: \reference{}
557: Thorton, K., Gaudlitz, M., Janka, H.-Th. \& Steinmetz, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 95
558: \reference{}
559: Trimble, V. 1982, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 1183
560: \reference{}
561: Vancura, O., Blair, W. P., Long, K, S., \& Raymond, J. C. 1992, ApJ, 394, 158
562: \reference{}
563: Weaver, R., McCray, R., \& Castor, J. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377
564: \reference{}
565: Winkler, P. F., Canizares, C. R., Clark, G. W., Markert, T. H., \& Petre, R.
566: 1981, ApJ, 245, 574
567:
568: \end{references}
569:
570: \begin{figure}[t]
571: \centerline{\epsfysize=5.7in\epsffile{fig1.ps}}
572: \caption{Fractional enhancements in the abundances of Oxygen (solid line), Neon
573: (dotted line) and Silicon (dashed line) for a supershell which has been
574: powered by multiple SNe.
575: The energy is
576: $E_{\rm K}=5\times 10^{53}$ ergs and the age is $t=5\times 10^7$ yr. }
577: \label{fig:1}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: \begin{figure}[t]
581: \centerline{\epsfysize=5.7in\epsffile{fig2.ps}}
582: \caption{Emitted power at various times in some of the strongest lines:
583: O VII $\lambda 21.6$ (solid line), Si XIV $\lambda 6.18$ (dotted line),
584: Fe XVII $\lambda 17.05$ (dashed line), OVIII $\lambda 18.97$ (dotted-dashed line).
585: The times are $t=3\times 10^6$ yr [panel(a)], $t=10^7$ yr [panel(b)],
586: $t=3\times 10^7$ yr [panel(c)], $t=10^8$ yr [panel(d)]. }
587: \label{fig:2}
588: \end{figure}
589:
590: \begin{figure}[t]
591: \centerline{\epsfysize=5.7in\epsffile{fig3.ps}}
592: \caption{Line ratios that could be diagnostics of unusual metal enhancements
593: in a supershell powered by multiple SNe (solid lines) with respect to
594: a supershell powered by a GRB (dotted lines). The ratios are shown
595: at the same times as in Figure 2. The earliest time is marked by a circle.
596: The symbols R, F and I stand for
597: resonance, forbidden and intercombination line, respectively. }
598: \label{fig:3}
599: \end{figure}
600:
601: \end{document}
602:
603: