1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4:
5: \received{}
6: \accepted{}
7: \journalid{}{}
8: \articleid{}{}
9: \shortauthors{Kasen, D.}
10: \shorttitle{$Analytic Inversion$}
11: \newcommand{\rph}{\ensuremath{r_\mathrm{ph}}}
12: \bibliographystyle{apj}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{A Complete Analytic Inversion of Supernova Lines in the
17: Sobolev Approximation}
18:
19: \author{Daniel Kasen\altaffilmark{1,2}\email{dnkasen@panisse.lbl.gov}
20: David Branch\altaffilmark{2,1}\email{branch@mail.nhn.ou.edu}
21: E. Baron\altaffilmark{2,1}\email{baron@mail.nhn.ou.edu}
22: and\\
23: David Jeffery\altaffilmark{3}\email{jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu}}
24:
25: \altaffiltext{1}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720}
26:
27: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma,
28: Norman, OK 73019}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801}
31: %\affil{}
32:
33:
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: We show that the shape of P-Cygni line profiles of photospheric
37: phase supernova can be analytically inverted to extract both
38: the optical depth and source function of the line -- i.e. all
39: the physical content of the model for the case when the Sobolev
40: approximation is valid. Under various simplifying assumptions,
41: we derive formulae that give $S(r)$ and $\tau(r)$
42: in terms of derivatives of the line flux with respect to wavelength.
43: The transition region between the minimum and maximum of the line
44: profile turns out to give especially interesting information
45: on the optical depth near the photosphere.
46: The formulae give insights into the relationship between line shape
47: and physical quantities that may be useful in interpreting
48: observed spectra and detailed numerical calculations.
49:
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \keywords{line: formation --- line: profiles --- line: identification
53: --- radiative transfer --- supernovae}
54:
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: The Sobolev approximation \citep{sob60,castor70,rybhum78} allows for a
59: simplified solution to the radiative transfer equation in media with
60: high velocity gradients, such as supernovae. The Sobolev
61: approximation has been used to calculate synthetic spectra in stars
62: with strong winds \citep{CN72,ppk86} and to fit observed supernova
63: spectra and place constraints on explosion models
64: \citep{bran81b,jb90,mazz92,deng00}. Typically these models assume
65: spherical symmetry and ignore continuous opacity. Despite the
66: simplifying assumptions, the synthetic spectra fit the data quite
67: well.
68:
69: To calculate line profiles in the Sobolev case two physical quantities must
70: be specified: (1) $\tau(r)$: the optical depth of a line
71: as a function of radius (often assumed to be a power law), and
72: (2) $S(r)$: the source function of the line as a function of radius
73: (often assumed to be a resonant scattering source function).
74: The Sobolev approximation has most often been used, like more sophisticated
75: radiative transfer techniques,
76: in a direct analysis of data, where the physical quantities are
77: specified or calculated and the resulting spectrum is compared
78: to observed data.
79: On the other hand, there has been some interest in taking the inverse
80: approach, i.e. using the line shape of observed data to infer the physical
81: conditions in the atmosphere. \citet{fc89} showed that the emissivity could be
82: calculated for forbidden lines by differentiating the observed line
83: profile with respect to wavelength and estimated the effects of
84: electron scattering. \citet{IH00}, using the Sobolev approximation,
85: derived an analytic formula that gave a combination of $S(r)$ and
86: $\tau(r)$ as a function of the derivative of the red side of an
87: emission feature of arbitrary optical depth. The run of the optical
88: depth of a line is then given if one specifies a form for the source
89: function. For instance $S(r)$ in the case of pure resonance
90: scattering is given by:
91: \begin{equation}
92: S(r) = I_\mathrm{ph} W(r), \label{resscat}
93: \end{equation}
94: where
95: \begin{equation}
96: W(r) = \frac{1}{2}\biggr(1-\sqrt{1 -
97: \biggl(\frac{\rph}{r}\biggr)^2}\biggl)
98: \label{dilfactor}
99: \end{equation}
100: is the dilution factor \citep{mihalas78sa}. $I_\mathrm{ph}$ is
101: the intensity from the photosphere and $\rph$ the radius of the photosphere.
102:
103: However, in supernova atmospheres the source function may deviate
104: strongly from pure resonance scattering. In fact the failure
105: of Sobolev models to properly
106: fit the shape of some spectral lines -- in particular net emission
107: features -- is basically because the source function is usually
108: assumed that of pure resonant scattering, not because of
109: direct limitations in the
110: Sobolev approximation itself. The source function is an
111: interesting quantity in its own right and ideally an inversion would
112: extract both $S(r)$ and $\tau(r)$ from the line profile. In what
113: follows we show how the degeneracy found by \citet{IH00} can be broken
114: for photospheric phase supernovae and derive analytic
115: expressions for both $\tau(r)$ and $S(r)$ using the shape of the
116: entire line profile, thus providing a complete solution to the
117: inverse problem.
118:
119: We derive the formulae assuming spherical symmetry, an expanding line-scattering
120: atmosphere surrounding a sharp continuum-emitting photosphere that
121: absorbs any flux scattered back onto it, no continuous opacity, and no
122: line blending. Even when these assumptions are not strictly valid the
123: formulae should still give considerable insight into the physical
124: conditions in the atmosphere. On the
125: other hand, the limitations of the formulae provide an interesting
126: result in their own right -- they clearly show what type of features
127: are impossible under the above assumptions, making it is obvious where
128: more complicated scenarios must be invoked to explain a spectrum.
129:
130:
131: \section{The Sobolev Approximation\label{sobsec}}
132:
133: In the most often used Sobolev model, one begins with a perfectly
134: sharp, spherical photosphere that emits radiation as a blackbody,
135: and which is surrounded
136: by a moving atmosphere with large velocity gradient.
137: The basic idea behind the Sobolev approximation is that a photon
138: emitted from the photosphere
139: only interacts with a line in the small region of the
140: atmosphere where the photon is Doppler shifted into resonance with
141: the line. Since the source function can be assumed to be constant
142: over this small resonance region, the solution of the radiative transfer
143: equation is greatly simplified. It also becomes simpler to visualize
144: line formation, as the line flux at a given wavelength comes
145: from a 2-dimensional resonance surface in the atmosphere.
146: The criterion for the validity of the Sobolev approximation
147: is that the resonance regions be sufficiently small,
148: and this is characterized
149: by the ratio of the atmosphere's thermal velocity
150: (or mean microturbulent velocity, if significant) to the
151: velocity scale height (i.e the velocity range over which temperature,
152: density, and occupation numbers change by a factor of order 2
153: \citep{jeff93}). Quantitative accuracy is found for velocity ratios
154: $ \lesssim 0.1$ \citep{olson82}. For photospheric phase supernovae
155: thermal velocities are of order 10 km $\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ and
156: velocity scale heights are $\sim 10^3$ km $\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, giving a ratio
157: of $\sim 10^{-2}$.
158:
159: For supernova atmospheres, homology is established
160: shortly after the explosion, so that $v = r/t$, where $t$ is
161: the time since explosion.
162: In this case the resonance surface for a wavelength is a
163: plane perpendicular to the line of sight. We label the line
164: of sight with a coordinate z, with origin at the center of
165: expansion and with $z$ increasing away from the
166: observer (see Figure~\ref{fig1}).
167: A plane at coordinate $z$ has a z-component velocity
168: of $v_z = z/t = z\,v_\mathrm{ph}/\rph$
169: where $v_\mathrm{ph}$ is the velocity of the photosphere. This plane
170: is then responsible for the line flux at a wavelength
171: $\lambda = \lambda_0[1 + (z/\rph\,)(v_\mathrm{ph}/c)]$, i.e the
172: rest wavelength, $\lambda_0$, Doppler shifted by the z-component velocity.
173:
174: The flux at a given wavelength is calculated by integrating
175: over all the characteristic rays of the corresponding plane.
176: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows that the formation of the line profile breaks
177: up schematically into three regions.
178: For $z \ge 0$, the flux is redshifted with respect to the line center so
179: we call this the red side. This leads to an expression for the flux
180: as an integral over impact parameter p (the coordinate perpendicular
181: to the line of sight):
182: \begin{eqnarray}
183: \frac{F(z)}{2\pi} & =&
184: \int_{0}^{\rph}I_\mathrm{ph}p\,dp +
185: \int_{\rph}^{\infty}S(r)(1-\zeta(r))p\,dp \label{redflux} \\\nonumber
186: && = \frac{1}{2} \rph^2I_\mathrm{ph} + \int_{\rph}^{\infty}S(r)(1-\zeta(r))p\,dp
187: \end{eqnarray}
188: where $\zeta(r) = e^{-\tau(r)}$
189: and $F(z)$ is the observed flux (apart from a factor of $1/D^2$, where
190: $D$ is the distance to the supernova) at wavelength
191: $\Delta\lambda = \lambda - \lambda_0 = \lambda_0 zv_\mathrm{ph}/c\rph = \lambda_0z/ct$.
192: The first term in Eqn.~(\ref{redflux})
193: accounts for the flux coming directly from the photosphere,
194: and the second term for photons scattered or created to emerge along the line of site.
195: We have assumed for
196: convenience an infinite atmosphere although none of our results is
197: altered in the case that the atmosphere terminates at some radius
198: $r_\mathrm{max}$.
199:
200: For $z<0$, the integral has three terms in general, with the third
201: term in Eqn.~(\ref{bluesob}) now representing the region where material
202: intervening between the photosphere and the observer
203: leads to absorption of the continuum radiation:
204: \begin{eqnarray} \label{bluesob}
205: \frac{F(z)}{2\pi} &=& \int_{0}^{p_0}I_\mathrm{ph}p\,dp
206: + \int_{p_0}^{\infty}S(r)(1-\zeta(r))p\,dp
207: + \int_{p_0}^{\rph}I_\mathrm{ph}\zeta(r)p\,dp
208: \label{blueflux} \\\nonumber
209: &=& \frac{1}{2}p_0^2 I_\mathrm{ph}
210: + \int_{p_0}^{\infty}S(r)(1-\zeta(r))p\,dp
211: + \int_{p_0}^{\rph}I_\mathrm{ph}\zeta(r)p\,dp.
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: The limit $p_0$ is given by the $p$ location of the
214: spherical photosphere for a given $z$, namely
215: \[
216: p_0 = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
217: \sqrt{\rph^2 - z^2} &\mathrm{for}\ -\rph < z < 0\\
218: 0 & \mathrm{for}\ z \le -\rph
219: \end{array}
220: \right.
221: \]
222: and the first term of Eqn.~(\ref{blueflux}) is identically zero for
223: $z \le -\rph$. We call the part of the line profile where $z < - \rph$
224: the blue side and the part where $- \rph<z<0$ the mid region.
225:
226: \section{The Inversion Formulae}
227: \subsection{Inversion for $\zeta(r)$ for $\rph<r<\sqrt{2}\rph$}
228:
229: We consider the inversion of each region of the line in turn, beginning
230: with the mid region. The
231: mid region of the line profile turns out to be only sensitive to
232: the optical depth of the line near the photosphere. Using
233: Eqn.~(\ref{blueflux}), we
234: change the integration variable from $p$ to $r = \sqrt{p^2 + z^2}$,
235: and divide through by $I_\mathrm{ph}$:
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: \frac{\rph^2}{2}f(z) &=& \int_{|z|}^{\rph}r\,dr
238: + \int_{\rph}^{\infty}s(r)(1-\zeta(r))r\,dr
239: + \int_{\rph}^{\sqrt{z^2+\rph^2}}\zeta(r)r\,dr
240: \label{midr}, \\\nonumber
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: where we have defined
243: $s(r) = S(r)/I_\mathrm{ph}$ and $f(z) = F(z)/(\pi I_\mathrm{ph} \rph^2)$ (i.e. the total flux divided by the continuum flux).
244: $I_\mathrm{ph}$ has been assumed to be constant over the line profile.
245:
246: Written this way we see that the
247: term involving the source function is independent of $z$ and so contributes a
248: constant amount to the flux for every point in the mid region.
249: The derivative of the mid region is therefore
250: independent of the source function.
251: The change in flux from a velocity surface at $z$ to one at $z - \Delta z$
252: is due only to
253: the fact that a bit more of the photosphere is now obscured by
254: the optical depth of the line.
255: One then expects the derivative $\frac{df}{dz}$ to
256: depend only on the optical depth.
257:
258: Since the terms in Eqn.~(\ref{midr}) only depend on $z$ in
259: the limits of the integral we can differentiate the integrals using
260: Leibnitz' rule:
261: \begin{equation}
262: \frac{d}{dz}\int_{\xi(z)}^{\eta(z)}g(t)\,dt
263: = g(\eta)\frac{d\eta}{dz} - g(\xi)\frac{d\xi}{dz} \label{liebniz}
264: \end{equation}
265: Applying Eqn.~(\ref{liebniz}) to Eqn.~(\ref{midr}) allows us to solve for
266: $\zeta(r)$:
267: \begin{equation}
268: \zeta(r=\sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2})
269: = 1 - \frac{\rph^2}{2 |z|}\frac{df}{dz} \\
270: = 1 - \frac{\lambda_0^2}{2 |\Delta\lambda|}\frac{df}{d\Delta\lambda}
271: \biggr(\frac{v_\mathrm{ph}}{c}\biggl)^2 \label{midbeta}
272: \end{equation}
273: which is valid for $-\rph<z<0$. In using Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta})
274: to calculate $\zeta(r)$ from
275: a spectrum, one can choose either $\Delta\lambda$,
276: $z$, or $r$ as the independent parameter. For instance, from
277: $\Delta\lambda$ (which is always less than zero for Eqn.~[\ref{midbeta}])
278: the other two parameters are determined by
279: $z=\rph (\Delta\lambda/\lambda_0)(c/v_\mathrm{ph})$ and
280: $r = \sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2}$. The photospheric radius is itself given
281: by $\rph = v_\mathrm{ph} t$; however if the time since explosion is not known,
282: one can still determine $\zeta$ as a function of the scaled distance
283: $r/\rph$.
284:
285: Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta}) gives us some immediate insight into the
286: relationship between
287: line shape and optical depth. The steepness of the mid
288: region (once the photospheric velocity has been scaled out)
289: is a direct indication of the Sobolev optical depth.
290: If no line feature exists, then
291: $\frac{df}{dz} = 0$ and hence $\zeta = 1$ (i.e $\tau = 0$).
292: Thus the absence of a
293: feature implies either negligible line optical depth or the breakdown
294: of our assumptions -- in this formalism there is no choice for
295: the source function that allows a line to
296: ``erase'' itself.
297: A stair-step mid region could be a signal
298: that the optical depth near the photosphere is oscillating between
299: small and large values (i.e. the medium is clumpy).
300:
301: Note that since $\zeta \le 1$, Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta}) implies that the derivative
302: $\frac{df}{dz}$ is always greater than or equal to zero; i.e. the
303: mid region always increases (or is flat) to the red.
304: The appearance of a rising hump in the mid region,
305: could indicate that the stated assumptions do not hold.
306:
307: The fact that $\frac{df}{dz} \ge 0$ also implies that an emission
308: feature cannot peak blueward of its rest wavelength (at the most it
309: can remain flat into the mid region as one would have for a
310: detached atmosphere). However, the peaks of emission features are
311: indeed found to be blue-shifted, both in real data and in spherically
312: symmetric NLTE models.
313: \citet{jb90} and \citet{duschetal95} attribute the blueshift
314: to an NLTE effect where a large source function near the photosphere
315: enhances the flux in the mid region.
316: Under our assumptions this cannot be correct, since Eqn.~(\ref{midr})
317: shows that the shape of the mid region is independent of the
318: source function.
319: Various second order physical effects, not included in the
320: inversion formulae, could possibly explain the blueshifts, for example:
321: continuous opacity added to the model
322: could preferentially extinguish photons from the red side of the envelope;
323: an absorption from another line to the red could cut into the emission
324: peak;
325: a large slope in the continuum could shift the peak;
326: clumpiness of the photosphere \citep{wanghu94} could break the
327: spherical symmetry of the problem; relativistic effects can cause
328: a significant blueshift for high photospheric velocities
329: ($\ge$ approximately 15,000 km/s \citep{jeff93}); or
330: line-scattered light could be diffusely
331: reflected off and blueshifted by the photosphere, causing
332: a blueshift of the emission peak \citep{Chugai87A88}.
333:
334: A few points must be made concerning the applicability of
335: Eqn.(\ref{midbeta}): (1) near the rest wavelength
336: the equation may not yield reliable results, since the $\Delta\lambda$
337: in the denominator goes to zero and must be delicately canceled by
338: the flux derivative also going to zero.
339: Thus any noise in the flux derivative
340: (which must be evaluated numerically from the data)
341: will be inflated at small $\Delta\lambda$.
342: (2) one can not extract realistic values for $\tau \gg
343: 1$ since $\zeta$ depends exponentially on $\tau$. One will know
344: $\tau$ is large but not its exact value; (3) at late times
345: (the nebular phase) the photosphere may become negligibly small and so
346: there is no mid region -- in this case, as we will see, our analysis
347: reduces to that of
348: \citet{IH00}; (4) Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta}) only gives the value of $\zeta$
349: for the radial region
350: $\rph<r<\sqrt{2}\rph$. This is expected to be the region of highest
351: density opacity in the atmosphere and so our formula for $\zeta(r)$ is interesting
352: in itself. For example, if an atmosphere's density scales like $r^{-8}$
353: (a density law often used in spectral analysis; e.g. \cite{millard94i99})
354: then at $r = \sqrt{2}\rph$ the optical depth has already fallen to
355: 1/16 of its
356: photospheric value. Nevertheless, in the following we
357: show how it is possible to extend the solution for $\zeta(r)$ to
358: arbitrary $r$ by using information from the blue and red sides of the
359: line profile.
360:
361: \subsection{Inversion for $S(r)$}
362: We next consider the inversion of the red side of the line, which will
363: allow us to solve for the source function. Changing variables in
364: Eqn.~(\ref{redflux}), we see that the flux is now given by a
365: source term plus an unobstructed photosphere term:
366: \begin{eqnarray} \label{redside}
367: \frac{\rph^2}{2}f(z)
368: &=& \frac{1}{2}\rph^2 + \int_{\sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2}}^{\infty}s(r)(1-\zeta(r))r\,dr.
369: \end{eqnarray}
370: The second term in Eqn.~(\ref{redflux}) is a constant with respect to
371: $z$ since the
372: photosphere is always completely unobscured for $z > 0$. The same
373: technique of differentiating the integral
374: allows us to solve for $s(r)$:
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: s(r = \sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2}) &=&
377: -\frac{\rph^2}{1-\zeta(r)}\frac{1}{2 z}\frac{df}{dz}\label{sourceeqn}
378: \\
379: &=& -\frac{1}{1-\zeta(r)}
380: \frac{\lambda_0^2}{2 \Delta\lambda}\frac{df}{d\Delta\lambda}
381: \biggr(\frac{v_\mathrm{ph}}{c}\biggl)^2
382: \nonumber
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: which is valid for all $z \ge 0$ and the independent parameter can
385: be chosen to be any of $\Delta\lambda$, $z$, or $r$.
386: This is essentially the same result derived by \citet{IH00}.
387: Because Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta}) together with Eqn.~(\ref{extender}) (see below)
388: gives $\zeta$ everywhere, Eqn.~(\ref{sourceeqn}) can be used
389: to determine the source function at all radii above the photosphere.
390: Note if $\tau = 0$ then $\zeta =
391: 1$ and Eqn.~(\ref{sourceeqn}) is undefined -- if a line has no optical
392: depth it is of course
393: impossible to determine its source function. For large
394: optical depth, $\zeta=0$, and the shape of the red side depends on the
395: source function only. Since $s \ge 0$ and $\zeta \le 1$ we must have
396: $\frac{df}{dz} \ge 0$ on the red side -- the red side always decreases (or
397: stays flat) to the red. One cannot have humps or even a redshifted
398: emission peak. Redshifts can occur due to non-Sobolev radiative transfer
399: effects, but these are likely to be very small for supernovae \citep{hamann81}.
400:
401: \subsection{Inversion for $\zeta(r)$ for $r>\sqrt{2}\rph$}
402: Finally the flux from the blue side of the profile will allow us to
403: extend the solution of $\zeta$ to large $r$. The flux is given by
404: a source term plus a fully obstructed photosphere:
405: \begin{eqnarray} \label{blueside}
406: \frac{\rph^2}{2}f(z) = \int_{|z|}^{\infty}s(r)(1-\zeta(r))r\,dr
407: + \int_{|z|}^{\sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2}}\zeta(r)r\,dr.
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: The same differentiation technique yields:
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \zeta(r=\sqrt{\rph^2 + z^2}) = \zeta(|z|)
412: + s(|z|)\{1-\zeta(|z|)\} - \frac{\rph^2}{2 |z|}\frac{df}{dz},
413: \label{sblue}
414: \end{eqnarray}
415: which is valid for $z < -\rph$.
416: Making use of spherical symmetry, Eqn.~(\ref{sourceeqn})
417: can be used to replace the second term in
418: Eqn.~(\ref{sblue}) with
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: s(|z|)(1-\zeta(|z|)) = -\frac{\rph^2}{2 z_+}\frac{df(z_+)}{dz} \label{interresult}
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: where $z_+ = \sqrt{z^2 - \rph^2}$. Combining Eqns.~(\ref{sblue}) and
423: (\ref{interresult}) we obtain:
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: \zeta(r=\sqrt{z^2 + \rph^2}) &=& \zeta(r=|z|)\label{extender} \\
426: &&\hspace{1pt} -
427: \frac{\lambda_0^2}{2}\biggr(\frac{v_\mathrm{ph}}{c}\biggl)^2 \biggr\{ \biggr[\frac{1}{\Delta\lambda}
428: \frac{df}{d\Delta\lambda}\biggl]_{\Delta\lambda=
429: \frac{\lambda_0}{ct}\sqrt{z^2 - \rph^2}} +
430: \biggr[\frac{1}{|\Delta\lambda|}
431: \frac{df}{d\Delta\lambda}\biggl]_{\Delta\lambda=-\frac{|z|\lambda_0}{ct}}
432: \biggl\}.\nonumber
433: \end{eqnarray}
434: where $|z|>r_{\rm ph}$ is the independent
435: parameter for evaluating
436: $\zeta(r=\sqrt{z^{2}+r_{\rm ph}})$ from $\zeta(r=|z|)$
437: and ${df\over dz}$.
438: Given $\zeta(r)$ for
439: $r\in[nr_{\rm ph},\sqrt{n+1}r_{\rm ph}]$, Eqn.~(\ref{extender}) allows
440: us to evaluate $\zeta(r)$ for
441: $r\in[\sqrt{n+1}r_{\rm ph},\sqrt{n+2}r_{\rm ph}]$
442: where $n\geq 1$ is an integer.
443: Beginning with $\zeta(r)$ for
444: $r\in[r_{\rm ph},\sqrt{2}r_{\rm ph}]$, given by Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta}),
445: we can in fact use Eqn.~(\ref{extender}) to find
446: $\zeta(r)$ for all $r$.
447:
448: \section{Discussion}
449: For late times when the photosphere becomes negligibly small ($\rph
450: \longrightarrow 0$), the mid region disappears and Eqn.~(\ref{midbeta})
451: becomes meaningless. We cannot use the reduced quantities $f(z)$ and $s(r)$
452: in this case. Instead the counterpart to
453: Eqns.~(\ref{redside}) and~(\ref{blueside}) is:
454: \begin{equation}
455: {F(z)\over2\pi}=\int_{|z|}^{\infty} S(r)[1-\zeta(r)]r\,dr \label{nophot}
456: \end{equation}
457: which implies that $F(z)$ is symmetric about $z=0$:
458: i.e., the line profile is symmetric about the rest wavelength.
459: From Eqn.~(\ref{nophot}) we derive:
460: \begin{equation}
461: S(r)[1-\zeta(r)]=-{1\over2\pi}{1\over z}{dF\over dz}
462: =-{1\over2\pi}\left({\lambda_{0}\over ct}\right)^{2}
463: {1\over\Delta\lambda}{dF\over d\Delta\lambda}
464: \end{equation}
465: where $r=|z|=ct|\Delta\lambda|$. Since the profile is symmetric
466: one obtains the same information using either $z \le 0$ or $z \ge 0$.
467: Thus without a photosphere it is not
468: possible to separate $S$ and $\zeta$, however the product
469: $S\{1 - \zeta\}$ can be determined for all radii.
470:
471: To demonstrate that the above equations really do allow for a clean
472: inversion, we have generated line profiles
473: under the given assumptions and
474: using $S(r)$ and $\tau(r)$ given by power laws of various exponents.
475: Figure~\ref{fig2} shows that the power law behavior can be recovered by
476: applying the inversion formulae to the line shape.
477: Although here we have assumed that the functions
478: are monotonically decreasing with
479: $r$, this is not a necessary condition for our derivations
480: and the formulae apply also for
481: non-monotonic distributions.
482:
483: Because the inversions
484: in Figure~\ref{fig2} were applied to pristine model lines, the
485: results show very little noise (the small amount is due to
486: numerical error), however in application to real data,
487: the quality of the inversion will of course depend upon
488: the signal to noise and spectral resolution of the data.
489: Because derivatives are especially sensitive to
490: a high frequency noise component, smoothing of the spectrum
491: or some other stabilization technique may need to be applied,
492: which typically amounts to
493: assuming \emph{a priori} some level of smoothness of the
494: functions $\tau(r)$ and $S(r)$ (c.f. Craig \& Brown 1986).
495:
496: \section{Conclusion}
497:
498: Eqns.~(\ref{midbeta}),~(\ref{sourceeqn}), and~(\ref{extender}), taken
499: together constitute a complete analytic inversion of supernova
500: lines in the Sobolev approximation.
501: Given the present assumptions, some of the more interesting facts are:
502: (1) the steepness of the mid
503: region reflects the size of the optical depth; (2) the absence of
504: a line implies negligible optical depth; (3) a jagged mid region
505: signals a clumpy absorbing region near the photosphere; (4) the emission
506: feature may have no rising humps; (5) emission
507: features cannot be blueshifted or redshifted
508: simply by varying the line source function or optical depth.
509: When applied under the right circumstances,
510: the formulae may provide useful information on the physical
511: conditions in the atmosphere
512: as well as constraints on supernova explosion models.
513:
514: It is also interesting that this inversion problem
515: possesses a unique solution for both $S(r)$ and $\tau(r)$.
516: A persistent worry in supernova modeling is that very
517: different physical parameters may lead to identical
518: looking synthetic spectra.
519: The analytic solutions above demonstrate that, at least in principle,
520: each different choice of $S(r)$ and $\tau(r)$ produces a
521: distinct line profile (although in practice it may be impossible to
522: discern the differences from noisy data).
523: Although for more general models the inversion will not be unique,
524: the success in the present case does give some support that
525: a good fit to a line does
526: indeed imply realistic physical parameters.
527:
528:
529:
530: \acknowledgments
531: We would like to thank Peter Nugent and R. Ignace for helpful comments
532: and suggestions. This work was supported
533: in part by NSF grants AST-9731450, AST-9986965 and NASA
534: grant NAG5-3505.
535:
536:
537: \begin{thebibliography}{20}
538: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
539:
540: \bibitem[{Branch {et~al.}(1983)}]{bran81b}
541: Branch, D. {et~al.} 1983, ApJ, 270, 123
542:
543: \bibitem[{Castor(1970)}]{castor70}
544: Castor, J.~I. 1970, MNRAS, 149, 111
545:
546: \bibitem[{Castor \& Nussbaumer(1972)}]{CN72}
547: Castor, J.~I. \& Nussbaumer, H. 1972, MNRAS, 155, 293
548:
549: \bibitem[{{Chugai}(1988)}]{Chugai87A88}
550: {Chugai}, N.~N. 1988, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 14, 334
551:
552: \bibitem[{Craig \& Brown(1986)}]{craigbrown}
553: Craig, I. \& Brown, J. 1986, Inverse Problems in Astronomy (Bristol: Adam
554: Hilger Ltd)
555:
556: \bibitem[{Deng {et~al.}(2000)Deng, Qiu, Hu, Hatano, \& Branch}]{deng00}
557: Deng, J.~S., Qiu, Y.~L., Hu, J.~Y., Hatano, K., \& Branch, D. 2000, ApJ, 540,
558: 452
559:
560: \bibitem[{Duschinger {et~al.}(1995)Duschinger, Puls, Branch, H{\"o}flich, \&
561: Gabler}]{duschetal95}
562: Duschinger, M., Puls, J., Branch, D., H{\"o}flich, P., \& Gabler, A. 1995,
563: A\&A, 297, 802
564:
565: \bibitem[{Fransson \& Chevalier(1989)}]{fc89}
566: Fransson, C. \& Chevalier, R. 1989, ApJ, 343, 323
567:
568: \bibitem[{Hamann(1981)}]{hamann81}
569: Hamann, W.-R. 1981, A\&A, 93, 353
570:
571: \bibitem[{Ignace \& Hendry(2000)}]{IH00}
572: Ignace, R. \& Hendry, M.~A. 2000, ApJ, 537, L131
573:
574: \bibitem[{Jeffery \& Branch(1990)}]{jb90}
575: Jeffery, D. \& Branch, D. 1990, in Supernovae, ed. J.~C. Wheeler \& T.~Piran
576: (Singapore: World Scientific), 149
577:
578: \bibitem[{Jeffery(1993)}]{jeff93}
579: Jeffery, D.~J. 1993, ApJ, 415, 734
580:
581: \bibitem[{Mazzali {et~al.}(1992)Mazzali, Lucy, \& Butler}]{mazz92}
582: Mazzali, P.~A., Lucy, L., \& Butler, K. 1992, A\&A, 258, 399
583:
584: \bibitem[{Mihalas(1978)}]{mihalas78sa}
585: Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar Atmospheres (New York: W. H. Freeman)
586:
587: \bibitem[{Millard {et~al.}(1999)Millard, Branch, Baron, Hatano, Fisher,
588: Filippenko, {et~al.}}]{millard94i99}
589: Millard, J., Branch, D., Baron, E., Hatano, K., Fisher, A., Filippenko, A.~V.,
590: {et~al.} 1999, ApJ, 527, 746
591:
592: \bibitem[{Olson(1982)}]{olson82}
593: Olson, G. 1982, ApJ, 255, 267
594:
595: \bibitem[{Pauldrach {et~al.}(1986)Pauldrach, Puls, \& Kudritzki}]{ppk86}
596: Pauldrach, A., Puls, J., \& Kudritzki, R.~P. 1986, A\&A, 164, 86
597:
598: \bibitem[{Rybicki \& Hummer(1978)}]{rybhum78}
599: Rybicki, G.~B. \& Hummer, D.~G. 1978, ApJ, 219, 654
600:
601: \bibitem[{Sobolev(1960)}]{sob60}
602: Sobolev, V.~V. 1960, Moving Envelopes of Stars (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
603: Press)
604:
605: \bibitem[{Wang \& Hu(1994)}]{wanghu94}
606: Wang, L. \& Hu, J. 1994, Nature, 369, 380
607:
608: \end{thebibliography}
609:
610:
611: \clearpage
612:
613:
614: \eject
615: \begin{figure}
616: \begin{center}
617: \leavevmode
618: \plotone{figure1.eps}
619: \caption{Schematic diagram of how line profiles are
620: calculated in the Sobolev approximation. The figure is a
621: cross-sectional view of the supernova with the sphere in the center
622: representing the photosphere. The dotted/dashed lines show the region
623: of integration for three points on the line profile, one each on the red
624: side, the mid region, and the blue side. In each case the integration
625: over that region of the atmosphere produces the flux at the wavelength
626: where the dotted line intersects the line profile. On the mid and red
627: side, the dashed lines represent the region of the atmosphere where
628: light comes directly from the photosphere.\label{fig1}}
629: \end{center}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \begin{center}
635: \leavevmode
636: \plotone{figure2.eps}
637: \caption{Examples of the application of the inversion formulae.
638: Panels (a) and (b) show the source function and optical depth obtained
639: from the
640: inversion of line profiles generated with the same source
641: function $S = W(r)$, but different power indices ($n = 2, 4, 8, 12$) for the
642: optical depth.
643: Panels (c) and (d) show the the source function and optical depth obtained
644: from the inversion of
645: line profiles generated with the same optical depth power
646: law ($n=8$), but different source functions ($S(r) \propto r^{-n}$,
647: $n=0,1,2,4$). The solid lines are the exact input functions
648: and the diamonds are the functions extracted using the inversion
649: formulae. The small amount of
650: noise in the plots is due to numerical error.
651: \label{fig2}}
652: \end{center}
653: \end{figure}
654:
655: \end{document}
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661:
662:
663:
664: