1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{lmacs}
3: % GENERAL DEFINITIONS
4: % Time-stamp: <2002-07-12 16:59:34 baron>
5:
6: \def\ifundefined#1{\expandafter\ifx\csname#1\endcsname\relax}
7:
8: \newif\ifpdf
9: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined
10: \pdffalse % we aren't running pdflatex
11: \else
12: \pdfoutput=1 % we are running pdflatex
13: \pdftrue
14: \fi
15:
16:
17: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
18: \def\ga{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
19:
20: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
22:
23: \ifundefined{ensuremath}\def\ensuremath#1{\relax\ifmmode{#1}}
24: \else${#1}$\fi\else\relax\fi
25: \ifundefined{nuc}\def\nuc#1#2{\relax\ifmmode{}^{#1}{\protect\text{#2}}
26: \else${}^{#1}$#2\fi}\else\relax\fi
27: %\ifundefined{nuc}\def\nuc#1#2{\relax\ensuremath{{}^{#1}}}%
28: %{\protect\text{#2}}\else${}^{#1}$#2\fi}\else\relax\fi
29: \def\doublespace{\setlength{\baselineskip}{23pt}}
30: \def\singlespace{\setlength{\baselineskip}{14pt}}
31: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
32: \newcommand{\gcm}{g~cm$^{-3}$}
33: \newcommand{\kmps}{km~s$^{-1}$}
34: \newcommand{\is}{s$^{-1}$}
35: \newcommand{\iyr}{yr$^{-1}$}
36: \newcommand{\msol}{\ensuremath{{\textrm{M}_\odot}}}
37: \newcommand{\foe}{\ensuremath{10^{51}}}
38: \newcommand{\nni}{\nuc{56}{Ni}}
39: \newcommand{\xni}{\ensuremath{\textrm{X}_{\textrm{Ni}}}}
40: \def\ang{\hbox{\AA}}
41: \def\Tmod{\ensuremath{T_{\textrm{model}}}}
42: \def\Teff{\ensuremath{T_{\textrm{model}}}}
43: \def\teff{\ensuremath{T_{\textrm{model}}}}
44: \def\tstd{\ensuremath{\tau_{\textrm{std}}}}
45: \def\Rzero{\ensuremath{R_0}}
46: \newcommand{\vno}{\ensuremath{v_0}}
47: \def\alog#1{\times 10^{#1}}
48: \newcommand{\phx}{\texttt{PHOENIX}}
49: \newcommand{\snia}{SN~I\lowercase{a}}
50: \newcommand{\sneia}{SNe~I\lowercase{a}}
51: \newcommand{\gamray}{$\gamma$-ray}
52: \newcommand{\halpha}{H$\alpha$}
53: \newcommand{\hbeta}{H$\beta$}
54: \newcommand{\articlesize}{
55: \doublespace
56: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
57: \setlength{\textheight}{8.4in}
58: \voffset=-0.75in
59: \hoffset=-0.55in}
60:
61:
62:
63: %
64: % Time-stamp: <2002-05-01 13:49:33 baron>
65: %
66:
67:
68: \received{}
69: \accepted{}
70: \journalid{}{}
71: \articleid{}{}
72: \shortauthors{Lentz, E. et~al.}
73: \shorttitle{Detectibility of Hydrogen in Type I\lowercase{a} Supernovae}
74:
75:
76: \bibliographystyle{apj}
77:
78: \begin{document}
79:
80:
81:
82: \title{Detectibility of Hydrogen Mixing in Type I\lowercase{a} Supernova
83: pre-Maximum Spectra}
84:
85: \author{Eric J.~Lentz\altaffilmark{1}, E.~Baron\altaffilmark{2}, Peter
86: H.~Hauschildt\altaffilmark{1} and David Branch\altaffilmark{2}}
87:
88: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy \& Center for
89: Simulational Physics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA}
90: \email{lentz@physast.uga.edu, yeti@hal.physast.uga.edu}
91:
92: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
93: Oklahoma, 440 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019-0260, USA}
94: \email{baron@nhn.ou.edu, branch@nhn.ou.edu}
95:
96: \begin{abstract}
97: The presence of a small amount of hydrogen is expected in most single
98: degenerate scenarios for producing a Type Ia supernova
99: (SN~Ia). While hydrogen may be detected in very early high resolution
100: optical spectra, in early radio spectra, and in X-ray spectra, here we
101: examine the possibility of detecting hydrogen in early low resolution
102: spectra such as those that will be obtained by proposed large scale
103: searches for nearby SNe~Ia. We find that definitive detections will
104: require both very early spectra (less than 5 days after explosion) and
105: perhaps slightly higher amounts of hydrogen than are currently
106: predicted to be mixed into the outer layers of SNe~Ia. Thus, the
107: non-detection of hydrogen so far does not in and of itself rule out any
108: current progenitor models. Nevertheless,
109: very early spectra of SNe~Ia will provide significant clues to the
110: amount of hydrogen present and hence to the nature of the SN~Ia
111: progenitor system. Spectral coverage in both the optical and IR will
112: be required to definitively identify hydrogen in low resolution spectra.
113: \end{abstract}
114:
115:
116: \section{Introduction}
117:
118: Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) are now considered to be among the best
119: ``standardizable candles'' available \citep{philetal99}, and they are
120: the tool of choice for observational cosmology
121: \citep{perletal99,riess_scoop98,riess00,goldhetal01}. However,
122: the progenitor system remains in doubt \citep[for a review
123: see][]{prog95}. The most widely accepted current view is that a C+O
124: white dwarf accretes hydrogen (or perhaps helium) from a companion
125: star until it reaches the Chandrasekhar mass and explodes due to the
126: thermonuclear burning of C+O. While the merging of two white dwarfs
127: (the double degenerate scenario) remains a viable progenitor for
128: SNe~Ia, recent theoretical work has focused on the accretion of
129: material via Roche lobe overflow from a MS or subgiant companion
130: (hydrogen cataclysmic variables) or via wind accretion from a
131: red-giant companion (symbiotic stars). A recent search for radio
132: emission appears to rule out the peculiar SN~Ia 1986G as having a
133: symbiotic star progenitor \citep{eck95}. \citet{maxted00} have found a
134: candidate double degenerate system containing a
135: 0.5~\msol\ white dwarf and the companion is more massive that
136: 0.97~\msol, so that the total mass of the system exceeds the
137: Chandrasekhar mass. While it is clear that double degenerate
138: progenitors do exist, it is still not clear whether the merger of a
139: double degenerate system leads to collapse \citep[due to electron
140: capture,][]{sainom98,mochkoasi97,TY96} or explosion. It is also unclear
141: whether sufficiently massive double degenerate systems exist in
142: sufficient numbers to produce the observed sample of SNe~Ia
143: \citep{prog95}. Therefore the detection of hydrogen in a SN~Ia would
144: greatly expand our knowledge of the progenitor system. The question of
145: the identity of the progenitor system remains a significant hurdle for
146: the general acceptance of the observational cosmology results; is a
147: gap in our knowledge of the binary stellar evolution; and impedes our
148: understanding of the chemical evolution of galaxies. There have been
149: attempts to detect hydrogen via looking for narrow H$\alpha$ lines
150: \citep{cum94d96}, in the radio \citep{eck95}, and in X-rays
151: \citep{SP92A93,schlegelrpp95}. While all of these methods should be
152: pursued, it seems likely that we will obtain large numbers of very
153: early low resolution optical spectra of nearby SNe~Ia from dedicated searches
154: that will begin taking data soon. Thus, we examine the possiblity of
155: detecting hydrogen in early SN~Ia spectra.
156:
157:
158: \section{Methodology}
159:
160: The W7 model \citep{nomw7,nomw72} is a good match to normal \sneia\
161: spectra \citep{l94d01}, especially the outer layers visible during the
162: pre-maximum phase of the supernova. The outer layers of W7 are
163: unburned C+O enriched with solar metals, expanding at velocities,
164: $v > 15000$ \kmps, with a total mass of $\sim 0.07$~\msol.
165:
166: In the single degenerate scenario, there are two sources of hydrogen:
167: 1) circumstellar matter that is accreting onto the white dwarf from
168: the companion; 2) matter ablated from the companion by the supernova
169: explosion itself \citep*{ltw91,marietta00}. In the first case one
170: expects a relatively small amount of material that would most likely
171: be detected in high resolution spectra, radio, and in X-rays. In the
172: second case the amount of material is much larger and is at higher
173: velocity. It is more uncertain how it would be mixed into the outer
174: layers of the the supernova. It is the latter case that we examine
175: here in a parameterized way, guided by the numerical calculations of
176: \citet{ltw91} and \citet{marietta00}.
177:
178: We have mixed solar composition material into the unburned C+O layers
179: at the top of the W7 explosion model. We have replaced up to half of this
180: C+O mixture with solar composition material, while maintaining the
181: overall density structure and luminosity. The models are homologously
182: expanded to account for the expansion since explosion to epochs of 5,
183: 10, and 15 days after explosion, corresponding respectively to 15, 10,
184: and 5 days before maximum brightness using the canonical light curve
185: rise time of 20 days \citep[e.g.,][]{riessetalIaev00,akn00}. We
186: calculate the \gamray\ deposition and decay of radioactive isotopes,
187: especially \nni, and use the luminosities for W7 models fit to
188: SN~1994D \citep{l94d01} at each epoch. The spectra and \gamray\
189: deposition are calculated using the general purpose radiative transfer
190: code \phx, version {\tt 11.9.0} \citep{hbjcam99}. \phx\ includes all of
191: the effects of special relativity in the steady-state solution of the
192: transport equation and energy balance. We have included detailed NLTE
193: treatment for the ionic species: \ion{H}{1}, \ion{He}{1}--{II},
194: \ion{C}{1}--{IV}, \ion{O}{1}--{III}, \ion{Na}{1}--{III}, \ion{Mg}{1}--{IV},
195: \ion{Al}{1}--{IV}, \ion{Si}{1}--{V}, \ion{S}{1}--{IV}, \ion{Ca}{1}--{IV},
196: \ion{Fe}{1}--{VI}, and \ion{Co}{1}--{III}.
197:
198: \section{Uniform Mixing in the Unburned Layer}
199:
200: For the first set of numerical experiments, we have mixed solar
201: composition material throughout the unburned, outer, C+O layers of
202: W7. For each model, we have replaced 0.1, 1, 10, 30, or 50\% of the
203: C+O mixture mass with an equal mass of solar composition
204: material. Since the composition of the C+O material was designed to
205: have solar-like mass fractions for metals heavier than oxygen the mass
206: fraction of these heavier metals is not affected by the mixing
207: process. The 0.1\% and 1\% models had no detectable differences from
208: the unmixed models at any epoch.
209:
210: \subsection{Day 15}
211:
212: Our synthetic spectra for the mixing at day 15, or 5 days before
213: maximum light, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:day15full}. Other than
214: some minor effects on the peaks in the blue part of the spectrum, the
215: primary effect is the formation of a \halpha\ line at the red edge
216: of the \ion{Si}{2}\ absorption at 6150~\AA. In the comparison of synthetic
217: spectra, we can discern the effect for 10\% and larger mixing. Outside
218: the controlled parameters of a numerical experiment this effect on
219: the spectrum of the 10\% mixing model would likely not be recognized
220: as \halpha. The 50\% mixing model does show a change in the shape of
221: the 6150~\AA\ feature from what is normally seen, and would stand a
222: reasonable chance of detection, while the 30\% model would be
223: marginally detectable.
224: For the detection of hydrogen, a single spectrum at 5 days before
225: maximum will not be adequate.
226:
227: \subsection{Day 10}
228:
229: At 10 days before maximum light, or 10 days after explosion
230: (Figure~\ref{fig:day10full}), the effects of mixing are
231: more pronounced and might be detected. At 10 days after
232: explosion, the continuum optical depth at 5000~\AA, \tstd, at the base
233: of the C+O layer, is 0.15 for
234: the unmixed model, and is 0.5 for the 50\% mixed model. This increase
235: in electron scattering ``washes out'' the peaks and the troughs of
236: the spectral features.
237: %%This effect mimics background
238: %%contamination and \sneia\ that are well separated from the host galaxy would be needed to detect
239: %%this effect.
240: \halpha\ produces a distinct double-bottom to the \ion{Si}{2} 6100~\AA\
241: feature. This is complicated by the presence of \ion{C}{2} absorption
242: at 6400~\AA. The \ion{C}{2} feature is seen faintly in some \sneia, at
243: these early epochs. Our previous models \citep{l94d01}, did not
244: include \ion{C}{2} in NLTE and did not show the feature. The 10\% mixed
245: model would likely be identified as \ion{C}{2} in an observed \snia. The
246: 30\% and 50\% mixed models would be more likely to be identified as
247: \halpha\ if observed. There is a modest absorption feature at
248: 4600~\AA\ for \hbeta\ in the 30\% and 50\% mixed models that is buried
249: in the electron scattering changes in that region of the spectrum.
250:
251: \subsection{Day 5}
252:
253: The earliest \sneia\ spectrum is for SN~1990N at
254: 14 days before
255: maximum light \citep{leib91}. We have calculated hydrogen mixed
256: models for W7 at day 5 (Figure~\ref{fig:day5full}),
257: which is nominally at 15 days before maximum light. Again, the effects
258: of the extra electron scattering from the additional electrons from
259: the hydrogen influences the spectrum. Because hydrogen has one
260: electron per proton, at a given mass density, the electron density is
261: higher in the solar composition mixture, than in the original C/O layer.
262: The effect of electron scattering is smaller at 5 days
263: after explosion than 10
264: days for two reasons: the day 10 spectrum is bluer and the effects are
265: concentrated in the blue; electron scattering is already strong
266: in the unmixed model at day 5, $\tstd = 0.6$ at 15000~\kmps. The
267: \halpha\ feature is quite strong and makes a definitive
268: double-bottomed absorption, with \ion{Si}{2} at 6200~\AA, for solar
269: mixing of 10\% and higher. The small indentation at the red peak of
270: the \ion{Si}{2} feature at 6000~\AA\ is due to \ion{C}{2}. The \halpha\
271: feature could be identified as a very strong \ion{C}{2} feature like
272: what might be expected in a C+O white dwarf merger scenerio, but one
273: would also expect to see other \ion{C}{2} features in that case. The
274: formation of this feature by carbon would require a significant mass
275: of carbon at high velocities, $v > 15000$~\kmps, in a white dwarf
276: merger model that produced otherwise normal \sneia\ spectra and light
277: curves.
278:
279: Figure~\ref{fig:90nsi} compares the SN~1990N spectrum at day -14
280: \citep{leib91} to the spectra at day 5 (-15) with 50\% mixing of solar
281: composition material and without hydrogen
282: mixing. Clearly the hydrogen is too red to match the feature although
283: the extra electrons do help to extend the blue wing of the silicon
284: line. \ion{C}{2} creates an unseen bump in the middle of the
285: hydrogen/silicon absorption trough. The identification of silicon
286: mixed with
287: carbon \citep{mazz90N01,fish90n96} is more probable than hydrogen.
288:
289:
290:
291: \section{Variation of Mixing Depth}
292:
293: We studied the depth of mixing of the solar material mixed into a
294: \snia\ since high velocity material would most likely come from the
295: companion and be mixed from the outside, but see \citet{marietta00}
296: for a detailed discussion of the expected hydrogen distribution. The
297: models in the previous section were all mixed to the depth of the
298: transition from partially burned to unburned C+O material at
299: 15000~\kmps.
300: In the full mixing models described above up to half
301: of this material is replaced with solar composition material. It is expected
302: \citep{marietta00} that the amount of mixing will vary with depth and
303: we address this effect here with a simple parameterization.
304:
305: We have mixed the 50\% composition at days 5, 10, and 15, to depths of
306: 25000~\kmps\ ($7.2 \times 10^{-4}$~\msol\ C+O above this velocity in
307: W7), 20000~\kmps\ ($7.2 \times 10^{-3}$~\msol), and 15000~\kmps\ ($7.2
308: \times 10^{-2}$~\msol, as stated above). Figure~\ref{fig:mixdepth}
309: shows the region of spectra around the H$\alpha$ feature for each of
310: these epochs. The mixing to only 25000~\kmps\ and 20000~\kmps\ does
311: not have detectable effects on the spectra with the minor exception of
312: the 20000~\kmps\ model at day 5 which is marginally detectable, and
313: shows evidence of a second feature affecting the \ion{Si}{2}. An
314: observation of an event similar to this model is unlikely to be
315: conclusively recognized as evidence of hydrogen mixing in \sneia.
316: Only the models mixed substantially throughout the C+O layer show
317: clearly detectable modifications. \citet{thomas02} studied the shapes
318: of several \ion{Si}{2} lines near maximum light (see their Figure 6),
319: and none of them showed features that would be indicative of the
320: presence of hydrogen.
321:
322: \section{Conclusions}
323:
324: The mixing of hydrogen and solar composition material into the outer
325: layers of a Type~Ia supernova model has little effect on the spectra,
326: unless the solar material replaces a substantial fraction of the
327: \snia\ C+O ejecta. In fact the non-detection of hydrogen in SNe~Ia is
328: expected in most of the present progenitor scenarios. The effects of
329: mixing in the outer layers diminish as the photosphere recedes into
330: deeper layers of the ejecta. In our tests the most detectable results
331: were obtained by replacing half of the mass of the unburned C+O in the
332: outer layers with solar abundance material (for a total of $2.7 \times
333: 10^{-2}$~\msol\ of hydrogen). These models produced reasonably strong
334: signals 5 and 10 days after the explosion, but are less prominent at
335: day 15, still 5 days before maximum light. One fifth of that mass of
336: mixed hydrogen is able to produce identifiable signals at 5 days after
337: explosion and approximately half that mass is required 10 days
338: after the explosion.
339:
340: The effects of additional electrons from the hydrogen atoms may also be
341: a useful diagnostic when coupled with detailed analysis of high
342: quality data. Replacing half of the C+O with solar material, but to
343: different depths, we found that only at 5 days after explosion did any
344: model other than mixing to the bottom of the C+O layer provide any
345: chance of detection. This is consistent with a picture based on the
346: mass of the mixed hydrogen. Approximately 0.02~\msol\ of solar
347: composition material swept up from the wind of or ablated off of the companion
348: is needed for a detection at 10 days after explosion (10 days before
349: maximum light). The deeper it is mixed the later it will be
350: detectable. For quantities of mixed hydrogen near the detection
351: threshold, the \ion{C}{2} feature in the red emission peak of
352: \ion{Si}{2} complicates the identification of \halpha\
353: absorption. Confirmation requires several epochs to trace the
354: development of the spectral features, and ideally another signal, such
355: as narrow circumstellar hydrogen lines. Even earlier spectra would be
356: advantageous.
357:
358: Additional spectral signatures that would prevent confusion of
359: high-speed carbon ejecta that could mimic the \halpha\ from mixed
360: hydrogen are needed. Figure~\ref{fig:paschena} shows the region around
361: the P$\alpha$ line. While the P$\alpha$ line shows a pretty strong
362: signature at the early epochs the P$\beta$ line is not easily
363: discerned, thus, combined IR and optical data would be likely be
364: required for a definitive detection. \citet{bowersetal97} and
365: \citet{hern98bu00} compared the IR data for SNe~Ia and most of the
366: data is obtained at late times (SN 1998bu has data at about 13 days
367: after maximum); the data are obtained much later than we desire and
368: without detailed spectral analysis it would be difficult to draw any
369: conclusions. SN~1999ee \citep{hamuy99ee99ex02} does have very early IR
370: spectra (approximately 11 days before maximum). It shows no sign of
371: any feature near P$\beta$, and the region around P$\alpha$ is not
372: covered spectroscopically. Nevertheless, early IR spectra are
373: obtainable and should be vigorously persued.
374:
375: The results of \citet{marietta00} suggest that only about
376: $10^{-4}$~\msol\ of hydrogen would be stripped from the companion at
377: $v > 15,000$~\kmps, however, they find that $10^{-3}$~\msol\ of
378: hydrogen would be stripped from the companion at $v >
379: 10,000$~\kmps. Thus, our results indicate that very early photospheric
380: spectra of SNe~Ia might be able to detect the presence of hydrogen,
381: and certainly could be used as a signal to activate high resolution,
382: radio, and X-ray programs.
383:
384: Continued work in the radio, X-ray, and high resolution optical spectra can
385: verify and reinforce any putative hydrogen detections.
386:
387: \acknowledgments This work was supported in part by NSF grant
388: AST-9720704, NASA ATP grant NAG 5-8425 and LTSA grant NAG 5-3619 to
389: the University of Georgia and by NASA grant
390: NAG5-3505, and an IBM SUR grant to the University of Oklahoma. PHH was
391: supported in part by the P\^ole Scientifique de Mod\'elisation
392: Num\'erique at ENS-Lyon. Some of the calculations presented here were
393: performed at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), supported by
394: the NSF, and at the National Energy Research Supercomputer Center
395: (NERSC), supported by the U.S. DOE. We thank both these institutions
396: for a generous allocation of computer time.
397:
398: %\bibliography{refs,baron,sn1a,crossrefs}
399: \begin{thebibliography}{29}
400: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
401:
402: \bibitem[{Aldering {et~al.}(2000)Aldering, Knop, \& Nugent}]{akn00}
403: Aldering, G., Knop, R., \& Nugent, P. 2000, AJ, 119, 2110
404:
405: \bibitem[{Bowers {et~al.}(1997)}]{bowersetal97}
406: Bowers, E. {et~al.} 1997, MNRAS, 290, 693
407:
408: \bibitem[{Branch {et~al.}(1995)Branch, Livio, Yungelson, Boffi, \&
409: Baron}]{prog95}
410: Branch, D., Livio, M., Yungelson, L., Boffi, F., \& Baron, E. 1995, PASP, 107,
411: 1019
412:
413: \bibitem[{Cumming {et~al.}(1996)Cumming, Lundqvist, Smith, Pettini, \&
414: King}]{cum94d96}
415: Cumming, R., Lundqvist, P., Smith, L., Pettini, M., \& King, D. 1996, MNRAS,
416: 283, 1355
417:
418: \bibitem[{{Eck} {et~al.}(1995){Eck}, {Cowan}, {Roberts}, {Boffi}, \&
419: {Branch}}]{eck95}
420: {Eck}, C.~R., {Cowan}, J.~J., {Roberts}, D.~A., {Boffi}, F.~R., \& {Branch}, D.
421: 1995, ApJ, 451, L53
422:
423: \bibitem[{Fisher {et~al.}(1996)Fisher, Branch, Nugent, \& Baron}]{fish90n96}
424: Fisher, A., Branch, D., Nugent, P., \& Baron, E. 1996, ApJ, 489, L89
425:
426: \bibitem[{Goldhaber {et~al.}(2001)}]{goldhetal01}
427: Goldhaber, G. {et~al.} 2001, ApJ, 558, 359
428:
429: \bibitem[{Hamuy {et~al.}(2002)}]{hamuy99ee99ex02}
430: Hamuy, M. {et~al.} 2002, AJ, 124, 417
431:
432: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(1999)}]{hbjcam99}
433: Hauschildt, P.~H. \& Baron, E. 1999, J. Comp. Applied Math., 109, 41
434:
435: \bibitem[{Hernandez {et~al.}(2000)}]{hern98bu00}
436: Hernandez, M. {et~al.} 2000, MNRAS, 319, 223
437:
438: \bibitem[{Leibundgut {et~al.}(1991)Leibundgut, Tammann, Cadonau, \&
439: Cerrito}]{leib91}
440: Leibundgut, B., Tammann, G.~A., Cadonau, R., \& Cerrito, D. 1991, A\&AS, 89,
441: 537
442:
443: \bibitem[{Lentz {et~al.}(2001)Lentz, Baron, Branch, \& Hauschildt}]{l94d01}
444: Lentz, E., Baron, E., Branch, D., \& Hauschildt, P.~H. 2001, ApJ, 557, 266
445:
446: \bibitem[{Livne {et~al.}(1991)Livne, Tuchman, \& Wheeler}]{ltw91}
447: Livne, E., Tuchman, Y., \& Wheeler, J.~C. 1991, in Supernovae, ed. S.~E.
448: Woosley (New York: Springer-Verlag), 219
449:
450: \bibitem[{Marietta {et~al.}(2000)Marietta, Burrows, \& Fryxell}]{marietta00}
451: Marietta, E., Burrows, A., \& Fryxell, B. 2000, ApJS, 128, 615
452:
453: \bibitem[{{Maxted} {et~al.}(2000){Maxted}, {Marsh}, \& {North}}]{maxted00}
454: {Maxted}, P.~F.~L., {Marsh}, T.~R., \& {North}, R.~C. 2000, MNRAS, 317, L41
455:
456: \bibitem[{Mazzali(2001)}]{mazz90N01}
457: Mazzali, P. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 341
458:
459: \bibitem[{Mochkovitch {et~al.}(1997)Mochkovitch, Guerrero, \&
460: Segretain}]{mochkoasi97}
461: Mochkovitch, R., Guerrero, J., \& Segretain, L. 1997, in Thermonuclear
462: Supernovae, ed. P.~Ruiz-Lapuente, R.~Canal, \& J.~Isern (Dordrecht: Kluwer),
463: 187
464:
465: \bibitem[{Nomoto {et~al.}(1984)Nomoto, Thielemann, \& Yokoi}]{nomw7}
466: Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644
467:
468: \bibitem[{Perlmutter {et~al.}(1999)}]{perletal99}
469: Perlmutter, S. {et~al.} 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
470:
471: \bibitem[{{Phillips} {et~al.}(1999){Phillips}, {Lira}, {Suntzeff}, {Schommer},
472: {Hamuy}, \& {Maza}}]{philetal99}
473: {Phillips}, M.~M., {Lira}, P., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Schommer}, R.~A., {Hamuy},
474: M., \& {Maza}, J. 1999, AJ, 118, 1766
475:
476: \bibitem[{Riess {et~al.}(2000)Riess, Filippenko, Li, \&
477: Schmidt}]{riessetalIaev00}
478: Riess, A., Filippenko, A.~V., Li, W., \& Schmidt, B.~P. 2000, AJ, 118, 2668
479:
480: \bibitem[{Riess {et~al.}(1998)}]{riess_scoop98}
481: Riess, A. {et~al.} 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
482:
483: \bibitem[{{Riess}(2000)}]{riess00}
484: {Riess}, A.~G. 2000, PASP, 112, 1284
485:
486: \bibitem[{Saio \& Nomoto(1998)}]{sainom98}
487: Saio, H. \& Nomoto, K. 1998, ApJ, 500, 388
488:
489: \bibitem[{{Schlegel}(1995)}]{schlegelrpp95}
490: {Schlegel}, E.~M. 1995, Reports of Progress in Physics, 58, 1375
491:
492: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} \& {Petre}(1993)}]{SP92A93}
493: {Schlegel}, E.~M. \& {Petre}, R. 1993, ApJ, 412, L29
494:
495: \bibitem[{Thielemann {et~al.}(1986)Thielemann, Nomoto, \& Yokoi}]{nomw72}
496: Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., \& Yokoi, K. 1986, A\&A, 158, 17
497:
498: \bibitem[{Thomas {et~al.}(2002)Thomas, Kasen, Branch, \& Baron}]{thomas02}
499: Thomas, R., Kasen, D., Branch, D., \& Baron, E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1037
500:
501: \bibitem[{{Tutukov} \& {Yungelson}(1996)}]{TY96}
502: {Tutukov}, A. \& {Yungelson}, L. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1035
503:
504: \end{thebibliography}
505:
506: \clearpage
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \begin{center}
510: %\includegraphics[width=14cm,angle=0]{mixh15plot.eps}
511: \includegraphics[width=14cm,angle=0]{f1.eps}
512: \end{center}
513: \caption{The fully mixed models at Day 15. The legend labels the
514: percentage of hydrogen mixing which takes the values
515: (0,0.1,1,10,30,50)\% in this and the next two figures.
516: \label{fig:day15full}}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519: \begin{figure}
520: \begin{center}
521: %\includegraphics[width=14cm]{mixh10plot.eps}
522: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f2.eps}
523: \end{center}
524: \caption{The fully mixed models at Day 10. The legend labels the
525: percentage of hydrogen mixing. \label{fig:day10full}}
526: \end{figure}
527:
528: \begin{figure}
529: \begin{center}
530: %\includegraphics[width=14cm]{mixh05plot.eps}
531: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f3.eps}
532: \end{center}
533: \caption{The fully mixed models at Day 5. The legend labels the
534: percentage of hydrogen mixing.
535: \label{fig:day5full}}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: \begin{figure}
539: \begin{center}
540: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{sn90n.eps}
541: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{f4.eps}
542: \end{center}
543: \vspace{5pt}
544: \caption{The SN~1990N spectrum at day -14 \citep{leib91} is compared
545: to the spectra at day 5 (-15) with and without hydrogen
546: mixing. Clearly the hydrogen is too red to match the feature, although
547: the extra electrons do help somewhat to extend the blue wing of the silicon
548: line. The identification of high velocity carbon
549: \citep{fish90n96} is more probable than hydrogen.\label{fig:90nsi}}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: \begin{figure}
553: \begin{center}
554: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{mixdepthplot.eps}
555: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{f5.eps}
556: \end{center}
557: \caption{The effects of mixing depth variation on the region around
558: the H$\alpha$ line at days
559: 5, 10, and 15. Half of the C/O layer has been replaced with solar
560: composition material which has been mixed to depths of
561: (15000, 20000, 25000)~\kmps\ as described in the legend.
562: \label{fig:mixdepth}}
563: \end{figure}
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \begin{center}
567: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{paschena.ps}
568: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{f6.eps}
569: \end{center}
570: \caption{The effects of mixing depth variation on the region around
571: the P$\alpha$ line at days
572: 5, 10, and 15, for various mixing fractions (mixed to 15,000~\kmps) as
573: described in the legend.
574: \label{fig:paschena}}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577: %\begin{figure}
578: %\begin{center}
579: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=90]{paschenb.ps}
580: %\end{center}
581: %\caption{The effects of mixing depth variation on the region around
582: %the P$\beta$ line at days
583: %5, 10, and 15, for various mixing fractions (mixed to 15,000~\kmps) as
584: %described in the legend.
585: %\label{fig:paschenb}}
586: %\end{figure}
587:
588:
589: \end{document}
590: