1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5:
6: \input epsf.sty
7:
8: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.\ }
9: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.\ }
10: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.\ }
11: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
12: \newcommand{\Rsun}{R_{\odot}}
13: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L_{\odot}}
14: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
15: \newcommand{\ergs}{erg s$^{-1}$}
16: \newcommand{\Ha}{H$\alpha$}
17: \newcommand{\Hb}{H$\beta$}
18: \newcommand{\HI}{H~{\sc i}}
19: \newcommand{\HeI}{He~{\sc i}}
20: \newcommand{\OI}{O~{\sc i}}
21: \newcommand{\OII}{O~{\sc ii}}
22: \newcommand{\CII}{C~{\sc ii}}
23: \newcommand{\NaI}{Na~{\sc i}}
24: \newcommand{\MgII}{Mg~{\sc ii}}
25: \newcommand{\MgI}{Mg~{\sc i}}
26: \newcommand{\SiI}{Si~{\sc i}}
27: \newcommand{\SiII}{Si~{\sc ii}}
28: \newcommand{\SiIII}{Si~{\sc iii}}
29: \newcommand{\CaII}{Ca~{\sc ii}}
30: \newcommand{\TiII}{Ti~{\sc ii}}
31: \newcommand{\CrII}{Cr~{\sc ii}}
32: \newcommand{\FeI}{Fe~{\sc i}}
33: \newcommand{\FeII}{Fe~{\sc ii}}
34: \newcommand{\FeIII}{Fe~{\sc iii}}
35: \newcommand{\CoII}{Co~{\sc ii}}
36: \newcommand{\CoIII}{Co~{\sc iii}}
37: \newcommand{\NiII}{Ni~{\sc ii}}
38: \newcommand{\Fefs}{$^{56}$Fe}
39: \newcommand{\Cofs}{$^{56}$Co}
40: \newcommand{\Nifs}{$^{56}$Ni}
41: \newcommand{\Mej}{$M_{\rm ej}$}
42: \newcommand{\KE}{$E_{\rm kin}$}
43:
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \title{The Type Ic Hypernova SN~2003dh/GRB~030329}
48:
49: \author{
50: Paolo A.~Mazzali\altaffilmark{1,2,3},
51: Jinsong~Deng\altaffilmark{1,2},
52: Nozomu~Tominaga\altaffilmark{2},
53: Keiichi~Maeda\altaffilmark{2},
54: Ken'ichi~Nomoto\altaffilmark{1,2},
55: Thomas~Matheson\altaffilmark{4},
56: Koji~S.~Kawabata\altaffilmark{5},
57: Krzysztof Z. Stanek\altaffilmark{4},
58: Peter M. Garnavich\altaffilmark{6}
59: }
60:
61: \altaffiltext{1}{Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science,
62: University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
63: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science,
64: University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan;
65: deng@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, ntominaga@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp,
66: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
67: \altaffiltext{3}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico, Via Tiepolo, 11,
68: 34131 Trieste, Italy; mazzali@ts.astro.it}
69: \altaffiltext{4}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St.,
70: Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; \\
71: tmatheson@cfa.harvard.edu, kstanek@cfa.harvard.edu}
72: \altaffiltext{5}{Optical and Infrared Astronomy Division, NAOJ, Mitaka,
73: Tokyo 181-8588, Japan; \\
74: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp}
75: \altaffiltext{6}{Dept. of Physics, University of Notre Dame, 225
76: Nieuwland Science Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; \\
77: pgarnavi@miranda.phys.nd.edu}
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80: The spectra of SN~2003dh, identified in the afterglow of GRB030329, are
81: modeled using radiation transport codes. It is shown that SN~2003dh had a high
82: explosion kinetic energy ($\sim 4 \times 10^{52}$\,erg in spherical symmetry),
83: making it one of the most powerful hypernovae observed so far, and supporting
84: the case for association between hypernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts. However, the
85: light curve derived from fitting the spectra suggests that SN~2003dh was not as
86: bright as SN~1998bw, ejecting only $\sim 0.35\Msun$ of \Nifs. The spectra of
87: SN~2003dh resemble those of SN~1998bw around maximum, but later they look more
88: like those of the less energetic hypernova SN~1997ef. The spectra and the
89: inferred light curve can be modeled adopting a density distribution similar to
90: that used for SN~1998bw at $ v > 25,000$\kms\ but more like that of SN~1997ef
91: at lower velocities. The mass of the ejecta is $\sim 8\Msun$, somewhat less
92: than in the other two hypernovae. The progenitor must have been a massive star
93: ($M \sim 35-40\Msun$), as for other hypernovae. The need to combine different
94: one-dimensional explosion models strongly indicates that SN~2003dh was an
95: asymmetric explosion.
96:
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99:
100: \keywords{supernovae: general ---
101: supernovae: individual (SN~2003dh) ---
102: nucleosynthesis --- gamma rays: bursts }
103:
104:
105:
106: \section{INTRODUCTION}
107:
108: Evidence that at least some Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB's) are connected to
109: Supernovae (SNe) is mounting. After the serendipitous discovery of SN~1998bw in
110: coincidence with GRB980425 (Galama \etal 1998), several other cases of possible
111: SNe in GRB's have been reported (e.g., Bloom et al. 2002; Garnavich et al.
112: 2003). All of these were however based only on the detection of `bumps' in the
113: GRB afterglows' light curves, which could be decomposed to look like the light
114: curve of SN~1998bw.
115:
116: SN~1998bw was no ordinary SN. Its broad spectral features were explained as
117: indicating a very energetic Type Ic SN (arising from the collapse of the bare
118: CO core of a massive star). Because of its high explosion kinetic energy
119: ($\sim 5 \times 10^{52}$\,erg in spherical symmetry), and the consequently very
120: broad spectral lines, SN~1998bw was called a `hypernova' (Iwamoto \etal 1998).
121: Other hypernovae have been discovered and analyzed (\eg SNe 1997ef (Iwamoto
122: \etal 2000; Mazzali, Iwamoto, \& Nomoto 2000); SN~2002ap (Mazzali \etal 2002)),
123: but none was associated with a GRB. This may be related to the fact that none
124: of these SNe were either as bright or as powerful as SN~1998bw. So far, the
125: only other positive detection of a SN spectrum in a GRB afterglow is the case
126: of GRB021211/SN~2002lt (della Valle \etal 2003).
127:
128: Given this intriguing but insufficient evidence, excitement mounted when a
129: very nearby GRB was detected (GRB030329, z=0.1685; Greiner et al. 2003), as a
130: possible SN may be relatively easily observable in the light of the afterglow
131: (AG).
132: Indeed, the detection of broad spectral features characteristic of
133: a supernova was reported by Stanek \etal (2003) and later by
134: Hjorth \etal (2003). The SN (SN~2003dh) appeared to be similar to SN~1998bw.
135: However, spectra at $\sim 1$ month had changed somewhat, looking more like
136: those of the less energetic hypernova SN~1997ef (Kawabata \etal 2003).
137:
138: There are significant differences between the SN~2003dh light curves of
139: Matheson et al. (2003) and Hjorth et al. (2003). These may be due to the
140: different observational methods and to major difficulties with subtraction of
141: a) the underlying AG spectrum, which can change with time in an unknown way,
142: and b) the host galaxy background. In particular, the Hjorth et al. (2003)
143: light curve rises much more rapidly, reaches a brighter peak, and then drops
144: much faster. The Matheson et~al. (2003) light curve, on the other hand, has a
145: slower rise, and resembles that of SN~1998bw. Unfortunately, neither light
146: curve covers the likely time of peak, $\sim 12 $ -- 15 days after the GRB,
147: because this time coincided with full moon. The absolute rest-frame $V$
148: magnitude at peak may have been between $-18.5$ and $-19.1$, depending on the
149: dataset used and the estimated extinction. Bloom et~al. (2003), however, find
150: that SN~2003dh may have been as bright as $M_V = -19.8 \pm 0.4$ at peak. They
151: used an extinction $A_V \approx 0.2$ toward SN 1998bw, explaining at least part
152: of the discrepancy. Also, they did not use spectral information in decomposing
153: the light curve.
154:
155:
156: \section{Spectral Models}
157:
158: Light curve models alone cannot uniquely constrain the properties of a SN, as
159: models yielding similar light curves may give rise to different synthetic
160: spectra (e.g. Iwamoto et al. 1998). Fitting both light curves and spectra is a
161: much more effective approach.
162:
163: Unfortunately, in the case of SN~2003dh the exact shape of the light curve is
164: not yet certain. Therefore, we derived fiducial SN spectra by rescaling the
165: early power-law spectrum of the AG to the blue flux of the later spectra, where
166: a SN signature was evident, and subtracting it off. Attributing the entire blue
167: flux to the AG is justified by the fact that because of line-blanketing type
168: Ib/c SNe, like SNe Ia, always show a flux deficiency to the blue of $\sim
169: 3600~\rm\AA$(e.g. Mazzali et al. 2000). At the third epoch the blue continuum
170: indicative of the AG is very weak, and no subtraction was applied. We fitted
171: three spectra of SN~2003dh using our Monte Carlo code (Mazzali \& Lucy 1993;
172: Lucy 1999; Mazzali 2000).
173:
174: The first spectrum was obtained at the MMT on 2003 April 10 (Matheson et al.
175: 2003). This is $\sim 12$ days after the GRB, \ie $\sim 10$ rest-frame days
176: into the life of the SN, assuming that the SN and the GRB coincided in time.
177: The spectrum is characterized by very broad absorption lines, and it is similar
178: to those of SN~1998bw at comparable epochs. Using the same explosion model as
179: for SN~1998bw (model CO138E50; Table 1), a good match can be obtained for $\log
180: L = 42.83$ and $v(\rm ph) = 28000$\,\kms\ (Figure 1). The synthetic spectrum
181: has $V=-18.53$, $M(\rm Bol)=-18.37$. While the luminosity is lower than in
182: SN~1998bw, the photospheric velocity is comparable (for SN~1998bw we had $v(\rm
183: ph) = 31600$\,\kms on day 8 and 20700 on day 16). This suggests that SN~2003dh
184: ejected a significant amount of high-velocity material in our direction, which
185: is understandable since we observed the GRB. SN~1998bw may have been even more
186: energetic, but is was probably viewed less on-axis since its associated GRB was
187: much weaker than GRB030329. Note that we cannot confirm the claim that
188: SN~2003dh has higher-velocity ejecta than SN~1998bw. The model used for
189: SN~1997ef (model CO100E18), on the other hand, has much too little mass at high
190: velocities, and it does not yield a broad-lined spectrum similar to the
191: observed one.
192:
193: The next spectrum we attempted to fit is the MMT 2003 April 24 one (Matheson et
194: al. 2003). The spectrum (rest-frame epoch $\sim 23$ days) still has broad
195: lines, and it is almost as bright as the 10 April one, so that maximum probably
196: occurred about half way between the two epochs. If model CO138E50 is used, the
197: photosphere falls in the flat inner part of the density distribution (model
198: CO138E50 `turns over' at $v \sim 20000$\,\kms, which is above the position of
199: the photosphere at this epoch). The rather flat density distribution just above
200: the photosphere leads to very deep but narrow absorption lines, which are not
201: like the observed spectrum. On the other hand, model CO100E18 still has too
202: little mass at these velocities to give any significant spectral features for
203: such large velocities at this relatively advanced epoch (at a similar epoch
204: SN~1997ef had a low $v(\rm ph) = 10000$\,\kms). The spectrum is therefore in
205: the `transition' phase between SN~1998bw-like and SN~1997ef-like. Clearly, some
206: kind of new model is required. Since it is not clear how such a model should
207: behave, we deal first with the next epoch, which can yield indications about
208: the inner part of the ejecta, and then come back to the April 24 spectrum to
209: verify the results.
210:
211: Our third spectrum was obtained with Subaru on 2003 May 10 (Kawabata \etal
212: 2003), a rest-frame epoch $\approx 36$ days, and it resembles that of SN~1997ef
213: at a comparable epoch. Indeed, model CO138E50 yields a narrow-lined spectrum,
214: while a much better synthetic spectrum is obtained using model CO100E18. This
215: model, in fact, turns over at $v \sim 6000$\,\kms, which is still below the
216: photosphere at this epoch. However, model CO100E18 is too massive at the low
217: velocities near the photosphere, resulting in strong backwarming and a high
218: temperature. We tested different possibilities, and found that a model where
219: the density of CO100E18 is divided by a factor of two throughout (CO100E18/2)
220: gives a good fit using $\log L = 42.43$ and $v(\rm ph) = 7500$\,\kms\ (Figure
221: 2). The synthetic spectrum has $V=-17.35$, $M(\rm Bol)=-17.37$. At a
222: comparable epoch the values for SN~1998bw were $\log L = 42.68$ and $v(\rm ph) =
223: 7500$\,\kms, and those for SN~1997ef $\log L = 42.14$ and $v(\rm ph) =
224: 4900$\,\kms. Therefore, it appears that while model CO138E50 is adequate for
225: the high velocity part of the ejecta, a less energetic model such as CO100E18/2
226: is better suited for the low-velocity inner part. This might be expected given
227: the shift in the properties of the spectrum.
228:
229: The question is how can those two models be merged into one. We have adopted
230: here an empirical approach. Model CO138E50 can be modified below $v =
231: 28000$\,\kms, since this is below the photosphere of the April 10 spectrum,
232: while model CO100E18/2 can be modified at velocities high enough that the May
233: 10 spectrum is not affected. We tried different boundaries for this, and
234: finally chose $v = 15000$\,\kms. Therefore, we used model CO100E18/2 for $v <
235: 15000$\,\kms, model CO138E50 for $v > 25000$\,\kms, and merged the two models
236: linearly in between. The density structures of the various models are shown in
237: Figure 4. With this new spherically symmetric `merged' model (COMDH) the results
238: for April 10 and May 10 are essentially unchanged. COMDH has a smaller ejected
239: mass than both CO138E50 and CO100E18, \Mej $= 8 \Msun$, and \KE $ = 3.8 \times
240: 10^{52}$\,erg, similar to CO138E50 as it is dominated by the high-velocity
241: part.
242: Since model COMDH is not computed from the hydrodynamics,
243: but represents only a run of density vs. velocity,
244: multi-dimensional calculations are necessary to see how well
245: COMDH approximates a real multi-dimensional model.
246:
247:
248: The test for the merged model comes from fitting the April 24 spectrum, when
249: the photosphere falls in the joining region. Using essentially the same
250: parameters as discussed earlier ($\log L = 42.79$ and $v(\rm ph) =
251: 18000$\,\kms), we could obtain a reasonably good fit to the observed spectrum
252: (Figure 3). The synthetic spectrum has $V=-18.17$, $M(\rm Bol)=-18.27$.
253: Therefore, considering all uncertainties, our `merged' model is probably a
254: fair one-dimensional representation of the density structure of SN~2003dh.
255:
256:
257: \section{A Two-Component Light Curve Model}
258:
259: In order to verify that the model we have constructed to reproduce the spectra
260: is indeed valid, it is necessary to compute a light curve with it. Here we can
261: follow the same approach as in the two-component models of Maeda \etal (2003),
262: as this is essentially the same problem. Since we do not know the exact light
263: curve of SN~2003dh, we only tried to reproduce the three points derived from
264: the spectral fitting. These suggest a more rapid rise, a dimmer peak and a
265: faster decline than SN~1998bw, more similar to SN~2002ap.
266:
267: We computed synthetic bolometric light curves for models CO138E50 and COMDH,
268: using an LTE radiation transfer code and a gray $\gamma$-ray transfer code
269: (Iwamoto et al. 2000). The optical opacity was found to be dominated by
270: electron scattering.
271:
272: The synthetic light curve of CO138E50 with homogeneous mixing of $^{56}$Ni out
273: to 40,000 km s$^{-1}$ is in reasonable agreement with the three points
274: of SN~2003dh inferred from the spectra (Figure 5).
275: The mass of $^{56}$Ni ($0.32 \Msun$) is smaller than in the models for
276: SN~1998bw ($0.4-0.7 \Msun$: Nakamura et al. 2001; Iwamoto et al. 1998) and the
277: mixing more extensive. The model light curve of SN~2003dh rises faster and
278: peaks earlier than SN~1998bw.
279:
280: The synthetic light curve computed with the `merged' model COMDH reproduces
281: the three SN~2003dh points well for a $^{56}$Ni mass of 0.35$\Msun$.
282: Homogeneous mixing of $^{56}$Ni out to 40,000 km s$^{-1}$ was assumed, as for
283: CO138E50. High velocity $^{56}$Ni is a feature that SN~2003dh shares with
284: other hypernovae. It could be attributed to a jet-like asphericity in the
285: explosion (Maeda \etal 2002; Maeda \& Nomoto 2003; Woosley \& Heger 2003).
286:
287: The main feature of the `merged' model COMDH is the presence of a high density
288: region at low velocities, as derived from the spectral analysis. The effect of
289: this region should be to slow down the decline of the late-time light curve. In
290: SN~1998bw and other hypernovae this is indeed observed starting at $\sim 50$
291: days and becoming more prominent later (Sollerman \etal 2000; Nomoto \etal
292: 2001; Nakamura \etal 2001; Maeda \etal 2003). Figure 5 confirms that the
293: synthetic light curve of model COMDH becomes somewhat brighter than that of
294: CO138E50 at advanced phases. Although the `merged' model is favored because it
295: gives reasonably good fits to both the light curve and the spectra, a
296: definitive extraction of the light curve and further time coverage will be
297: useful to distinguish between the models.
298:
299:
300: \section{Discussion}
301:
302: We have shown through spectral models that SN~2003dh was a hypernova. The high
303: ejecta velocities observed in the early spectra require for the outer layers an
304: explosion model similar to that used for SN~1998bw. However, at lower
305: velocities such a model becomes too flat, and it is necessary to replace it
306: with a lower energy one such as CO100, which has a steeper $\rho(v)$ at low
307: velocities. From a spherically symmetric calculation, we obtain for SN~2003dh
308: \KE $= 3.8 \times 10^{52}$\,erg, \Mej$ = 8 \Msun$, and $M$(\Nifs)$ = 0.35 \Msun$.
309:
310: Woosley \& Heger (2003) reached similar results. Their model parameters differ
311: from ours somewhat, but they did not make detailed comparisons with observed
312: data.
313:
314: Our results suggest that SN~2003dh was intermediate between SNe 1997ef
315: and 1998bw in \KE\ release and \Nifs\ production, and that it ejected a
316: comparable, possibly slightly smaller mass. Accounting for the compact
317: remnant, the exploding star may have been a CO core of $\sim 10-11\Msun$,
318: which implies a main-sequence mass of $\sim 35-40\Msun$.
319: SN~2003dh seems to follow the relations between progenitor mass,
320: $M$(\Nifs) and \KE\ (Nomoto \etal 2003).
321:
322: All spherically symmetric models (including CO100 and CO138) are very flat
323: inside, and they all have an inner mass-cut defining a `hole' in the density
324: profile. Evidence for SNe 1997ef, 2002ap and now 2003dh is that such a flat
325: density distribution does not lend itself to successful spectrum synthesis.
326: Actually, synthetic spectra computed for SN~1998bw beyond the epochs published
327: in Iwamoto \etal (1998) are also not perfect, so this may be a common feature.
328: Evidence for a slow-moving, oxygen-dominated inner region in SN~2003dh, to be
329: obtained from the nebular spectra would nicely confirm this picture.
330:
331: The difficulties one-dimensional explosion models encounter in reproducing the
332: time evolution of hypernovae are almost certainly due to the inadequacy of such
333: models when applied to phenomena that are intrinsically aspherical.
334: Approximate studies suggest that asymmetries in the explosions may affect the
335: light curves (H\"oflich, Wheeler, \& Wang 1999; Woosley \& Heger 2003).
336: Therefore, the estimate of the explosion parameters may be subject to errors.
337: In particular, \KE\ may be overestimated by factors of a few by neglecting the
338: fact that the highest velocity material is only ejected in a narrow cone, as
339: discussed by Maeda \etal (2003), and recently by Woosley \& Heger (2003)
340: starting from the collapsar model. Both papers point at a similar scenario.
341: According to Woosley \& Heger (2003), if the high velocity ejecta are contained
342: in a cone with opening half-angle $\theta$, \KE\ is reduced by a factor
343: $(1-\cos \theta)$, and M(\Nifs) required to fit the peak luminosity is also
344: reduced by a factor $(1-\cos \theta)/\sin^2 \theta$ (in an extreme case). This
345: is $\approx 0.5$ if $\theta$ is small. The value of $M$(\Nifs) can be derived
346: from observations in the nebular phase, which is basically independent of
347: geometry. At least for SN~1998bw, these confirmed that $M$(\Nifs) estimated in
348: spherical symmetry was correct within a factor of 2 or less (Nakamura \etal
349: 2001; Maeda \etal 2002).
350: Early-time spectra are less likely to be affected than the light curve,
351: especially in the case of SN~2003dh,
352: where the high velocity material which
353: dominates most spectral features is probably coming directly towards us.
354: Nebular observations of SN~2003dh are urged.
355:
356:
357: \acknowledgements This work was partly supported by the Japanese Ministry of
358: Education, Science, Culture, Sports, and Technology under Grants-in-Aid
359: 14047206, 14540223, 15204010.
360:
361: \begin{thebibliography}{}
362:
363: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2002)]{blo02} Bloom, J. S., et al. 2002, \apj, 572, L45
364: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2003)]{blo02} Bloom, J. S., et al. 2003, \apj, in press
365: (astro-ph/0308034)
366: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2003)]{mdv03} Della Valle, M., et al.,
367: 2003, \aap, 406, L33
368: \bibitem[Garnavich et al. (2003)]{gar03} Garnavich, P.M., et al.
369: 2003, \apj, 582, 924
370: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998)]{gal98} Galama, T. J., et al. 1998, \nat, 395, 670
371: \bibitem[Greiner et al.(2003)]{gre03} Greiner, J., et al. 2003,
372: GCN Circ., 2020
373: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2003)]{hjo03} Hjorth, J., et al. 2003, \nat, 423, 847
374: \bibitem[H\"oflich, Wheeler, \& Wang(1999)]{hoe99} H\"oflich, P.,
375: Wheeler, J. C. \& Wang, L. 1999, \apj, 521, 179
376: \bibitem[Iwamoto et al.(1998)]{iwa98} Iwamoto, K., et al. 1998, \nat, 395, 672
377: \bibitem[Iwamoto et al. (2000)]{iwa00} Iwamoto, K., et al. 2000, \apj, 534, 660
378: \bibitem[Kawabata et al. (2003)]{kaw03} Kawabata, K.S., et al. 2003,
379: \apj, 593, L19
380: \bibitem[Lucy (1999)]{lucy99} Lucy, L.B., 1999, \aap, 345, 211
381: \bibitem[Maeda et al.(2002)]{mae02} Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K.,
382: Mazzali, P. A., Patat, F., \& Hachisu, I. 2002, \apj, 565, 405
383: \bibitem[Maeda et al. (2003)]{mae03} Maeda, K., Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J.,
384: Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., Tomita, H., Kobayashi, Y. 2003, \apj, 593, 931
385: \bibitem[Maeda \& Nomoto (2003)]{mae03b} Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K.
386: 2003, \apj, 598, in press (astro-ph/0304172)
387: \bibitem[Matheson et al. (2003)]{mat03} Matheson, T., et al.,
388: 2003, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0307435)
389: \bibitem[Mazzali \& Lucy (1993)]{maz93} Mazzali, P.A., \& Lucy, L.B.
390: 1993, \aap, 279, 447
391: \bibitem[Mazzali, Iwamoto, \& Nomoto(2000)]{maz00} Mazzali, P.A.,
392: Iwamoto, K., \& Nomoto, K. 2000, \apj, 545, 407
393: \bibitem[Mazzali (2000)]{maz00b} Mazzali, P.A. 2000, \aap, 363, 705
394: \bibitem[Mazzali et al.(2002)]{maz02} Mazzali, P.A., et al. 2002, \apj,
395: 572, L61
396: \bibitem[Nakamura et al. (2001)]{nak01} Nakamura, T., Mazzali, P.A.,
397: Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K. 2001, \apj, 550, 991
398: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2001)]{nom01} Nomoto, K., et al. 2001,
399: in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts, eds. M. Livio, N. Panagia
400: and K. Sahu (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 144
401: \bibitem[Nomoto et al. (2003)]{nom03} Nomoto, K., Maeda, K.,
402: Mazzali, P.A., Umeda, H., Deng, J., Iwamoto, K. 2003,
403: in Stellar Collapse, ed. C.L. Fryer (Astrophysics and Space Science; Kluwer),
404: in press (astro-ph/0308136)
405: \bibitem[Patat et al.(2001)]{pat01} Patat, F., et al. 2001, \apj, 555,900
406: \bibitem[(Sollerman et al. 2000)]{sol00} Sollerman, J., Kozma, C.,
407: Fransson, C., Leibundgut, B., Lundqvist, P., Ryde, F., Woudt, P.
408: 2000, \apj, 537, L127
409: \bibitem[Stanek et al.(2003)]{sta03} Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2003,
410: \apj, 591, L17
411: \bibitem[Woosley \& Heger (2003)]{woo03} Woosley, S.E., \& Heger, A. 2003,
412: \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0309165)
413:
414: \end{thebibliography}
415:
416: \clearpage
417:
418: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcc}
419: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
420: \tablecaption{Models}
421: \tablewidth{0pt}
422: \tablehead{
423: \colhead{Model} &
424: \colhead{$M_{\rm ej}$/$\Msun$} &
425: \colhead{$E_{51}$} &
426: \colhead{$M$($^{56}$Ni)\tablenotemark{a}}\\
427: }
428: \startdata
429: CO100E18\tablenotemark{b} & 9.6 & 18 & 0.32\\
430: CO138E50\tablenotemark{c} & 10.4 & 50 & 0.32\\
431: COMDH & 8.0 & 38 & 0.35\\
432: \enddata
433: \tablenotetext{a}{Values required to reproduce
434: the peak brightness of SN~2003dh.}
435: \tablenotetext{b}{Mazzali et al. (2000).}
436: \tablenotetext{b}{Nakamura et al. (2001).}
437: \end{deluxetable}
438:
439: \clearpage
440:
441: \begin{figure*}
442: \centering
443: \epsscale{2.0}
444: \plotone{f1.eps}
445: \figcaption[sn2003dhapr10subcombco110div2co138.eps]
446: {The observed 2003 April 10 spectrum (top, black line);
447: the subtracted afterglow spectrum (observed on 2003 April 1, middle, blue line);
448: the `net' Supernova spectrum (bottom, green line),
449: and our synthetic spectrum (bottom, red line).}
450: \end{figure*}
451: \clearpage
452:
453:
454: \begin{figure*}
455: \centering
456: \epsscale{2.0}
457: \plotone{f2.eps}
458: \figcaption[sn2003dhmay10combco110div2co138.eps]
459: {The observed 2003 May 10 spectrum (black line);
460: the spectrum of SN~1997ef obtained on 1998 January 1 (green line),
461: and our synthetic spectrum (blue line).}
462: \end{figure*}
463: \clearpage
464:
465: \begin{figure*}
466: \centering
467: \epsscale{2.0}
468: \plotone{f3.eps}
469: \figcaption[sn2003dhapr24subcombco110div2co138.eps]
470: {The observed 2003 April 24 spectrum (top, black line);
471: the subtracted afterglow spectrum (observed on 2003 April 1, bottom, blue line);
472: the `net' Supernova spectrum (middle, green line),
473: and our synthetic spectrum (middle, red line).}
474: \end{figure*}
475: \clearpage
476:
477: \begin{figure*}
478: \centering
479: \epsscale{2.0}
480: \plotone{f4.eps}
481: \figcaption[sn2003dhdenprof.eps]
482: {Density profiles of the various models.}
483: \end{figure*}
484: \clearpage
485:
486: \begin{figure*}
487: \centering
488: \epsscale{2.0}
489: \plotone{f5.eps}
490: \figcaption[sn2003dhlcurves.eps]{Observed and synthetic light curves. The bolometric light curve of
491: SN~1998bw is from Patat et al. (2001), that of SN~1997ef from Mazzali, Iwamoto, \& Nomoto(2000).}
492: \end{figure*}
493:
494: \end{document}
495: