1: % First draft: Jan 25, 2005
2: % Draft revision: June 27, 2005
3: % Additional revisions; August 2005
4: % Final revisions; November 2005
5: % Accepted; Dec 2, 2005
6: %
7: % To: PASP
8: %
9: % FROM: Dr. Schuyler D. Van Dyk
10: % Spitzer Science Center
11: % Mailcode 220-6
12: % Pasadena, CA 91125
13: % (626) 395-1881
14: % FAX: (626) 583-9046
15: % vandyk@ipac.caltech.edu
16: %
17: % Electronic version of the manuscript
18: %
19: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
20: \documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
21:
22: \slugcomment{To appear in PASP, 2006 March}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \title{The Light Echo Around Supernova 2003gd in Messier 74\footnote{Based in
27: part on observations with the NASA/ESA {\sl Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained
28: at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), which is operated by AURA,
29: Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.}}
30:
31: \author{Schuyler D.~Van Dyk}
32: \affil{Spitzer Science Center, Caltech, Mailcode 220-6, Pasadena CA 91125}
33: \authoremail{vandyk@ipac.caltech.edu}
34:
35: \author{Weidong Li and Alexei V.~Filippenko}
36: \affil{Department of Astronomy, 601 Campbell Hall, University of
37: California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411}
38: \authoremail{weidong@astro.berkeley.edu, alex@astro.berkeley.edu}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We confirm the discovery of a light echo around the Type II-plateau Supernova
42: 2003gd in Messier 74 (NGC 628), seen in images obtained with the High
43: Resolution Channel of the Advanced Camera for Surveys on-board the {\sl Hubble
44: Space Telescope\/} ({\sl HST}), as part of a larger Snapshot program on the
45: late-time emission from supernovae. The analysis of the echo we present
46: suggests that it is due to the SN light pulse scattered by a sheet of dust
47: grains located $\sim$113 pc in front of the SN, and that these grains are not
48: unlike those assumed to be in the diffuse Galactic interstellar medium, both in
49: composition and in size distribution. The echo is less consistent with
50: scattering off carbon-rich grains, and, if anything, the grains may be somewhat
51: more silicate-rich than the Galactic dust composition. The echo also appears
52: to be more consistent with a SN distance closer to 7 Mpc than 9 Mpc. This
53: further supports the conclusion we reached elsewhere that the initial mass for
54: the SN progenitor was relatively low ($\sim 8$--9 $M_{\odot}$). {\it HST\/}
55: should be used to continue to monitor the echo in several bands, particularly
56: in the blue, to better constrain its origin.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{(stars:) supernovae: general --- (stars:) supernovae: individual (SN 2003gd)
60: --- (ISM:) reflection nebulae --- (ISM:) dust, extinction ---
61: galaxies: individual (Messier 74, NGC 628)}
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: The scattering of supernova (SN) light by dust nearby to the event in the host
66: galaxy is likely a common occurrence. The presence of light echoes around
67: supernovae (SNe) has been inferred based on infrared excesses (e.g., Dwek 1983;
68: Graham et al.~1983; Graham \& Meikle 1986). However, up until recently, only five
69: SNe have had echoes unambiguously discovered around them: SN 1987A in the Large
70: Magellanic Cloud, SN 1991T in NGC 4527, SN 1993J in Messier 81 (M81), SN 1998bu
71: in Messier 96 (M96), and SN 1999ev in NGC 4274 (Maund \& Smartt 2005). In the
72: cases of the Type Ia SNe 1991T (Schmidt et al.~1994) and 1998bu (Cappellaro et
73: al.~2001), indications of a light echo were evident in the ground-based,
74: late-time optical observations. However, it required the superior angular resolution
75: of the {\sl Hubble Space Telescope\/} ({\it HST}) to visually confirm for both
76: SNe the existence of the echoes (Sparks et al.~1999; Cappellaro et al.~2001).
77: Although for the Type II SN 1987A the interstellar (e.g., Crotts 1988) and
78: circumstellar (e.g., Emmering \& Chevalier 1989; Bond et al.~1990) echoes could
79: be discovered from the ground, for the Type IIb SN 1993J the discovery of
80: echoes (Sugerman \& Crotts 2002; Liu, Bregman, \& Seitzer 2003) again is a
81: result of the high-resolution imaging capabilities of {\sl HST\/}.
82:
83: These light echoes result as the luminous ultraviolet (UV)/optical emission
84: pulse from a SN is scattered by dust in dense regions of the SN environment.
85: The UV pulse will tend to photoionize the circumstellar matter and destroy
86: smaller dust grains nearest to the SN, while more distant, larger grains
87: survive the pulse; SNe therefore have the potential to illuminate the most
88: distant interstellar material and the largest structures in the environment
89: (Sugerman 2003). We observe the echo as a ring, or arc, but it is actually an
90: ellipsoid with the SN and the observer at the foci and defined by the light
91: travel time from the SN (see, e.g., Fig.~1 in Patat 2005). Light echoes
92: provide a means to probe both the circumstellar and interstellar structures
93: around SNe. With a precise distance to the SN and the observed geometry of the
94: echo, we can accurately determine the three-dimensional distribution of dust in
95: the SN environment.
96:
97: Conversely, as was elegantly shown by Panagia et al.~(1991) in the case of SN
98: 1987A, light echoes around a SN provide a means to measure the distance to the
99: SN, based purely on geometrical arguments and independent of any distance
100: ladder. The polarized light from the dust echo may facilitate this distance
101: determination (Sparks 1994, 1996). Finally, knowing the SN spectrum, which is
102: what is scattered by the dust echo, we can determine the size distribution and
103: composition of the dust (e.g., Sugerman 2003).
104:
105: Sugerman (2005) has recently discovered and analyzed a light echo around the Type
106: II-plateau (II-P) SN 2003gd in Messier 74 (M74), seen in {\sl HST\/} images we
107: obtained when the SN was appreciably fainter. Here we confirm the discovery of
108: the echo and provide a different analysis.
109:
110: SN 2003gd was discovered by Evans (2003) on 2003 June 12.82 (UT dates are used
111: throughout this paper) and, based on the light-curve plateau, Van Dyk, Li, \&
112: Filippenko (2003) estimate the explosion date at about 2003 March 17. SN
113: 2003gd is a somewhat unusual SN II-P and was recently discussed in detail by
114: Hendry et al.~(2005). Of notable interest is that both Van Dyk et al.~(2003)
115: and Smartt et al.~(2004) independently determined, using a combination of
116: pre-SN {\sl HST\/} and ground-based images, that the progenitor was a $\sim 8\
117: M_{\odot}$ red supergiant (RSG), at the lower mass limit of theoretical
118: predictions for core-collapse SNe. The confirmation of the progenitor star was
119: based on late-time {\sl HST\/} images obtained by Smartt et al.~(2004) at age
120: $\sim 137$~d, when the SN was slightly off the plateau, but still quite bright
121: in the images (see also Hendry et al.~2005).
122:
123: \section{Observations}
124:
125: In Van Dyk et al.~(2003) we presented the early-time $BVRI$ light curves for SN
126: 2003gd, based on monitoring with the Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope
127: (KAIT). We have continued monitoring the SN with KAIT and therefore update the
128: ground-based light curves in Table 1. We also list the $BR$ late-time
129: magnitudes from our ACS Snapshot images in Table 1. Additionally, we have
130: attempted to measure the SN brightness in the ACS/HRC images obtained by Smartt
131: et al.~(2004) on 2003 Aug. 1; the SN is hopelessly saturated in their F814W
132: image, but we are able to measure F435W and F555W magnitudes for the SN through
133: a $0{\farcs}5$-radius aperture. We include these magnitudes, after correction
134: and photometric transformation, in Table 1.
135:
136: We observed SN 2003gd on 2004 December 8 with the Advanced Camera for Surveys
137: (ACS) High Resolution Channel (HRC) as part of our larger Cycle 13 Snapshot
138: program on the late-time emission from SNe (GO-10272; PI: Filippenko). These
139: images were obtained when the SN was at an age $\sim 632$ d (1.73 yr), at
140: significantly later times than the Smartt et al.~(2004) images. The bandpasses
141: and exposure times we used were F435W (840 s) and F625W (360 s). All of the
142: data for this program have no proprietary period, and thus we obtained these
143: data from the {\sl HST\/} public archive, where standard pipeline procedures
144: had been employed to calibrate the images.
145:
146: Unfortunately, in the F435W image a cosmic-ray hit or hot pixel sits directly
147: along the echo due west of the SN, such that the standard pipeline was unable
148: to reject this pixel from the combination of the cosmic-ray split observations.
149: We used the IRAF\footnote{IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) is
150: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated
151: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
152: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.} tasks ``fixpix''
153: and ``epix'' to interpolate the affected pixel as well as we could. In Figure
154: 1 we show the corrected F435W ($\sim B$) image and the F625W ($\sim R$) image.
155: Although at a relatively low signal-to-noise ratio, the light echo can be
156: readily seen in the {\sl HST\/} images. (The echo was not detectable in the
157: earlier images by Smartt et al.~or in the pre-SN {\sl HST\/} images.) The
158: relatively bright object within the echo is SN 2003gd.
159:
160: We measured the SN brightness in both bands, first with a $0{\farcs}5$-radius
161: aperture and then via point-spread function (PSF) fitting (with an equivalent
162: aperture also of $0{\farcs}5$ radius). The model PSFs were constructed from
163: two isolated stars in the ACS/HRC images. What is most notable is that the
164: aperture magnitudes for the SN are brighter than the PSF magnitudes, almost
165: certainly because of contamination in the aperture by the echo itself. We
166: adjust the PSF magnitudes to infinite aperture, using the corrections for the
167: HRC in Sirianni et al.~(2005), and find $m_{\rm F435W} = 23.76 \pm 0.07$ and
168: $m_{\rm F625W} = 22.96 \pm 0.05$ mag. Using the photometric transformations
169: also in Sirianni et al., we derive $B= 23.73 \pm 0.08$ and $R= 22.90 \pm 0.05$
170: mag (Table 1). We caution that these transformations are derived from stars
171: with normal photospheres and not for emission, reflected or otherwise, from
172: sources with unusual spectra, such as SNe. The uncertainties in $B$ and $R$
173: given here are strictly those in the photometric measurements and in the
174: transformation coefficients, and likely underestimate the actual uncertainties.
175:
176: The light echo has an asymmetric structure: Only an arc of emission, most
177: noticeably to the northwest, not a complete ring, is seen in both the F435W and
178: F625W bands. Some far weaker emission is seen to the south of the SN; the
179: emission to the east is not part of the echo, but instead are the stars C and D
180: noted by Smartt et al.~(2004). After all the stars, including the SN, were
181: subtracted using the model PSFs from the images, the surface brightness of the
182: echo was measured in both bands. We used the IRAF task ``minstatistics'' with
183: an arc-shaped pixel mask to determine the average count rate per pixel in the
184: echo, i.e., $0.024 \pm 0.013$ s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$ over 82 pixels in F435W and
185: $0.032 \pm 0.021$ s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$ over 78 pixels in F625W. After
186: subtracting the average sky pixel count rate, and with the zero points from
187: Sirianni et al.~(2005) and a HRC plate scale of $0{\farcs}027$ pixel$^{-1}$,
188: these translate to average surface brightnesses of $< \mu_{\rm F435W} > = 21.5
189: \pm 0.5$ and $< \mu _{\rm F625W} > = 21.1 \pm 0.6$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
190: Integrating over the echo in each band we derive
191: $m_{\rm F435W} = 24.5 \pm 0.5$ and $m_{\rm F625W} = 24.2 \pm 0.6$ mag,
192: with negligible change in the transformation (again following Sirianni et al.)
193: to $m_B = 24.5 \pm 0.5$
194: and $m_R = 24.2 \pm 0.6$ mag, given the echo's color, i.e., $B-R=0.3 \pm 0.8$ mag.
195: Assuming Vega as photometric zero point, the echo has fluxes $1.1 \pm 0.7
196: \times 10^{-18}$ and $4.9 \pm 2.8 \times 10^{-19}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
197: \AA$^{-1}$ at $B$ and $R$, respectively (Table 2). Note that Sugerman (2005)
198: finds somewhat different values for both the surface brightness ($\mu_{\rm
199: F435W}=20.8 \pm 0.2$ and $\mu _{\rm F625W}=21.4 \pm 0.3$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) and
200: flux ($m_B=24.2 \pm 0.1$ and $m_R=23.9 \pm 0.1$ mag), although these values
201: agree with ours to within the uncertainties. The larger uncertainties we estimated for
202: the fluxes, relative to those estimated by Sugerman (2005), arise from the standard
203: deviation in the count rate statistics within the pixel mask. Given the low signal-to-noise
204: ratio of the echo in the images in both bands, we consider our uncertainties to be quite
205: conservative.
206:
207: \section{Analysis}
208:
209: Here we provide an analysis of the echo and its origin. We note that this
210: analysis differs from that presented by Sugerman (2005). We have determined
211: that SN 2003gd is at the exact center of the light echo, with uncertainty
212: $< 0.2$ pixel ($< 0{\farcs}005$), through comparison of our Snapshot images to the
213: ACS F435W images obtained by Smartt et al.~(2004), when the SN was
214: significantly brighter. The SN itself therefore must be the source of the
215: echo, which we observe at age $t$ after explosion and age $\tau$ after optical
216: maximum. The observed echo is the product of the input SN pulse and scattering
217: by dust in the environment.
218:
219: Following Liu et al.~(2003) and Schaefer (1987), we can approximate the
220: ellipsoid near the SN as a paraboloid. The perpendicular linear distance of
221: the line-of-sight to the SN from the line-of-sight to the echo, the so-called
222: ``impact parameter,'' is $b=D \theta$, where $D$ is the SN's distance from
223: Earth and $\theta$ is the angular distance of the two lines-of-sight. We
224: measure a radius for the echo of $11.5 \pm 1.0$ pixel which then corresponds to
225: $\theta=0{\farcs}31 \pm 0{\farcs}03$. For the SN distance we assume $d=7.2$
226: Mpc (Van Dyk et al.~2003), $b=10.8 \pm 1.1$ pc. We note that Smartt et
227: al.~(2004) assume a SN distance of 9.1 Mpc and Hendry et al.~(2005) have
228: estimated a distance of 9.3 Mpc. For the latter distance, $b=14.0 \pm 1.3$ pc
229: (hereafter, we will also provide in parentheses estimates of the various
230: parameters assuming a distance of 9.3 Mpc). The age $t$, derived from the
231: assumed explosion date, 2003 March 17 (Van Dyk et al.~2003), is 631~d, or
232: 1.73~yr. However, the echo really appears due to the SN pulse, primarily in
233: the UV and the blue; we will assume that the SN 2003gd $B$ light curve is
234: similar to that of SN 1999em (see below), and Leonard et al.~(2002) determine
235: that the $B$ maximum for the latter SN occurred about 8 days after explosion.
236: Therefore, $\tau=623$ d, or 1.71 yr. The distance from the SN to the echo,
237: $r=l+c\tau$, can be derived from $r^2 = b^2 + l^2$. For $c\tau=0.52$ pc, we
238: find $l= 112.0 \pm 24.0$ pc and $r=112.5 \pm 23.5$ pc ($l=188.0 \pm 37.0$ and
239: $r=188.5 \pm 37.0$ pc for 9.3 Mpc).
240:
241: Given this distance and the echo's overall asymmetric structure, the echo is
242: most likely from interstellar, not circumstellar, dust: For a duration of the
243: RSG phase $\sim 10^4$ yr and wind speed $\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$, the
244: circumstellar matter would only be $\sim 0.1$ pc ($0{\farcs}09$) in radius.
245: Additionally, much of this dust is likely destroyed by the UV SN pulse
246: (Sugerman 2003). The observed thickness of the echo is $\sim 2$ pixels, but
247: the stellar image width (FWHM) is larger than this, so that the echo must be
248: barely resolved, if at all. Therefore, any estimate of the dust sheet
249: thickness along the line-of-sight (Liu et al.~2003) must be an upper limit: For
250: the echo, $\Delta{\theta}$ is then $\gtrsim 0{\farcs}05$, or $\Delta b \gtrsim
251: 1.7$ pc ($\gtrsim 2.2$ pc). The dust sheet thickness is then $\Delta l =
252: (b/ct) \Delta b \gtrsim 35$ pc ($\gtrsim 59$ pc).
253:
254: As is generally done, we assume that the echo arises from single scattering in
255: a thin sheet of dust between us and the SN, and that the sheet thickness is
256: much smaller than the distance between the SN and the sheet. Following the
257: formalism of Chevalier (1986), Cappellaro et al.~(2001), and Patat (2005), the
258: flux $F$ at time $t$ from the echo at a given wavelength or bandpass is
259:
260: \begin{equation}
261: F_{\rm echo} (t) = \int_0^t F_{\rm SN} (t-t^{\prime}) f(t^{\prime}) dt^{\prime},
262: \end{equation}
263:
264: \noindent where $F_{\rm SN} (t-t^{\prime})$ is the flux of the SN at time
265: $t-t^{\prime}$, and $f(t)$ (in units of s$^{-1}$) determines the fraction of
266: light scattered by the echo toward the observer and depends on the echo
267: geometry and the nature of the dust. The total SN light is effectively treated
268: as a short pulse over which the SN flux is constant.
269:
270: The term $f(t)$ is assumed to have the form
271:
272: \begin{equation}
273: f(t)= {{c N_H} \over r} \int Q_{\rm sca}(a) \sigma_g(a) \Phi({\alpha}, a) \phi(a) da,
274: \end{equation}
275:
276: \noindent
277: where $N_H$ is the H number density, $Q_{\rm sca}(a)$ is the scattering
278: coefficient for a given grain radius $a$, $\sigma_g(a)= \pi a^2$ is the dust
279: grain cross section for scattering, and $\Phi(\alpha)$ is the phase function
280: (Henyey \& Greenstein 1941)
281:
282: \begin{equation}
283: \Phi({\alpha}, a) = {{1 - g(a)^2} \over {4 \pi [1 + g(a)^2 - 2g(a) \cos(\alpha)]^{3/2}}},
284: \end{equation}
285:
286: \noindent
287: where $\alpha$ is the scattering angle defined by
288: $\cos(\alpha) = [(b/c\tau)^2 - 1] / [(b/c\tau)^2 + 1]$ (e.g., Schaefer 1987).
289: The function $\Phi(\alpha)$ is applicable for the bandpasses being considered here
290: (see Draine 2003). The term $g(a)$ measures the degree of forward scattering
291: for a dust grain of radius $a$. From the geometric parameters for this echo,
292: the scattering angle is then $\alpha \approx 5{\fdg}5$ ($4{\fdg}3$).
293: The term $\phi(a)$ is the grain size distribution for grain radius $a$. Following
294: Sugerman (2003), we consider the dust grain distributions for (spherical)
295: silicate and carbonaceous grains from
296: Weingartner \& Draine (2001), and the $Q_{\rm sca}(a)$ and
297: $g(a)$ for ``smoothed UV astronomical silicate'' grains (Draine \& Lee 1984;
298: Laor \& Draine 1993; Weingartner \& Draine 2001) and for carbonaceous
299: graphite (Draine \& Lee 1984; Laor \& Draine 1993).
300:
301: To derive the SN fluence we must integrate the light curves over time in each
302: band. Unfortunately, SN 2003gd was caught late in its evolution, $\sim 90$~d
303: after explosion. In Van Dyk et al.~(2003) we showed from the initial
304: ground-based $BVRI$ light curves that the agreement with the light curves in
305: the same bands for the Type II-plateau SN 1999em (Hamuy et al.~2001; Leonard et
306: al.~2002, 2003) is quite good on the plateau. It is after the plateau that SN
307: 2003gd and SN 1999em fail to agree well. This is due to SN 2003gd being among
308: the peculiar, low luminosity, low $^{56}$Ni yield, SNe II-P, including also SN
309: 1997D (Turatto et al.~1998; Benetti et al.~2001) and SN 1999br (Zampieri et
310: al.~2003; Pastorello et al.~2004). However, these latter SNe all appear to
311: agree relatively well with SN 1999em near maximum and early on the plateau as
312: well.
313:
314: In Figure 2 we show a more complete set of light curves in the $B$ and $R$
315: bands for SN 2003gd, which includes the updated ground-based datapoints and the
316: addition of the {\sl HST\/} photometry. The SN 2003gd light curves have been
317: adjusted in time to match the SN 1999em light curves; no adjustment in
318: magnitude was necessary. The relatively good match on the plateau phase for
319: both SNe suggests that we can employ the early-time SN 1999em data to
320: extrapolate the SN 2003gd light curves back to the date of explosion.
321: Performing the integration, assuming Vega as the flux zero point, we find $7.26
322: \times 10^{-8}$ and $8.85 \times 10^{-8}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$ in $B$ and
323: $R$, respectively (note that these differ with the fluences
324: reported by Sugerman 2005, i.e., $8.0 \times 10^{-8}$ and
325: $7.0 \times 10^{-8}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$ in $B$ and $R$, respectively).
326: If the SN 2003gd light curves evolved in a similar
327: manner to SN 1999em at early times, then these fluences (and the color curves
328: for SN 1999em from Leonard et al.~2002) emphasize how red the SN likely became
329: soon after maximum light. That is, the SN pulse resulting in the echo was
330: relatively red in color.
331:
332: The duration of the SN pulse in each bandpass can be obtained by assuming
333: $F_{\rm SN} {\Delta}t_{\rm SN} = \int_0^{\infty} F_{\rm SN}(t) dt$ (Cappellaro
334: et al.~2001; Patat 2005). Here we take $F_{\rm SN}$ to be the SN maximum flux,
335: which we assume to be the $B$ and $R$ maximum fluxes for SN 1999em (Leonard et
336: al.~2002), i.e., $m=13.79$ and 13.63 mag in $B$ and $R$, respectively, and
337: ${\Delta}t_{\rm SN}$ to be the pulse duration (this is actually what is termed
338: the ``effective width'' of the pulse). We then find ${\Delta}t_{\rm SN}$ to be
339: $\sim 45$ d in $B$ and $\sim 138$ d (about three times longer) in $R$.
340:
341: We can estimate the H column density from the extinction toward the echo. We
342: assume that, since the echo lies quite close to the line-of-sight to SN 2003gd,
343: the echo suffers the same amount of extinction as does the SN. For the SN we
344: estimate a total reddening $E(B-V)=0.13 \pm 0.03$ mag (Van Dyk et al.~2003;
345: Smartt et al.~2004 derive a consistent estimate of the SN reddening, but with a
346: larger uncertainty, $E(B-V)=0.11 \pm 0.16$ mag). Next, we must subtract the
347: Galactic reddening contribution, $E(B-V)=0.07$ mag (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \&
348: Davis 1998). Assuming the ratio of total-to-selective extinction $R_V = 3.1$
349: (e.g., Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis 1989), we find $A_V = 0.19$ mag internal to
350: the host galaxy. Bohlin, Savage, \& Drake (1978) found a fairly constant
351: empirical relation over the diffuse interstellar medium in the Galaxy, $N_H=5.8
352: \times 10^{21} E(B-V)$, which provides a normalization for the extinction curve
353: $A_V/N_H = 5.3 \times 10^{-22}$ cm$^2$ (Weingartner \& Draine 2001). From this
354: relation, and including our estimated uncertainty in the reddening, we derive
355: $N_H=3.5 (\pm 1.7) \times 10^{20}$ cm$^2$ in the dust sheet.
356:
357: In Table 2 we present the fluxes $F_{\rm echo}$ in each band for several echo
358: models, for which we have varied the composition of the dust grains. We have
359: calculated the set of models for both our distance assumption and the Hendry et
360: al.~(2005) distance estimate. The first model in the set is the diffuse
361: Galactic dust model from Weingartner \& Draine (2001) and Draine (2003); it
362: assumes solar abundances with $R_V=3.1$ and the total C abundance per H nucleon
363: $b_C=56$ ppm, with comparable contributions of carbonaceous and silicate dust
364: with radii in the range 5.0 \AA\ -- 2.0 $\mu$m. We also consider models with
365: $R_V=3.1$ which are either pure silicates or pure carbonaceous grains.
366: Finally, we consider a model with comparable silicate and carbonaceous grain
367: composition, but assuming $R_V=4.0$. The results are also shown graphically in
368: Figure 3.
369:
370: The overall agreement of the models and the observations is remarkably good.
371: With the various assumed model inputs, we are reproducing the observed echo
372: reasonably well, and this further implies that the echo likely arises from the
373: diffuse interstellar dust near the SN. The uncertainties in the model fluxes
374: (arising mostly from the uncertainties in the echo geometrical measurements and
375: in our reddening estimate) are rather large, but are comparable to the
376: measurement uncertainties in the observed fluxes. What we notice is that the
377: C+Si model agrees quite well with the observations. The value of $R_V$ (3.0 or
378: 4.1) has little bearing on this agreement. The pure Si-rich dust model is also
379: consistent with the observations; the pure C-rich dust model, less so (although
380: it agrees to within the uncertainties for $d=7.2$ Mpc). In fact, for the
381: larger assumed SN distance ($d=9.3$ Mpc), the pure carbonaceous dust model is
382: no longer consistent with the observations at either band and can be ruled out.
383:
384: We note that the remaining models calculated for the larger SN distance
385: generally tend to underestimate the flux, although taking into account the
386: large uncertainties in both the observed and model fluxes, it is impossible to
387: rule them out entirely. However, we tentatively suggest that the observed echo
388: may indicate that the actual SN distance is closer to the smaller value we
389: assumed in Van Dyk et al.~(2003) than the larger one determined by Hendry et
390: al.~(2005; and the similarly larger distance assumed by Smartt et al.~2004).
391: This, along with the value of $R_V$, has implications for the absolute
392: magnitude, and therefore the initial mass, of the SN progenitor. A higher
393: $R_V$ would imply that the progenitor was, at most, $\sim 0.1$ mag more
394: luminous than what we estimated in Van Dyk et al. However, the larger distance
395: would require the star to be $\sim 0.6$ mag more luminous, which would increase
396: the mass estimate by $\sim 1\ M_{\odot}$ (i.e., it would imply that the initial
397: mass was closer to $\sim 10\ M_{\odot}$). The relative agreement between the
398: observed echo and the echo models based on the shorter distance reassures us
399: that our low progenitor mass estimate ($\sim 8$--9 $M_{\odot}$), although
400: uncomfortably near the theoretical limit for core collapse (Woosley \& Weaver
401: 1986), is realistic.
402:
403: \section{Conclusions}
404:
405: We have confirmed the presence of a scattered light echo around the nearby Type
406: II-plateau SN 2003gd in M74. This discovery could only have been made in
407: images produced with the superior angular resolution of the {\sl HST\/} ACS/HRC
408: at sufficiently late times for the SN. We conclude that the echo arises from
409: dust in the interstellar SN environment, and our modeling (within the large
410: uncertainties in the observations, which further propagate into the models)
411: suggests that this dust, both in composition and in grain size distribution, is
412: not unlike dust in the diffuse Galactic interstellar medium, although it is
413: also possible the dust could be more silicate-rich than carbon-rich. In fact,
414: our echo models tend to disfavor dust in the SN environment which is more
415: abundant in carbonaceous grains than silicates. (We note that Sugerman 2005
416: found that the echo may arise from small carbon-rich grains.)
417:
418: The models are not particularly sensitive to the value of $R_V$ (but we did not
419: compute models with $R_V > 4$). However, models based on the shorter distance
420: to the SN that we assumed in Van Dyk et al.~(2003; 7.2 Mpc) appear to be
421: somewhat more consistent with the observed echo than those for the longer
422: distance assumed by Smartt et al.~(2004; 9.1 Mpc) and Hendry et al.~(2005; 9.3
423: Mpc), though the uncertainties are large. These latter two factors slightly
424: increase our confidence in the relatively low estimate ($\sim 8$--9
425: $M_{\odot}$) for the initial mass of the SN progenitor we derived in Van Dyk et
426: al.
427:
428: From $N_H$ and assuming a path length $L = \Delta l \approx 35$ pc for the dust
429: sheet, the H number density would be $n_{\rm H} \approx 7$ cm$^{-3}$. Combined
430: with the extinction to the SN, this is consistent with the expectation that
431: light echoes likely emerge from regions with $n_{\rm H} \approx 10$ cm$^{-3}$
432: and $A_V \lesssim 1$ mag (Sugerman 2003).
433:
434: This echo should be further monitored with {\sl HST}, including use of
435: additional bands, particularly in the UV, to far better constrain the nature of
436: the scattering dust and the echo geometry, and to reveal further new or
437: evolving structures in the echo.
438:
439: \acknowledgements
440:
441: The work of A.V.F.'s group at UC Berkeley is supported by NSF grant
442: AST-0307894, as well as by NASA grants GO-10272, AR-10297, and AR-10690 from
443: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under
444: NASA contract NAS5-26555. A.V.F. is also grateful for a Miller Research
445: Professorship at U.C. Berkeley, during which part of this work was completed.
446: KAIT was made possible by generous donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc., the
447: Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory, the National
448: Science Foundation, the University of California, and the Sylvia \& Jim Katzman
449: Foundation. We thank the referee for useful comments.
450:
451: \begin{thebibliography}{}
452:
453: \bibitem[Benetti et al.~2001]{ben01} Benetti, S., et al.~2001, \mnras, 322, 361
454:
455: \bibitem[Bohlin, Savage, \& Drake 1978]{boh78} Bohlin, R.~C., Savage, B.~D., \&
456: Drake, J.~F. 1978, \apj, 224, 132
457:
458: \bibitem[Bond et al.~1990]{bon90} Bond, H.~E., Gilmozzi, R., Meakes, M.~G., \&
459: Panagia, N. 1990, \apj, 354, L49
460:
461: \bibitem[Cappellaro et al. 2001]{cap01} Cappellaro, E., et al. 2001, \apj, 549,
462: L215
463:
464: \bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis 1989]{car89} Cardelli, J.~A., Clayton, G.~C.,
465: \& Mathis, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
466:
467: \bibitem[Chevalier 1986]{che86} Chevalier, R.~A. 1986, \apj, 308, 225
468:
469: \bibitem[Crotts 1988]{cro88} Crotts, A. P. S. 1988, \apj, 333, L51
470:
471: \bibitem[Draine 2003]{dra03} Draine, B.~T. 2003, \apj, 598, 1017
472:
473: \bibitem[Draine \& Lee 1984]{dra84} Draine, B.~T., \& Lee, H.~M. 1984, \apj, 285, 89
474:
475: \bibitem[Dwek 1983]{dwe83} Dwek, E. 1983, \apj, 274, 175
476:
477: \bibitem[Emmering \& Chevalier 1989]{emm89} Emmering, R.~T., \& Chevalier, R.~A. 1989,
478: \apj, 338, 388
479:
480: \bibitem[Evans 2003]{eva03} Evans, R. 2003, IAU Circ. 8150
481:
482: \bibitem[Graham et al.~1983]{gra83} Graham, J.~R., et al.~1983, Nature, 304, 709
483:
484: \bibitem[Graham \& Meikle 1986]{gra86} Graham, J.~R., \& Meikle, W.~P.~S. 1986,
485: \mnras, 221, 789
486:
487: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.~2001]{ham01} Hamuy, M, et al.~2001, ApJ, 558, 615
488:
489: \bibitem[Hendry et al.~2005]{hen05} Hendry, M.~A., et al.~2005, \mnras, 359, 906
490:
491: \bibitem[Henyey \& Greenstein 1941]{hen41} Henyey, L.~C., \& Greenstein, J.~L. 1941,
492: \apj, 93, 70
493:
494: \bibitem[Laor \& Draine 1993]{lao93} Laor, A., \& Draine, B.~T. 1993, \apj, 402, 441
495:
496: \bibitem[Leonard et al.~2003]{leo03} Leonard, D.~C., Kanbur, S.~M., Ngeow, C.~C.,
497: \& Tanvir, N.~R. 2003, \apj, 594, 247
498:
499: \bibitem[Leonard et al.~2002]{leo02} Leonard, D.~C., et al.~2002, \pasp, 114, 35
500:
501: \bibitem[Liu, Bregman, \& Seitzer 2003]{liu03} Liu, J.-F., Bregman, J. N., \&
502: Seitzer, P. 2003, \apj, 582, 919
503:
504: \bibitem[Maund \& Smartt 2005]{mau05} Maund, J.~R., \& Smartt, S.~J. 2005,
505: \mnras, 360, 288
506:
507: \bibitem[Panagia et al.~1991]{pan91} Panagia, N., et al.~1991, \apj, 380, L23
508:
509: \bibitem[Pastorello et al.~2004]{pas04} Pastorello, A., et al.~2004, \mnras, 347,
510: 74
511:
512: \bibitem[Patat 2005]{pat05} Patat, F. 2005, \mnras, 357, 1161
513:
514: \bibitem[Schaefer 1987]{sch97} Schaefer, B. E. 1987, ApJ, 323, L47
515:
516: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis 1998]{sch98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner,
517: D.~P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
518:
519: \bibitem[Schmidt et al. 1994]{sch94} Schmidt, B. P., et al. 1994, \apj, 434, L19
520:
521: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.~2005]{sir05} Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, \pasp, in press
522:
523: \bibitem[Smartt et al.~2004]{sma04} Smartt, S. J., et al.~2004, Science, 303, 499
524:
525: \bibitem[Sparks 1994]{spa94} Sparks, W. B. 1994, \apj, 433, 19
526:
527: \bibitem[Sparks 1996]{spa96} Sparks, W. B. 1996, \apj, 470, 195
528:
529: \bibitem[Sparks et al.~1999]{spa99} Sparks, W. B., et al. 1999, \apj, 523, 585
530:
531: \bibitem[Sugerman 2003]{sug03} Sugerman, B.~E.~K. 2003, \aj, 126, 1939
532:
533: \bibitem[Sugerman 2005]{sug05} Sugerman, B.~E.~K. 2005, \apjl, in press
534:
535: \bibitem[Sugerman \& Crotts 2002]{sug02} Sugerman, B.~E.~K., \& Crotts,
536: A.~P.~S. 2002, \apj, 581, L97
537:
538: \bibitem[Turatto et al.~1998]{tur98} Turatto, M., et al.~1998, \apj, 498, L129
539:
540: \bibitem[Van Dyk, Li, \& Filippenko 2003]{van03a} Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W.,
541: \& Filippenko, A. V. 2003, \pasp, 115, 1289
542:
543: \bibitem[Weingartner \& Draine 2001]{wei01} Weingartner, J.~C., \&
544: Draine, B.~T. 2001, \apj, 548, 296
545:
546: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver 1986]{woo86} Woosley, S.~E., \& Weaver, T.~A.
547: 1986, \araa, 24, 205
548:
549: \bibitem[Zampieri et al.~2003]{zam03} Zampieri, L., et al.~2003, \mnras, 338, 711
550:
551: \end{thebibliography}
552:
553: %\clearpage
554:
555: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
556: \tablenum{1}
557: \tablewidth{6.5truein}
558: \tablecolumns{6}
559: \tablecaption{Photometry of SN 2003gd in M74}
560: \tablehead{
561: \colhead{UT date} & \colhead{Julian Date} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$V$}
562: & \colhead{$R$} & \colhead{$I$} \\
563: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)}}
564: \startdata
565: 2003 Aug 01\tablenotemark{a} & 2452853.46 & 19.17(03) & 17.41(03) & \nodata & \nodata \\
566: 2003 Aug 25 & 2452876.96 & 19.16(08) & 17.70(04) & 16.61(02) & 16.06(03) \\
567: 2003 Aug 31 & 2452882.97 & 19.08(12) & 17.66(03) & 16.58(02) & 16.02(03) \\
568: 2003 Sep 06 & 2452888.96 & \nodata & 17.68(04) & 16.62(02) & 16.08(02) \\
569: 2004 Dec 8\tablenotemark{b} & 2453347.95 & 23.73(08) & \nodata & 22.90(05) & \nodata \\
570: \enddata
571: \tablenotetext{}{See Van Dyk et al.~(2003) for previous photometric measurements. Note: uncertainties in hundredths of a magnitude are indicated in parentheses.}
572: \tablenotetext{a}{Transformed using the prescription in Sirianni et al.~(2005) from aperture magnitudes ($0{\farcs}5$ radius aperture) measured from the ACS/HRC images obtained by program GO-9733.
573: The F435W magnitude = 19.23(01), and the F555W magnitude = 17.56(01).
574: The F814W image of the SN is completely saturated and therefore useless.}
575: \tablenotetext{b}{Transformed using the prescription in Sirianni et al.~(2005) from PSF-fitting
576: photometry measured from our Snapshot ACS/HRC images (see text). The F435W magnitude =
577: 23.76(07), and the F625W magnitude = 22.96(05).}
578: \end{deluxetable}
579:
580: \clearpage
581:
582: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
583: \tablenum{2}
584: \tablewidth{6.0truein}
585: \tablecolumns{3}
586: \tablecaption{Observed and Model Fluxes for the SN 2003gd Light Echo}
587: \tablehead{
588: \colhead{} & \colhead{$F_{\rm echo}(B)$} & \colhead{$F_{\rm echo}(R)$}}
589: \startdata
590: Observed & $11 \pm 7$ & $4.9 \pm 2.8$ \\
591: \cutinhead{Model\tablenotemark{a}\ \ with $d=7.2$ Mpc\tablenotemark{b}}
592: C+Si dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $8.5 \pm 4.5$ & $3.5 \pm 1.9$ \\
593: Pure Si dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $14 \pm 7$ & $5.1 \pm 2.7$ \\
594: Pure C dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $3.3 \pm 1.8$ & $2.0 \pm 1.0$ \\
595: C+Si dust, $R_V=4.0$ & $8.8 \pm 4.6$ & $4.4 \pm 2.3$ \\
596: \cutinhead{Model\tablenotemark{a}\ \ with $d=9.3$ Mpc\tablenotemark{c}}
597: C+Si dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $5.3 \pm 2.8$ & $2.2 \pm 1.1$ \\
598: Pure Si dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $8.5 \pm 4.5$ & $3.1 \pm 1.6$ \\
599: Pure C dust, $R_V=3.1$ & $2.1 \pm 1.1$ & $1.2 \pm 0.6$ \\
600: C+Si dust, $R_V=4.0$ & $5.4 \pm 2.9$ & $2.7 \pm 1.4$ \\
601: \enddata
602: \tablenotetext{}{Fluxes are in $10^{-19}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$.}
603: \tablenotetext{a}{The standard model for dust in the Galactic diffuse ISM is
604: for grain radii 5.0 \AA\ -- 2.0 $\mu$m and $b_C=6 \times 10^{-5}$ (see
605: Weingartner \& Draine 2001).}
606: \tablenotetext{b}{SN distance from Van Dyk et al.~(2003).}
607: \tablenotetext{c}{SN distance from Hendry et al.~(2005).}
608: \end{deluxetable}
609:
610: %\clearpage
611:
612: \begin{figure}
613: \figurenum{1}
614: %\plotone{fg1a.eps}
615: \caption{{\sl HST\/} images obtained at late times using
616: the ACS/HRC of the SN II-P 2003gd in M74, showing the light echo
617: around the SN in the ({\it a}) F435W ($\sim B$) and ({\it b}) F625W
618: ($\sim R$) passbands.}
619: \end{figure}
620:
621: \clearpage
622:
623: \begin{figure}
624: \figurenum{2}
625: \plotone{fg2.eps}
626: \caption{$BR$ light curves for SN 2003gd from KAIT and {\sl HST}/ACS
627: observations. For comparison, the light curves for the well-studied SN II-P
628: 1999em (Hamuy et al.~2001; Leonard et al.~2002, 2003) are shown, adjusted to
629: the true distance modulus of M74. No additional reddening correction has been
630: applied to the SN 1999em light curves. We extrapolate the observed SN 2003gd
631: light curves to maximum light following the early-time SN 1999em curves ({\it
632: solid lines}); the {\it dashed lines} represent the later-time light curves for
633: SN 1999em.}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636: \clearpage
637:
638: \begin{figure}
639: \figurenum{3}
640: \plotone{fg3.eps}
641: \caption{Observed and model fluxes for the echo in the $B$ and $R$ bands (see
642: Table 2). The observed fluxes are represented with {\it stars}. The models
643: are represented as follows for both bands: (1) For $d=7.2$ Mpc and $R_V=3.1$,
644: C+Si, {\it filled squares}; pure Si, {\it filled triangles}; pure C, {\it filled pentagons};
645: and, $R_V=4.0$ and C+Si, {\it filled circles}. (2) For $d=9.3$ Mpc and $R_V=3.1$,
646: C+Si, {\it open squares}; pure Si, {\it open triangles}; pure C, {\it open pentagons};
647: and, $R_V=4.0$ and C+Si, {\it open circles}. The datapoints for each band have been spread
648: out along the abscissa for visual clarity.}
649: \end{figure}
650:
651:
652: \end{document}
653:
654: