1: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
2: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
3: %% any data that comes before this command.
4:
5: %% The command below calls the preprint style
6: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
7: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
8: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
9:
10: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
11: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
13: % \documentclass{emulateapj}
14: %\usepackage{epsfig}
15:
16: % \setlength{\voffset}{-0.225 in}
17:
18: % \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
20:
21: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
22:
23: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
24:
25: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
26:
27: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
28: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
29: %% the \begin{document} command.
30: %%
31: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
32: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
33: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide.
34:
35: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
36:
37: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
38:
39: %\slugcomment{First Submitted to the ApJ Letters on July 20, 2004}
40: \slugcomment{Submitted to the Astrophysical Journal on July 20, 2004
41: \\ Accepted by the Astrophysical Journal on September 1, 2006}
42:
43: \shorttitle{W49\,B: A Cavity Explosion} \shortauthors{Keohane,
44: Reach, Rho \& Jarrett}
45:
46: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
47: %% paper itself with \begin{document}\@.
48:
49: \begin{document}
50:
51: \title{A Near-Infrared and X-ray Study of W49\,B: \\
52: A Wind Cavity Explosion}
53:
54: \author{Jonathan W. Keohane\altaffilmark{1}\altaffilmark{2}, William T.
55: Reach\altaffilmark{2}, Jeonghee Rho\altaffilmark{2} \& Thomas H.
56: Jarrett\altaffilmark{2}}
57: \altaffiltext{1}{The Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hampden-Sydney
58: College, Hampden Sydney, VA 23943-0716}
59: \altaffiltext{2}{The Spitzer Science Center,
60: The California Institute of Technology,
61: MS 220-06, Pasadena, CA 91125-0600}
62:
63: \email{jkeohane@hsc.edu, reach@ipac.caltech.edu, rho@ipac.caltech.edu,
64: jarrett@ipac.caltech.edu}
65:
66: \email{Submitted to the Astrophysical Journal on July 20, 2004,
67: Accepted September 1, 2006}
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: We present near-infrared narrow-band images of the supernova remnant
71: W49\,B, taken with the WIRC instrument on the Hale 200 inch
72: telescope on Mt.~Palomar. The 1.64\,$\mu$m [Fe\,II] image reveals a
73: barrel-shaped structure with coaxial rings, which is suggestive of
74: bipolar wind structures surrounding massive stars. The 2.12\,$\mu$m
75: shocked molecular hydrogen image extends 1.9\,pc outside of the
76: [Fe\,II] emission to the southeast. We also present archival {\em
77: Chandra} data, which show an X-ray jet-like structure along the axis
78: of the [Fe\,II] barrel, and flaring at each end. Fitting single
79: temperature X-ray emission models reveals: an enhancement of heavy
80: elements, with particularly high abundances of hot Fe and Ni, and
81: relatively metal-rich core and jet regions\@. We interpret these
82: findings as evidence that W49\,B originated inside a wind-blown
83: bubble ($R \sim 5\,{\rm pc}$) interior to a dense molecular cloud.
84: This suggests that W49\,B's progenitor was a supermassive star, that
85: could significantly shape its surrounding environment. We also
86: suggest two interpretations for the jet morphology, abundance
87: variations and molecular hydrogen emission: (1) the explosion may
88: have been jet-driven and interacting with the molecular cavity
89: (i.e.\ a Gamma-ray burst); or (2) the explosion could have been a
90: traditional supernova, with the jet structure being the result of
91: interactions between the shock and an enriched interstellar cloud.
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \keywords{supernova remnants --- supernovae: individual (W49\,B) ---
95: infrared: ISM --- X-rays: ISM --- gamma rays: bursts ---
96: circumstellar matter --- shock waves --- ISM: bubbles}
97:
98:
99: %%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION
100: %%%%%%%%%%
101:
102: \section{Introduction} \label{intro.sec}
103:
104: W49\,B (G43.3-0.2) has the highest radio surface-brightness of all
105: mixed-morphology supernova remnants (SNRs) in the Galaxy
106: \citep{pye84,mof94}\@. SNRs exhibiting centrally-filled X-rays
107: inside an edge-brightened radio shell are referred to as
108: mixed-morphology \citep{rho98}\@. A number of models have been
109: proposed for mixed-morphology supernova remnants
110: \citep{whi91,cox99,she99,che99}; these models were designed to
111: explain the larger (i.e. older) SNRs by invoking interactions with a
112: denser-than-average interstellar medium. The very high radio
113: brightness and the X-ray properties of W49\,B make it a compelling
114: object to study in detail, because it may be fundamentally different
115: from other remnants of its class.
116:
117: High resolution X-ray spectra of W49\,B \citep{hwa00} revealed
118: elemental abundances enhanced in heavy elements, suggesting that
119: W49\,B was the product of a Type Ia explosion. However, a
120: subsequent study of \ion{H}{1} absorption \citep{bro01} shows that
121: W49\,B is at the same distance as the star forming region W49A
122: \citep[11.4\,kpc,][]{gwi92}\@. Moreover, long wavelength radio
123: observations \citep{lac01} suggest that W49\,B is absorbed by H$^+$
124: gas and is in a high pressure ($\sim$$10^{6} \,{\rm cm^{-3} K}$)
125: region of the Galaxy, again associating the remnant with the W49\,A
126: complex. But at this distance, W49\,B would have to have a massive
127: progenitor, more akin to a Type II supernova. Thus we have an
128: observational inconsistency: W49\,B has enhanced iron abundances
129: which are characteristic of a type Ia supernova, yet it is located
130: in a star forming region and more likely a result of a core-collapse
131: explosion.
132:
133: Recently, \citet{mic06} completed a study of W49B with XMM-Newton,
134: where they concluded that the X-ray emission arises in a
135: high-metallicity collisionally-ionized plasma, with a temperature
136: gradient from west to east.
137:
138: In this {\em Letter} we present near-infrared narrow line imaging
139: (\S\ref{ir.sec}), which we compare to our spectral analysis of {\em
140: Chandra} archival data (\S\ref{chandra.sec})\@. In
141: \S\ref{discussion.sec} we interpret our results as evidence that
142: W49\,B was created inside a wind-blown bubble within a molecular
143: cloud. We also include two very different interpretations of our
144: observations: (1) in \S\ref{grb.sec} we interpret our observations
145: as consistent with a jet-driven explosion (i.e.~Gamma-Ray Burst);
146: and in \S\ref{sn.sec} we interpret our observations as the result of
147: a traditional supernova explosion inside a complex cavity.
148:
149: %%%%%%%%%% ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%%% ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%%% ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%%%
150:
151: \section{Analysis} \label{analysis.sec}
152:
153: \subsection{Near Infrared Observations} \label{ir.sec}
154:
155: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}[htb]
156: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
157: % \rotate
158: \tablecaption{WIRC Observing Log for W49\,B \label{wirc.tab}}
159: %\tablewidth{0pt}
160: \tablehead{\colhead{Filter}&\colhead{Exposure}&\colhead{Pointings}&\colhead{Seeing}&\colhead{Airmass}
161: & \colhead{Tot.\ Time} } \startdata
162: % Filter & NxiT & Pointings & Seeing & Airmass & total tos & Photometri
163: H$_2$ & 3 $\times$ 30\,s & 7 & 0.7\arcsec & 1.34 & 10.5\,min \\
164: K$_{\rm cont}$ & 3 $\times$ 30\,s & 1 & 0.7\arcsec & 1.49 & ~1.5\,min \\
165: ${\rm [Fe\,II]}$ & 2 $\times$ 45\,s & 7 & 0.8\arcsec & 1.16 & 10.5\,min \\
166: K$_{\rm s}$ & 6 $\times$ 10\,s & 12 & 0.7\arcsec & 1.38 & 12.0\,min
167: \enddata
168: \end{deluxetable}
169:
170:
171: \begin{figure}[htb]
172: \plotone{f1.eps}
173: \caption{H$_2$ (red), [Fe\,II] (green) and
174: X-ray (blue) color composite image of W49\,B\@. The K$_s$ image was
175: also included as white, in order to produce white foreground stars.}
176: \label{3color.fig}
177: \end{figure}
178:
179: We observed W49\,B on August 9 and 10, 2003, with the Hale 5\,m telescope
180: on Mt. Palomar, under clear skies, using the new Wide Field Infrared Camera
181: \citep[the WIRC, ][]{wil03}\@. The WIRC is a 2048$\times$2048 Rockwell
182: Hawaii-II NIR detector mounted at the f/3.3 prime focus, resulting in an
183: 8.7\arcmin\ field of view with 0.25\arcsec\ pixels.
184:
185: We observed W49\,B with 4 filters (see Table~\ref{wirc.tab}): two narrow
186: line filters and two continuum filters in the 1.6--2.2\,$\mu$m window. The
187: purpose of the K$_s$ continuum observation was to search for synchrotron
188: emission from W49\,B, which was not observed. With each filter, we alternated
189: observing on and off our source, with each on-source observation located at a
190: slightly different position, well sampling our object as well as the nearby
191: off-source sky.
192:
193: Because the WIRC is a new instrument, we developed our own IRAF package to
194: implement the following procedure independently for each filter: (1)
195: we subtracted off the median dark image with corresponding frame
196: times from each image, and corrected for the non-linear response of
197: the detector; (2) we pixel-by-pixel median averaged our off-source
198: images, with the highest two values rejected to eliminate stars, to
199: form a {\em sky image}; (3) we subtracted the {\em sky image} off of
200: each of our source images; (4) we divided this image by a {\em
201: standard flat} derived from the linear response of each pixel; (5)
202: we subtracted a single median off-source background level; (6) we
203: corrected for cross-field flux bias; (7) we applied a world
204: coordinate system to our images using the 2MASS point-source
205: catalog; (8) we flux-calibrated our images using the 2MASS
206: point-source catalog; (9) we mosaicked our images; (10) we
207: resubtracted the ambient background level; and (11) we applied a
208: final calibration using the 2MASS point-source catalog. The
209: photometric uncertainty was $\sim$7\% for the spectral line
210: observations, and $\sim$6\% for K$_s$, and primarily limited by
211: stellar confusion noise\@.
212:
213: The total narrow-band infrared flux densities are 30\,Jy (mag=3.4,
214: L=1$\times$$10^{37}$\,erg/s) in H$_2$ and 61\,Jy (mag=3.1,
215: L=3$\times$$10^{37}$\,erg/s) in [Fe\,II]\@. We used these values
216: to estimate the mass of Fe$^+$ ions and H$_2$ molecules using
217: multilevel excitation models and a wide range of
218: physically-reasonable excitation conditions, including: all path
219: lengths shorter than the remnant diameter; all reasonable
220: temperatures for the observed ionization state; and pressures less
221: than 1000 times the typical interstellar value \citep[also
222: see][]{rho01}\@. Thus, the mass of Fe$^+$ must be between 0.2 and 20
223: $M_\odot$, with the lower and higher masses corresponding to
224: electron (temperature, density) of (1000 K, 8000 cm$^{-3}$) and
225: (700 K, 1600 cm$^{-3}$), respectively. For H$_2$, the mass is
226: between 14 and 550 $M_\odot$, with the lower and higher masses
227: corresponding to H$_2$ (temperature, density) of (2000 K, 2000
228: cm$^{-3}$) and (1200 K, 3000 cm$^{-3}$), respectively.
229:
230: Our calibrated H$_2$ and [Fe\,II] images are shown as red and green
231: respectively in Fig.~\ref{3color.fig}, while the {\em Chandra} image
232: is blue. This figure shows molecular hydrogen emission well-outside
233: the other emission, especially in the southeast. The [Fe\,II]
234: emission appears to be coaxial rings, defining an elongated shell.
235: The Chandra X-ray emission (see \S\ref{chandra.sec} below) is
236: interior to the near IR emission, stopping at approximately the same
237: location as the [Fe\,II]\@. We interpret these data as evidence that
238: W49\,B was a cavity explosion, as discussed below in
239: \S\ref{discussion.sec}\@.
240:
241: \subsection{{\em Chandra} Archival Data} \label{chandra.sec}
242:
243: \begin{figure}[htb]
244: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{The Chandra image of W49\,B, with spectral
245: extraction regions overlaid. The regions are named from East to
246: West, : {\em Far East}, {\em East Shell}, {\em Jet}, {\em Center},
247: {\em North}, {\em South}, {\em Northwest} and {\em Southwest}. The
248: approximate central RA and Declination are also shown in
249: Table~\ref{parameters.tab}} \label{xray_regions.fig}
250: \end{figure}
251:
252:
253:
254: \begin{figure}[htb]
255: \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{Chandra spectra emission line images for
256: Si (1.65-2.1\,keV), S (2.4-2.7\,keV), Ar (3.0-3.35\,keV, Ca
257: (3.5-4.3\,keV), Fe (6.0-7.2\,keV)and Ni (7.35-8.1\,keV)\@. The
258: images were Gaussian-smoothed with $\sigma$=4\,pixels, except for Ni
259: which was smoothed with $\sigma$=16\,pixels because of its low count
260: rate. For comparison, we also show the Palomar [Fe II] and H$_2$
261: images, as well as the {\em Chandra} 4.86-6.40 continuum image. The
262: images are scaled linearly to the minimum and maximum surface
263: brightness.} \label{xray_lines.fig}
264: \end{figure}
265:
266:
267: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccc}
268: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \rotate \tablecaption{X-ray Spectral Fit
269: Parameters by Region \label{parameters.tab}} \tablewidth{0pt}
270: \tablehead{
271: &\colhead{Center}&\colhead{Jet}&\colhead{East Shell}&\colhead{Far
272: East}&\colhead{North}&\colhead{Southwest}&\colhead{South}&\colhead{Northwest}&\colhead{All\tablenotemark{a}}}
273: \startdata
274: % {Center} {Jet}& {East Shell} {Far East} {North}& {Southwest} {South} {Northwest} {All}
275:
276: \colhead{R.A.} & 19:11:08 & 19:11:11 &
277: 19:11:13 & 19:11:14 & 19:11:09 & 19:11:01 &
278: 19:11:07 & 19:11:03 & --
279: \\
280: \colhead{Dec.} & 9:06:40 & 9:60:30 &
281: 9:05:45 & 9:05:30 & 9:07:45 & 9:05:30 & 9:05:15
282: & 9:07:00 & --
283: \\
284: \colhead{N$_{H}$\tablenotemark{b}}&$5.5 \pm0.4 $ &$5.5 \pm 0.2
285: $&$5.1 \pm 0.2 $&$4.8 \pm 0.5 $&$5.0 \pm 0.2 $&$ 5.8 \pm 0.2
286: $&$5.3 \pm 0.2 $&$5.2
287: \pm 0.1 $&$ 5.18 \pm 0.05$\\
288: \colhead{kT\tablenotemark{c}}&$1.6 \pm0.1 $ &$1.74 \pm 0.06
289: $&$1.66\pm 0.04 $&$1.4 \pm 0.2 $&$1.57 \pm 0.05$&$ 1.33 \pm
290: 0.05$&$1.32\pm
291: 0.04$&$1.53 \pm 0.04$&$ 1.58 \pm 0.02$\\
292: \colhead{$\int n_e n_H dV$\tablenotemark{d}} &$140~^{+60}_{-90}$
293: &$510 \pm 100 $&$1300 \pm 200 $&$160 \pm 70 $&$1200 \pm
294: 200$&$2800 \pm 300 $&$3500
295: \pm 300$&$4400 \pm 300 $&$ 16100 \pm 500$\\
296: \colhead{Si\tablenotemark{e}}&$7~^{+8}_{-3}$ &$4.5~^{+1.4
297: }_{-0.9}$&$2.8 \pm 0.4 $&$2~^{+2}_{-1} $&$2.0 \pm 0.4 $&$ 1.1
298: \pm 0.2$&$1.1 \pm 0.2 $&$1.4
299: \pm 0.2 $&$ 1.84 \pm 0.08$\\
300: \colhead{S \tablenotemark{e} }&$4~^{+8}_{-2}$
301: &$3.6~^{+1.0}_{-0.7} $&$2.8 \pm 0.4 $&$2~^{+2}_{-1} $&$2.0 \pm
302: 0.3 $&$ 1.2 \pm 0.2$&$1.0 \pm 0.2
303: $&$1.35 \pm 0.10$&$ 1.83 \pm 0.07$\\
304: \colhead{Ar\tablenotemark{e}}&$4~^{+8}_{-2}$ &$4 \pm 1
305: $&$2.5 \pm 0.4 $&$1.1~^{+1}_{-0.7} $&$1.6 \pm 0.4 $&$ 1.1 \pm 0.2
306: $&$0.8 \pm 0.2 $&$1.3
307: \pm 0.2 $&$ 1.57 \pm 0.09$\\
308: \colhead{Ca\tablenotemark{e}}&$5~^{+6}_{-2}$ &$5~^{+2}_{-1}
309: $&$3.3 \pm 0.6 $&$3 \pm 2 $&$2.7 \pm 0.6 $&$ 2.0 \pm 0.3
310: $&$1.7 \pm 0.3 $&$2.1 \pm
311: 0.3 $&$ 2.5 \pm 0.2 $\\
312: \colhead{Fe\tablenotemark{e}}&$12~^{+27}_{-5}$ &$9~^{+3}_{-2}
313: $&$4.0 \pm 0.6 $&$2~^{+3}_{-1} $&$3.3 \pm 0.7 $&$ 1.0 \pm
314: 0.2$&$1.3 \pm 0.2 $&$1.5
315: \pm 0.2 $&$ 2.5 \pm 0.2 $\\
316: \colhead{Ni\tablenotemark{e}}&$40~^{+110}_{-20}$&$35~^{+14}_{-9}
317: $&$19 \pm 4 $&$20~^{+27}_{-11} $&$17 \pm 5 $&$ 9 \pm 3
318: $&$7 \pm 3 $&$8
319: \pm 2 $&$ 14 \pm 2 $\\
320: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\nu}$}& 1.0 & 1.4 & 1.9 & 1.0 & 1.5 & 2.0
321: & 1.6 &
322: 2.2 & 5.0 \\
323: \colhead{Mass\tablenotemark{f}}& 0.3 &1.4 &5 &1 &12 &15 &18 &12 & -- \\
324:
325: \enddata
326:
327: \tablenotetext{a}{This region encompasses the whole supernova
328: remnant, and is thus shown for comparison. Note that the single
329: temperature model is unacceptable for the whole SNR.}
330: \tablenotetext{b}{The foreground column density is in units of
331: $10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$} \tablenotetext{c}{The temperature is in units of
332: keV (i.e. 1.2$\times$10$^7$\,K).} \tablenotetext{d}{$\int n_e n_H
333: dV$ is in units of pc$^3$ cm$^{-6}$, and assumes a distance of 11.4
334: kpc.} \tablenotetext{e}{The number per hydrogen relative to solar
335: values. Abundances of the elements not shown were all set to zero
336: for this analysis.} \tablenotetext{f}{A very rough estimate of the
337: mass, in solar masses, assuming a smooth medium. The depth of each
338: region was assumed to be equal to its width.} \tablecomments{Results
339: of spectral fitting, using the single temperature equilibrium model
340: {\sc vmekal}, and the absorption model {\sc wabs}\@. All errors are
341: 90\% confidence. The regions used here are shown in
342: Fig.~\ref{xray_regions.fig}.}
343: \end{deluxetable}
344:
345: The {\em Chandra} X-ray Observatory performed a 55\,ks observation
346: of W49\,B in July of 2000 \citep[PI:\ S.\,S.\,Holt;][]{pet00,sta01};
347: the data became public a year later. Morphologically these data show
348: a double T-shaped structure aligned with the rotation axis of the
349: progenitor star as discussed above in \S\ref{ir.sec} (see
350: Fig~\ref{3color.fig})\@.
351:
352: We obtained screened events files from the {\em Chandra} Supernova
353: Remnant Catalog \citep{sew04}\@. Using standard analysis
354: techniques\footnote{\texttt{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/}}, we
355: extracted spectra from the regions shown in
356: Fig.~\ref{xray_regions.fig}, and made weighted response functions
357: using the {\sc acisspec} script. The data are best-fit using an
358: absorbed \citep[{\sc wabs}, ][]{mor83} single temperature model
359: \citep[{\sc vmekal}, ][]{mew85,mew86,lie95}\@. The {\sc vmekal}
360: model does not appear to be a perfect fit: it under-predicts the
361: 1.865\,keV line emission from He-like Si (Si$^{12+}$) and does
362: include some spectral features between the Ca and Fe lines
363: \citep[also seen by ][]{hwa00}\@. Nevertheless, it is a reasonably
364: good fit overall. We also fit a non-ionization equilibrium model
365: \citep[i.e.\ {\sc vnei,}][]{ham83}, which fared no better than the
366: {\sc vmekal} model ($n\,t > 10^{4} \, {\rm cm^{-3} yr}$), implying
367: that the gas is close to collisional ionization equilibrium\@.
368:
369: Like \citet{hwa00}, we observe an overall overabundance of heaver
370: elements. Moreover, notice from Table~\ref{parameters.tab} the
371: overall trend toward higher metallic abundances in the {\em
372: center}, {\em jet} and {\em eastern shell}, as opposed to the outer
373: regions of W49\,B\@. This same trend can be seen in images of the
374: dominant He-like and H-like emission lines (Si, S, Ar, Ca, Fe and
375: Ni), which are shown in Fig.~\ref{xray_lines.fig}\@. We also
376: extracted a 4-6\,keV continuum image, which is morphologically
377: similar to the Si, S, Ar and Ca images.
378:
379: We roughly estimated the total X-ray-emitting mass in each region,
380: assuming uniform density and assuming that the depth of each region
381: was similar to its width. These mass estimates are also shown in
382: Table~\ref{parameters.tab}\@. Note that these fits imply a total
383: X-ray-emitting Fe mass on the rough order of $\slantfrac{1}{10}{\rm
384: M_{\sun}}$\@. Also, note that despite the clear abundance
385: difference between west and east, the total Fe mass is approximately
386: symmetrical between the east and the west.
387:
388: %%%%%%%%%% DISCUSSION %%%%%%%%%% DISCUSSION %%%%%%%%%%
389:
390: \section{Discussion} \label{discussion.sec}
391:
392: The data presented here imply that W49\,B is the result of an
393: unusual explosion of a massive or super-massive star. The
394: barrel-shaped structure, as seen in the 1.64\,$\mu$m [Fe\,II]
395: emission, is also seen in the high-pass-filtered radio maps of
396: \citet{mof94}, suggesting that the location of warm gas is
397: correlated with high magnetic field. We interpret these as coaxial
398: circular rings of enhanced density structures, such as is common in
399: wind-blown bubbles \citep[e.g. NGC\,6888,][]{par78}\@. Most
400: importantly, the [Fe\,II] emission defines the rotation axis of the
401: progenitor star; which is inclined by 70\arcdeg\ from the line of
402: sight. Note that the [Fe\,II] emission arises from much cooler gas
403: than the X-ray. We interpret the Fe$^{+}$ gas ([Fe\,II] emission)
404: to be material from the progenitor's strong winds, while we
405: interpret the H-like Fe (X-ray Fe lines) to most likely arise from
406: ejecta (as discussed below in \S\ref{grb.sec})\@.
407:
408: The H$_2$ emission clearly shows a bow-shock structure in the
409: southeast, emanating from the point of contact between the X-ray
410: ``jet'' (\S\ref{chandra.sec}) and the shell. The shock appears to
411: have traveled a distance of 1.9\,pc inside the molecular gas, the
412: thickness of the southeastern H$_2$ emission\@. Assuming that the
413: molecular cloud is uniform density, the shock speed must be less
414: than 40\,{km/s} in order to not dissociate the H$_2$\@. This
415: velocity is consistent with an X-ray shock velocity of 1150 km
416: s$^{-1}$ multiplied by $\sqrt{\slantfrac{\rm n_{X}}{\rm n_{H_2}}}$,
417: where n$_{\rm X}$ is a density inferred from X-ray gas of 1-3.5
418: cm$^{-3}$, and $\rm n_{H_2}$ is an H$_2$ gas density of 3000
419: cm$^{-3}$; note the velocity is inversely proportional to square
420: root of the density ratio.
421:
422: The complication with this interpretation is that it would take a
423: 40\,km/s shock 45,000 years to travel the 1.9\,pc that is the
424: apparent thickness of the H$_2$ shell. Thus, either: (1) the
425: remnant actually is 45,000 years old; (2) the thickness of the H$_2$
426: shell is much less than 1.9\,pc; or (3) the shock is moving much
427: faster than 40\,km/s. Each of these possibilities have their own
428: implications: (1) a 45,000 year old remnant would have required a
429: larger explosion energy and containment by the cavity to have such a
430: high current X-ray temperature; (2) complex projection effects
431: would need to be invoked to significantly reduce the distance the
432: shock had to travel in the molecular gas; and (3) a magnetic
433: precursor could propagate faster without dissociating the molecular
434: hydrogen.
435:
436: Elaborating on scenario (3), we can estimate the ionization fraction
437: in the molecular cloud by assuming that the H$_2$ is excited by a
438: magnetic precursor propagating at the ion-magnetosonic speed
439: ($v_{\rm ims}$), as in the Cygnus Loop \citep{gra91} and some
440: Herbig-Haro objects \citep[e.g.\ ][]{HH_object_04}\@. If we also
441: assume equipartition between the magnetic and gas pressures, an age
442: of about 2000 years, and a sound speed of about 3\,km/s
443: (\S\ref{ir.sec}), the ionization fraction in the molecular cloud
444: would be $\frac{2 \rho_i}{\rho} \sim 10^{-5}$, because $v_{\rm ims}
445: \sim \left(\slantfrac{B^2}{4\pi\rho_i}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$, where
446: $\rho_i$ is the ion mass density.
447:
448: The Chandra (\S\ref{chandra.sec}) and XMM-Newton \citep{mic06} data
449: show Ni overabundances and concentrated Fe at the {\em center},
450: which also support an explosion of a massive or super-massive star.
451: We explore two viable interpretations for this morphology and
452: chemical structure. The first interpretation (\S\ref{grb.sec}) is
453: that W49\,B resulted from a jet-driven explosion producing the {\em
454: jet}, chemical structure and H$_2$ bow shock structure. The
455: alternative interpretation (\S\ref{sn.sec}) is that the explosion
456: was itself symmetrical, but rather the jet structure is the result
457: of interactions between the shock and an enriched interstellar
458: cloud.
459:
460: \subsection{The Jet-Driven Explosion Interpretation}\label{grb.sec}
461:
462: A mild consensus has formed regarding the nature of long/soft gamma
463: ray bursts (GRBs): they are the result of massive stellar collapse
464: which produces a highly collimated relativistic blast wave along the
465: poles of the rotation axis of the core of the progenitor star as it
466: collapses to form a black hole \citep{woo99, mac01}\@. This conical
467: blast wave will continue moving forward until it becomes
468: semi-relativistic, at which point it will start expanding
469: perpendicular to the jet \citep{rho97,sar99}\@. This model has been
470: applied successfully to the light curves of GRB afterglows,
471: explaining the sharp steepening of the light curve when the shock
472: slows down and $\Gamma < \theta_{\rm jet}$, where $\Gamma$ is the
473: Lorentz factor of the blast wave and $\theta_{\rm jet}$ is the
474: opening half-angle of the jet, which are believed to be
475: $\sim$10\arcdeg\ on average \citep{fra01,blo03}\@. The distance
476: that the jet travels, the {\em jet-break distance}, depends on the
477: mass it sweeps-up, but this is typically a few parsecs. (At a
478: distance of 11.4\,kpc, the length of the {\em jet} region is about
479: 4\,pc, which would be W49B's observed jet-break distance.)
480:
481: The frequency of observed GRBs is approximately one per $10^7$ years
482: per galaxy \citep{sch99}\@. However, we only observe a fraction of
483: the explosions $f_b$ due to beaming effects, where $f_b = 1 -
484: cos(\theta_{\rm jet})$, increasing the rate to about one per 100,000
485: years per galaxy, assuming the canonical 10\arcdeg\ opening angle.
486: Thus, depending on the length of time the distinguishing
487: characteristics remain intact, it is possible that at least one
488: remnant of a jet-driven explosion could be found in the Milky Way.
489:
490: These explosions result from the most massive stars, so they should
491: occur within the molecular clouds which formed them \citep{rei02}\@.
492: Given that the most massive stars go through phases of high
493: mass-loss rate (e.g.\ LBV phase) and fast stellar winds (e.g.\
494: Wolf-Rayet phase), one would also expect their remnants to be
495: located inside bubbles within molecular clouds
496: \citep{mir03,che04}\@. Therefore, the distinguishing
497: characteristics of a remnant of a jet-driven explosion inside a
498: massive star should include the following: (1) a double T-shaped
499: structure, which traces the path of the bipolar jets; (2) a higher
500: abundance of heavy elements than a typical Type II SNR, because the
501: jet originates from inside the iron core; (3) a supermassive
502: progenitor with strong stellar winds; and (4) the nonexistence of a
503: neutron star. Evidence for these include: (1) the double T-shaped
504: structure is observed in the X-ray images \citep[See Figures
505: \ref{3color.fig} and \ref{xray_lines.fig} and the figures
506: in][]{mic06} and the radio maps \citep{mof94}; (2) {\em Chandra}
507: (\S\ref{chandra.sec}) and {\em XMM-Newton} \citep{mic06} both
508: observe an overabundance of Ni and Fe in the {\em center} and {\em
509: jet} regions; (3) the infrared images show evidence for past stellar
510: winds interacting with a dense circumstellar medium as would be
511: expected from a supermassive progenitor; and (4) there is no
512: evidence for a neutron star in the {\em Chandra} data.
513:
514: When the star collapses, the resulting twin-jets emerge from the
515: poles leaving behind material from the stellar core, thus explaining
516: the enhanced abundances in the {\em center}, {\em jet} and {\em
517: eastern shell} regions \citep[\S\ref{chandra.sec}, ][]{mic06}\@. The
518: jet continues until it encounters enough mass to slow to
519: semi-relativistic speeds (i.e.\ it {\em breaks}), which will happen
520: at the bubble wall, if not before, because of the large density of
521: the molecular cloud. This will result in both a transmitted shock
522: into the dense bubble and a reflected shock back into the cavity.
523: The morphology of W49\,B (Fig.~\ref{3color.fig}) suggests that the
524: southeastern jet broke at the bubble wall, while the northwestern
525: jet broke before hitting the bubble wall. This interpretation would
526: explain the clear morphological structure of the southeastern jet,
527: as well as the more complex northwestern jet. This hypothesis also
528: explains the relative brightness of the western [Fe\,II] emission
529: compared to the X-ray, implying cooler gas in the west as observed
530: here and by \citet{mic06}\@. This is also consistent with the
531: observed $^{13}$CO map of \citet{sim01}, which shows more molecular
532: gas to the north and west of W49\,B than the south and east\@.
533: Moreover, an early western jet-break would also dilute the ejecta,
534: explaining the lower abundances in the west compared to the
535: east---yet there should be about the same Fe mass overall, which is
536: observed (Tab.\,\ref{parameters.tab})\@.
537:
538: An issue to consider is the short cooling time of [Fe\,II], which
539: requires a continuous heating source for the Fe$^+$ gas. Thus,
540: either the Fe$^+$ shell is currently being shocked, or it is gaining
541: energy from the adjacent X-ray emitting hot plasma. The thermal
542: energy currently contained in the X-ray plasma is much greater than
543: the thermal energy in Fe$^+$ (only about 10$^{45}$ ergs) so this
544: seems plausible.
545:
546: \subsection{The Supernova Interpretation} \label{sn.sec}
547:
548: An isotropic explosion inside a wind-blown bubble could also produce
549: these observations, assuming a unique structure of the surrounding
550: medium. The obvious problem, however, is the clear bipolar structure
551: in the infrared data images. A solution may be a strong and ordered
552: magnetic field, which is consistent with W49\,B's high radio surface
553: brightness, the radio and [Fe\,II] hoop morphology, and the possible
554: magnetic precursor in the H$_2$ cloud.
555:
556: The X-ray jet morphology and abundance variations could possibly be
557: explained under this model by postulating a metallically enriched
558: clump of fast moving ejecta which was overtaken by one of the
559: supernova shocks. The shock would break up the clump, spreading the
560: material in a line parallel to the shock velocity. Thus the
561: resulting density enhancement would be elongated radially, and have
562: an overabundance of heavy elements.
563:
564: \citet{mic06} compare W49\,B to the SNR G292.08+1.8, which has an
565: apparently similar X-ray morphology, but has been interpreted to
566: contain a disk or torus of material viewed edge-on \citep{par04}. We
567: disfavor this interpretation for W49\,B, because the axis of the
568: torus would need to be perpendicular to the axis of the bipolar wind
569: structures presented here, so they could not have been caused by the
570: same progenitor star.
571:
572: Another advantage of the supernova model is that W49B's abundances
573: are more consistent with the 25\,M$_\odot$ models of \citet{mae03}
574: than their 40\,M$_\odot$ hypernova models \citep{mic06}\@. However,
575: given the infancy of detailed GRB models in 2003, and the more
576: important chemical morphology, we believe this argument to be weak.
577:
578: This interpretation has the advantage that traditional supernova
579: explosions, inside complex cloud regions, are common well-known
580: occurrences. On the other hand, its primary flaw is that it posits
581: particular cloud configurations to explain particular morphological
582: structures.
583:
584: %%%%%%%%%% CONCLUSION %%%%%%%%%% CONCLUSION %%%%%%%%%%
585:
586: \section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion.sec}
587:
588: We have presented evidence that W49\,B resulted from the explosion
589: of a supermassive star, inside a wind-blown bubble, which is in turn
590: interior to a dense molecular cloud. We have also given two
591: interpretations for its morphological and chemical structure, each
592: explanation require a set of extreme initial conditions. One
593: interpretation assumed that the axially-symmetric structure is
594: caused by the explosion mechanism, resulting in the conclusion that
595: W49\,B was a jet-driven explosion akin to the current model of
596: long/soft gamma-ray bursts. The other interpretation assumed that
597: the same observations were rather dominated by complex cloud and
598: magnetic field structures, and that the explosion could have been a
599: standard isotropic supernova explosion.
600:
601: Future work should consist of detailed modeling, with a realistic
602: preexplosion medium, and with jet-driven and isotropic explosions,
603: to explain all aspects of the W49\,B observations.
604:
605: Additional observations would also be useful, especially in order to
606: understand complete yields of nucleosynthesis with infrared
607: spectroscopy by complementing the yields of the X-ray gas, and to
608: independently map out the molecular cloud structure surrounding
609: W49\,B.
610:
611: \acknowledgments
612:
613: We are grateful to L.\,Rudnick who participated in the observing run
614: and contributed significant insight. We are grateful to J.\,Hester,
615: T.\,Pannuti and W.\,Tucker for insightful discussions. We also
616: thank R.\,Petre for discussions on W49\,B prior to this work.
617: Support for this work was provided by NASA through LTSA grant
618: NRA-01-01-LTSA-013 and Chandra award GO3-4070C awarded to J. Rho\@.
619:
620: \begin{thebibliography}{}
621:
622: % Common energy of GRBs #2
623: \bibitem[Bloom, Frail, \& Kulkarni(2003)]{blo03} Bloom,
624: J.~S., Frail, D.~A., \& Kulkarni, S.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 674
625:
626: % W 49 radio absorption paper
627: \bibitem[Brogan \& Troland(2001)]{bro01} Brogan, C.~L.~\&
628: Troland, T.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 799
629:
630: %\bibitem[Burrows et al.(2005)]{bur05} Burrows, A., Walder,
631: %R., Ott, C.~D., \& Livne, E.\ 2005, Astronomical Society of the Pacific
632: %Conference Series, 332, 358
633:
634: % SNRs in molecular clouds
635: \bibitem[Chevalier(1999)]{che99} Chevalier, R.~A.\ 1999,
636: \apj, 511, 798
637:
638: % GRB light curves in bubbles -- good reference
639: \bibitem[Chevalier, Li, \& Fransson(2004)]{che04} Chevalier,
640: R.~A., Li, Z., \& Fransson, C.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 369
641:
642: % W44 model #1
643: \bibitem[Cox et al.(1999)]{cox99} Cox, D.~P., Shelton, R.~L.,
644: Maciejewski, W., Smith, R.~K., Plewa, T., Pawl, A., \& R{\' o}{\. z}yczka,
645: M.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 179
646:
647: % A 10 pc long HH object from a 5-10 solar mass MS star
648: %\bibitem[Devine et al.(1999)]{dev99} Devine, D., Bally, J.,
649: %Reipurth, B., Shepherd, D., \& Watson, A.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 2919
650:
651: % Common energy of GRBs #1
652: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{fra01} Frail, D.~A., et al.\
653: 2001, \apjl, 562, L55
654:
655: % ASCA paper -- early result not much else
656: %\bibitem[Fujimoto et al.(1995)]{fuj95} Fujimoto, R., et al.\
657: %1995, \pasj, 47, L31
658:
659: % Distance to W49 from maser emission
660: \bibitem[Gwinn, Moran, \& Reid(1992)]{gwi92} Gwinn, C.~R.,
661: Moran, J.~M., \& Reid, M.~J.\ 1992, \apj, 393, 149
662:
663: % Excitation by Magnetic Precursors in the Cygnus Loop
664: \bibitem[Graham et al.(1991)]{gra91} Graham, J.~R.,
665: Wright, G.~S., Hester, J.~J. \& Longmore, A.~J.\ 1990, \aj, 101, 175
666:
667: % NEI Models and the NEI code
668: \bibitem[Hamilton et al.(1983)]{ham83} Hamilton, A.~J.~S.,
669: Chevalier, R.~A., \& Sarazin, C.~L.\ 1983, \apjs, 51, 115
670:
671: % LMC/SMC Metal Rich SNR paper
672: %\bibitem[Hendrick et al.(2003)]{hen03} Hendrick, S.~P.,
673: %Borkowski, K.~J., \& Reynolds, S.~P.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 370
674:
675: % Hwang Cas A paper.
676: %\bibitem[Hwang, Holt, \& Petre(2000)]{CasA_paper} Hwang, U., Holt, S.~S.,
677: %\& Petre, R.\ 2000, \apjl, 537, L119
678:
679: % ASCA Paper -- type Ia
680: \bibitem[Hwang, Petre, \& Hughes(2000)]{hwa00} Hwang, U.,
681: Petre, R., \& Hughes, J.~P.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 970
682:
683: %My AAS poster on GRB's in bubbles
684: %\bibitem[Keohane, Reese, \& Reichart(2004)]{keo04} Keohane,
685: %J.~W., Reese, A.~S., \& Reichart, D.~E.\ 2004, American Astronomical
686: %Society Meeting, 203
687:
688: % W 49 long wavelength radio paper
689: \bibitem[Lacey et al.(2001)]{lac01} Lacey, C.~K., Lazio,
690: T.~J.~W., Kassim, N.~E., Duric, N., Briggs, D.~S., \& Dyer, K.~K.\ 2001,
691: \apj, 559, 954
692:
693: % Small opening angle proposal -- all SNIbc = GRBs
694: %\bibitem[Lamb, Donaghy, \& Graziani(2004)]{lam04} Lamb,
695: %D.~Q., Donaghy, T.~Q., \& Graziani, C.\ 2004, New Astronomy Review, 48, 459
696:
697: % VMEKAL Fe line
698: \bibitem[Liedahl, Osterheld, \& Goldstein(1995)]{lie95}
699: Liedahl, D.~A., Osterheld, A.~L., \& Goldstein, W.~H.\ 1995, \apjl, 438,
700: L115
701:
702: % Collapsar models #2
703: \bibitem[MacFadyen, Woosley, \& Heger(2001)]{mac01}
704: MacFadyen, A.~I., Woosley, S.~E., \& Heger, A.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 410
705:
706: % Nucleosynthesis Paper
707: \bibitem[Maeda \& Nomoto(2003)]{mae03} Maeda, K.~\& Nomoto,
708: K.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 1163
709:
710: % Example of HH objects with magnetic precursors
711: \bibitem[McCoey et al.(2004)]{HH_object_04} McCoey, C., Giannini,
712: T., Flower, D.~R., \& Caratti o Garatti, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 813
713:
714:
715: % VMEKAL code I
716: \bibitem[Mewe, Gronenschild, \& van den Oord(1985)]{mew85}
717: Mewe, R., Gronenschild, E.~H.~B.~M., \& van den Oord, G.~H.~J.\ 1985,
718: \aaps, 62, 197
719:
720: % VMEKAL code II
721: \bibitem[Mewe, Lemen, \& van den Oord(1986)]{mew86} Mewe, R.,
722: Lemen, J.~R., \& van den Oord, G.~H.~J.\ 1986, \aaps, 65, 511
723:
724: \bibitem[Miceli et al.(2006)]{mic06} Miceli, M.,
725: Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., Bocchino, F., Hughes, J.~P., Hwang,
726: U., \& Petre, R.\ 2006, \aap, 453, 567
727:
728: % GRB 021004 as a GRB inside a bubble
729: \bibitem[Mirabal et al.(2003)]{mir03} Mirabal, N., et al.\
730: 2003, \apj, 595, 935
731:
732: % VLA observations
733: \bibitem[Moffett \& Reynolds(1994)]{mof94} Moffett, D.~A.~\&
734: Reynolds, S.~P.\ 1994, \apj, 437, 705
735:
736: % Calculated X-ray cross-sections -- WABS model
737: \bibitem[Morrison \& McCammon(1983)]{mor83} Morrison, R.~\&
738: McCammon, D.\ 1983, \apj, 270, 119
739:
740: % G292 Paper
741: \bibitem[Park et al.(2004)]{par04} Park, S., Hughes, J.~P.,
742: Slane, P.~O., Burrows, D.~N., Roming, P.~W.~A., Nousek, J.~A., \&
743: Garmire, G.~P.\ 2004, \apjl, 602, L33
744:
745: % First H alpha images of NGC 6888
746: \bibitem[Parker(1978)]{par78} Parker, R.~A.~R.\ 1978, \apj,
747: 224, 873
748:
749: % W49\,B Chandra ACIS poster
750: \bibitem[Petre, Hwang, \& Holt(2000)]{pet00} Petre, R.,
751: Hwang, U., \& Holt, S.~S.\ 2000, Bulletin of the American Astronomical
752: Society, 32, 1236
753:
754: % X-ray radio paper. Showed MM structure
755: \bibitem[Pye, Thomas, Becker, \& Seward(1984)]{pye84} Pye,
756: J.~P., Thomas, N., Becker, R.~H., \& Seward, F.~D.\ 1984, \mnras, 207, 649
757:
758: % Evidence for molecular cloud origin of GRBs
759: \bibitem[Reichart \& Price(2002)]{rei02} Reichart, D.~E.~\&
760: Price, P.~A.\ 2002, \apj, 565, 174
761:
762: % First idea on how to measure jets
763: \bibitem[Rhoads(1997)]{rho97} Rhoads, J.~E.\ 1997, \apjl,
764: 487, L1
765:
766: % Mixed-morphology SNR obs summary paper
767: \bibitem[Rho \& Petre(1998)]{rho98} Rho, J.~\& Petre, R.\
768: 1998, \apjl, 503, L167
769:
770: % 2MASS IC 443 observation
771: \bibitem[Rho, Jarrett, Cutri, \& Reach(2001)]{rho01} Rho, J.,
772: Jarrett, T.~H., Cutri, R.~M., \& Reach, W.~T.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 885
773:
774: % Spitzer detection of Ni in Kepler
775: %\bibitem[Roellig \& Onaka(2004)]{roe04} Roellig, T.~L., \&
776: %Onaka, T.\ 2004, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts,
777: %205
778:
779: % Jets in GRBs
780: \bibitem[Sari, Piran, \& Halpern(1999)]{sar99} Sari, R.,
781: Piran, T., \& Halpern, J.~P.\ 1999, \apjl, 519, L17
782:
783: % Frequency of GRBs
784: \bibitem[Schmidt(1999)]{sch99} Schmidt, M.\ 1999, \apjl, 523, L117
785:
786: % SNR Catalog Reference
787: \bibitem[Seward et al.(2004)]{sew04} Seward, F., Smith, R.,
788: Hagler, J., Portolese, L., Gaetz, T., Slane, P., Koo, B.-C., \& Lee, J.-J.\
789: 2004, IAU Symposium, 218, 93 (http://snrcat.cfa.harvard.edu/)
790:
791: % Theory of W44
792: \bibitem[Shelton et al.(1999)]{she99} Shelton, R.~L., Cox,
793: D.~P., Maciejewski, W., Smith, R.~K., Plewa, T., Pawl, A., \& R{\' o}{\.
794: z}yczka, M.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 192
795:
796: % 13 CO map of W49
797: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2001)]{sim01} Simon, R., Jackson,
798: J.~M., Clemens, D.~P., Bania, T.~M., \& Heyer, M.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 551, 747
799:
800: % 2nd W49\,B ACIS poster
801: \bibitem[Stahle et al.(2001)]{sta01} Stahle, C.~K., Petre,
802: R., Hwang, U., Harrus, I.~M., \& Holt, S.~S.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~251: New
803: Century of X-ray Astronomy, 278
804:
805: % Evaporating cloud model of MM SNRs
806: \bibitem[White \& Long(1991)]{whi91} White, R.~L.~\& Long,
807: K.~S.\ 1991, \apj, 373, 543
808:
809: % WIRC reference
810: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2003)]{wil03} Wilson, J.~C., et al.\
811: 2003, \procspie, 4841, 451
812:
813: % Collapsar model #1
814: \bibitem[Woosley \& MacFadyen(1999)]{woo99} Woosley, S.~E.~\&
815: MacFadyen, A.~I.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 499
816:
817: \end{thebibliography}
818:
819: \end{document}
820: