Rapidly Interpreting UV-optical Light Curve Properties Using a “Simple” Modeling Approach

Abstract

Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) have very distinct observational properties that depend on the composition of the progenitor star, the dynamics of the explosion mechanism, and the surrounding stellar wind environment. In recent years, due to the uncertainty behind the type of massive star that evolves into different types of core-collapse events, there has been an increase in core-collapse supernova surveys aiding the advancement of numerical supernova simulations that explore the properties of the star before the explosion. Observationally, the unpredictable nature of these events makes it difficult to identify the type of star from which the CCSNe subtype evolves, but the issue from a theoretical standpoint relies on a gap in our current understanding of the explosion mechanism. The general light curve properties of CCSNe (rise, peak, and decay) by subtype are diverse, but appear to be homogeneous within each subtype, with the exception of Type IIn.. Simplified SN models can be processed quickly in order to explore the properties of the progenitor star along with the explosion mechanism and circumstellar medium. Here, we present a suite of SN light curve models presented using a 1-temperature, homologous outflow light curve code. The SN explosion is modeled from shock breakout through the ultimate uncovering of the nickel core. We are able to rapidly explore the diversity of the SN light curves by studying the effects of various explosion and progenitor star parameters, including ejecta mass, explosion energy, shock temperature, and stellar radii using this "simple" calculation technique. Furthermore, we compare UV and optical modeled light curves to Swift UVOT IIn observations to identify the general initial conditions that enable the difference between SN 2009ip and SN 2011ht light curve properties. Our results indicate that the peak light curve is dominated by the shock temperature and explosion energy, whereas the shape depends on the mass of the ejecta and the explosion energy. Based on this modeling approach, the comparison SN light curves are a product of processes occurring after shock breakout, but before Ni-56 decay. Therefore, the energy from nickel decay does not play a major role in the light curves of these explosions. In general, the diversity between SN 2009ip and SN 2011ht can be explained by the differences in the outer ejecta mass and the explosion energy.