SN2017jgh: A high-cadence complete shock cooling light curve of a SN IIb with the Kepler telescope
Affiliation
Steward Observatory, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2021
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Oxford University PressCitation
Armstrong, P., Tucker, B. E., Rest, A., Ridden-Harper, R., Zenati, Y., Piro, A. L., Hinton, S., Lidman, C., Margheim, S., Narayan, G., Shaya, E., Garnavich, P., Kasen, D., Villar, V., Zenteno, A., Arcavi, I., Drout, M., Foley, R. J., Wheeler, J., … Zsidi, G. (2021). SN2017jgh: A high-cadence complete shock cooling light curve of a SN IIb with the Kepler telescope. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507(3), 3125–3138.Rights
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
SN 2017jgh is a type IIb supernova discovered by Pan-STARRS during the C16/C17 campaigns of the Kepler/K2 mission. Here, we present the Kepler/K2 and ground based observations of SN 2017jgh, which captured the shock cooling of the progenitor shock breakout with an unprecedented cadence. This event presents a unique opportunity to investigate the progenitors of stripped envelope supernovae. By fitting analytical models to the SN 2017jgh light curve, we find that the progenitor of SN 2017jgh was likely a yellow supergiant with an envelope radius of ∼ 50-290R⊙, and an envelope mass of ∼ 0-1.7M⊙. SN 2017jgh likely had a shock velocity of ∼7500-10 300 km s-1. Additionally, we use the light curve of SN 2017jgh to investigate how early observations of the rise contribute to constraints on progenitor models. Fitting just the ground based observations, we find an envelope radius of ∼ 50-330R⊙, an envelope mass of ∼ 0.3-1.7M⊙ and a shock velocity of ∼9000-15 000 km s-1. Without the rise, the explosion time cannot be well constrained that leads to a systematic offset in the velocity parameter and larger uncertainties in the mass and radius. Therefore, it is likely that progenitor property estimates through these models may have larger systematic uncertainties than previously calculated. © 2021 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society.Note
Immediate accessISSN
0035-8711Version
Final published versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1093/mnras/stab2138