We study the dynamical behavior of dissipative solitons in an optical cavity
filled with a Kerr medium when a localized beam is applied on top of the
homogeneous pumping. In particular, we report on the excitability regime that
cavity solitons exhibits which is emergent property since the system is not
locally excitable. The resulting scenario differs in an important way from the
case of a purely homogeneous pump and now two different excitable regimes, both
Class I, are shown. The whole scenario is presented and discussed, showing that
it is organized by three codimension-2 points. Moreover, the localized beam can
be used to control important features, such as the excitable threshold,
improving the possibilities for the experimental observation of this
phenomenon.Comment: 9 Pages, 12 figure

Blagorodnova, N.

Bue, B. D.

Cenko, S. B.

Cook, D. O.

De Cia, A.

Fransson, C.

Fremling, C. U.

Gal-Yam, A.

Gatkine, P.

Kasliwal, M. M.

Kulkarni, S. R.

Leloudas, G.

Lunnan, R.

Masci, F. J.

Nugent, P. E.

Nyholm, A.

Perley, D. A.

Quimby, R. M.

Rubin, A.

Suzuki, N.

Vreeswijk, P. M.

Woosley, S. E.

Wozniak, P.

Yan, Lin

English

arXiv

9 pages, 12 figures.-- PACS nrs.: 42.65.Tg, 42.65.Sf, 05.45.-a, 89.75.Fb.-- ArXiv pre-print available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2570We study the dynamical behavior of dissipative solitons in an optical cavity filled with a Kerr medium when a localized beam is applied on top of the homogeneous pump. In particular, we report on the excitability regime that cavity solitons exhibit which is an emergent property since the system is not locally excitable. The resulting scenario differs in an important way from the case of a purely homogeneous pump and now two different excitable regimes, both class I, are shown. The whole scenario is presented and discussed, showing that it is organized by three codimension-2 points. Moreover, the localized beam can be used to control important features, such as the excitable threshold, improving the possibilities for the experimental observation of this phenomenon.We acknowledge financial support from MEC (Spain) and FEDER (EU) through Grants No. FIS2007-60327 (FISICOS) and No. TEC2006-10009 (PhoDeCC), and from Govern Balear through Grant No. PROGECIB-5A (QULMI). We are grateful to Diego Pazó for useful discussions. A.J. acknowledges financial support from MEC.Peer reviewe

Jacobo, Adrián

Gomila, Damià

Matías, Manuel A.

Colet, Pere

Digital.CSIC

Physical Review A

Effects of a localized beam on the dynamics of excitable cavity solitons

Cia, A. De

Copenhagen University Research Information System

A UV resonance line echo from a shell around a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova

Hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSN-I) are a class of rare and energetic explosions that have been discovered in untargeted transient surveys in the past decade(1,2). The progenitor stars and the physical mechanism behind their large radiated energies (about 1O(51) erg or 1O(44) J) are both debated, with one class of models primarily requiring a large rotational energy(3,4) and the other requiring very massive progenitors that either convert kinetic energy into radiation through interaction with circumstellar material (CSM)(5-8 )or engender an explosion caused by pair-instability (loss of photon pressure due to particle-antiparticle production)(9,10). Observing the structure of the CSM around SLSN-I offers a powerful test of some scenarios, although direct observations are scarce(11,)(12). Here, we present a series of spectroscopic observations of the SLSN-I iPTF16eh, which reveal both absorption and time- and frequency-variable emission in the Mg n resonance doublet. We show that these observations are naturally explained as a resonance scattering light echo from a circumstellar shell. Modelling the evolution of the emission, we infer a shell radius of 0.1 pc and velocity of 3,300 km s(-1), implying that the shell was ejected three decades before the supernova explosion. These properties match theoretical predictions of shell ejections occurring because of pulsational pair-instability and imply that the progenitor had a helium core mass of about 50-55 M-circle dot, corresponding to an initial mass of about 115 M-circle dot.</p

Lunnan, Ragnhild,

Fransson, Claes,

Nyholm, Anders,

Swepub

Adrian Jacobo

Damià Gomila

Manuel A. Matías

Pere Colet

B. S. Kerner

W. J. Firth

N. N. Rosanov

S. H. Strogatz

E. M. Izhikevich

Y. A. Kuznetsov

T. Poston

F. Dumortier

Crossref

Hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSN-I) are a class of rare and energetic explosions that have been discovered in untargeted transient surveys in the past decade1,2. The progenitor stars and the physical mechanism behind their large radiated energies (about 1051 erg or 1044 J) are both debated, with one class of models primarily requiring a large rotational energy3,4 and the other requiring very massive progenitors that either convert kinetic energy into radiation through interaction with circumstellar material (CSM)5,6,7,8 or engender an explosion caused by pair-instability (loss of photon pressure due to particle–antiparticle production)9,10. Observing the structure of the CSM around SLSN-I offers a powerful test of some scenarios, although direct observations are scarce11,12. Here, we present a series of spectroscopic observations of the SLSN-I iPTF16eh, which reveal both absorption and time- and frequency-variable emission in the Mg ii resonance doublet. We show that these observations are naturally explained as a resonance scattering light echo from a circumstellar shell. Modelling the evolution of the emission, we infer a shell radius of 0.1 pc and velocity of 3,300 km s−1, implying that the shell was ejected three decades before the supernova explosion. These properties match theoretical predictions of shell ejections occurring because of pulsational pair-instability and imply that the progenitor had a helium core mass of about 50–55 M⊙, corresponding to an initial mass of about 115 M⊙

Lunnan, R

Fransson, C

Vreeswijk, PM

Woosley, SE

Leloudas, G

Perley, DA

Quimby, RM

Yan, L

Blagorodnova, N

Bue, BD

Cenko, SB

De Cia, A

Cook, DO

Fremling, CU

Gatkine, P

Gal-Yam, A

Kasliwal, MM

Kulkarni, SR

Masci, FJ

Nugent, PE

Nyholm, A

Rubin, A

Suzuki, N

Wozniak, P

LJMU Research Online (Liverpool John Moores University)

Hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSN-I) are a class of rare and energetic explosions that have been discovered in untargeted transient surveys in the past decade. The progenitor stars and the physical mechanism behind their large radiated energies (about 10^(51) erg or 10^(44) J) are both debated, with one class of models primarily requiring a large rotational energy and the other requiring very massive progenitors that either convert kinetic energy into radiation through interaction with circumstellar material (CSM) or engender an explosion caused by pair-instability (loss of photon pressure due to particle–antiparticle production). Observing the structure of the CSM around SLSN-I offers a powerful test of some scenarios, although direct observations are scarce. Here, we present a series of spectroscopic observations of the SLSN-I iPTF16eh, which reveal both absorption and time- and frequency-variable emission in the Mg IIresonance doublet. We show that these observations are naturally explained as a resonance scattering light echo from a circumstellar shell. Modelling the evolution of the emission, we infer a shell radius of 0.1 pc and velocity of 3,300 km s−1, implying that the shell was ejected three decades before the supernova explosion. These properties match theoretical predictions of shell ejections occurring because of pulsational pair-instability and imply that the progenitor had a helium core mass of about 50–55 M_⊙, corresponding to an initial mass of about 115 M_⊙

Caltech Authors - Main

Letters
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0568-z
A UV resonance line echo from a shell around a 
hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova
R. Lunnan   1,2*, C. Fransson1, P. M. Vreeswijk3, S. E. Woosley4, G. Leloudas   5, D. A. Perley6,  
R. M. Quimby7,8, Lin Yan9, N. Blagorodnova2, B. D. Bue10, S. B. Cenko11,12, A. De Cia13, D. O. Cook   2,  
C. U. Fremling2, P. Gatkine   11, A. Gal-Yam   3, M. M. Kasliwal2, S. R. Kulkarni2, F. J. Masci14,  
P. E. Nugent15,16, A. Nyholm1, A. Rubin3, N. Suzuki8 and P. Wozniak17
1Oskar Klein Centre, Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 2Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, 
Pasadena, CA, USA. 3Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics and the Helen Kimmel Center for Planetary Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. 
4Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. 5Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, University of 
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 7Department of Astronomy,  
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 8Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan. 9Caltech Optical 
Observatories & Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. 10Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California 
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. 11Astrophysics Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA. 12Joint Space-
Science Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 13European Southern Observatory, Garching bei Munchen, Germany. 14Infrared 
Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. 15Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. 
16Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 17Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS-D466, Los Alamos, NM, USA. *e-mail: 
ragnhild.lunnan@astro.su.se
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
In the format provided by the authors and unedited.
NAtURE AStRONOMY | www.nature.com/natureastronomy
Supplementary Information
0 100 200 300 400 500
26
24
22
20
18
Phase (rest frame days)
Ap
pa
re
nt
 m
ag
ni
tu
de
 (m
ag
)
SSS S S S S S S S S
−16
−18
−20
−22
Ab
so
lu
te
 M
ag
ni
tu
de
 (m
ag
)
B − 1 mag
g
r + 1 mag
i + 2 mag
2800 Å
Supplementary Figure 1 Observed light curve of iPTF16eh. Data is mainly from the P48 and
P60 telescopes, and is listed in Supplementary Table 1. Filters have been offset for clarity as
indicated in the legend, and dates of the spectroscopy epochs are marked with S symbols along
the bottom axis. Upper limits are 5σ. The open symbols after 200 days show unsubtracted pho-
tometry, and may have a significant host galaxy contribution. Open black circles show the flux at
a rest-frame wavelength of 2800 A˚ , as measured from the continuum flux in the spectra in the
region 2765 – 2834 A˚.
1
68
10
12
14
16
18
Te
m
pe
ra
tu
re
 (1
03  
K)
a
0
2
4
6
8
10
R
ad
iu
s 
(10
15
 
cm
)
b
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time since explosion (rest−frame days)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Lu
m
in
os
ity
 (1
044
 
e
rg
 s
−
1 ) c
Supplementary Figure 2 Evolution of (a) the blackbody temperature, (b) the blackbody radius,
and (c) the pseudo-bolometric luminosity. Blackbody parameters are derived by fitting a Planck
function to the observed photometry using IDL’s mpfit routine, and the error bars plotted are the
1σ uncertainties given the observed photometry. The pseudo-bolometric luminosity is calculated
by integrating the observed flux as well as a blackbody tail redwards of the observed bands, and
the plotted uncertainties include both these components. As we do not have multiband data on the
rise of the light curve, the points on the rise are calculated scaling from the g-band light curve and
assuming a constant bolometric correction (open circles). Any extra (systematic) uncertainty from
this assumption is not included in the error bars, which reflect the statistical uncertainties only.
2
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rest Wavelength (Å)
+14d
iPTF13ajg +10d
+44d
iPTF13ajg +46d
PTF12dam
+55d
+62d
SN2015bn +106d
+105d
0
2
4
6
8
Sc
al
ed
 F
λ 
+
 c
o
n
st
an
t
Supplementary Figure 3 Spectra of iPTF16eh (black) compared to the well-studied SLSNe
PTF12dam?, iPTF13ajg?, and SN 2015bn?. To facilitate comparisons, supernova phases are la-
beled relative to peak light (MJD 57424.3 in the case of iPTF16eh). The spectra are smoothed
by a Savitzky-Golay filter, with the unsmoothed data shown in the background. The spectra have
been normalized to the flux level at 4000 A˚ and are offset from each other by one scale unit.
3
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
50d/5
100d/2
150d
200d 250d
300d
350d
Rin = 130 Rout = 137. Standard LC
50d/5
100d/2
150d
200d 250d 300d
350d
Rin = 130 Rout = 137. Single line at 2800 A˚
2760 2770 2780 2790 2800 2810 2820 2830 2840
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
50d/5
100d/2
150d
200d 250d
300d
350d
Rin = 130 Rout = 137. Constant pro-peak flux
2760 2770 2780 2790 2800 2810 2820 2830 2840
50d/5
100d/2
150d
200d
250d 300d
350d
400d
Rin = 150 Rout = 160. Standard LC
Fl
ux
(n
or
m
al
iz
ed
to
50
da
y
co
nt
in
uu
m
)
Rest wavelength (A˚)
Supplementary Figure 4 Time sequence of simulated spectra in the Mg II wavelength region,
similar to Figure 3 of the main article, for different choices of shell parameters and input light
curves. Upper left: Standard values for the light curve and shell, Rin = 130 light days, Rin = 137
light days. Upper right: Same parameters, but with only a single line at a rest wavelength 2800
A˚. Note the double-peaked line profiles, the broader lines, as well as the nearly double intensity in
the doublet case. Lower left: Same shell parameters, but constant continuum flux before the peak.
Note the flat red plateau in the line profile. Lower right: Effect of changing the parameters of the
shell to Rin = 150 light days, Rin = 160 light days. Standard light curve. Note the slower evolution
in wavelength and narrower line profiles. No smoothing due to the instrumental resolution has
been applied too these simulations.
4
−200 −100 0 100 200 300
Distance (light days)
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
200
Di
st
an
ce
 (l
ig
ht
 d
ay
s)
Observer
100d
200d
300d
Supplementary Figure 5 Approximate geometry of the shell and light echo parabolas, corre-
sponding to three different observed epochs, 100, 200 and 300 days after explosion. The outer
parabola corresponds to the shock breakout and the dashed to the peak luminosity, assumed to
be at ∼ 35 days after shock breakout. The inner parabola, representing the end of the light curve,
is defined by the time after shock breakout corresponding to 95% of the integrated luminosity of
the model light curve, here 89 days. The radial and horizontal arrows correspond to the expansion
velocity of the ring, ∼ 3300 km s−1, and the line of sight velocity for the peak of the light curve,
respectively.
5
−200 −100 0 100 200 300
Distance (light days)
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
200
Di
st
an
ce
 (l
ig
ht
 d
ay
s)
Observer
a
50d
100d200d
300d
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time since explosion (days)
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
Pe
ak
 v
el
oc
ity
 (k
m
 s
−1
)
b
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time since explosion (days)
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
Pe
ak
 v
el
oc
ity
 (k
m
 s
−1
)
c
Supplementary Figure 6 Panel a: Same as Fig. 5 but for two additional shell geometries, with
ellipsoids with major (minor) axis 137 light days along the line of sight and minor (major) axis
perpendicular to the line of sight and an axial ratio of 1.37. See text for details. Panels b and c:
Peak velocity evolution for these geometries for a shell with V ∝ r (Panel b) and V =constant
(Panel c). The purple line shows the spherical case, the blue line the ellipsoid with major axis 137
light days, and the green line the ellipsoid with minor axis 137 light days. Note the departures from
the linear evolution in all of the non-spherical cases.
6
Supplementary Table 1. iPTF16eh Photometry
MJD Rest-frame Phase Filter AB Mag Instrument
(days) (days)
57358.53 −8.39 g > 20.71 P48
57358.56 −8.37 g > 20.86 P48
57361.54 −6.28 g > 20.64 P48
57373.54 2.13 g 21.43± 0.23 P48
57373.57 2.15 g > 20.03 P48
57388.55 12.65 g 19.62± 0.07 P48
57388.58 12.67 g 19.70± 0.12 P48
57400.55 21.06 g 19.24± 0.07 P48
57420.53 35.05 g 19.00± 0.03 P48
57420.56 35.08 g 18.99± 0.06 P48
Note. — Full table is available as a separate, machine-readable file. A
portion is shown here for clarity.
7
Supplementary Table 2. Summary of Spectroscopic Observations
Observation Date Phasea Telescope+Instrument Gratingb Exp. timeb Airmass
(YYYY MM DD.D) (rest-frame days) (s)
2016 Feb 18.5 45.9 Subaru+FOCAS · · · 600 1.03
2016 Feb 27.5 52.5 P200+DBSP 600/4000, 316/7500 900 1.16
2016 Mar 06.6 58.2 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 280, 240 1.27
2016 Apr 10.3 82.5 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 300, 300 1.11
2016 May 05.4 100.1 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 1200, 1120 1.16
2016 Jun 07.3 123.2 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 600, 520 1.18
2016 Jun 10.4 125.3 Keck I+LRIS 600/4000, 400/8500 1905, 1800 1.55
2016 Jul 06.3 143.5 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 2400, 2280 1.64
2017 Jan 02.6 269.8 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 2730, 2550 1.26
2017 Feb 27.5 309.0 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 3600, 3510 1.06
2017 Mar 29.4 329.9 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 5415, 5070 1.09
2017 Apr 29.4 351.7 Keck I+LRIS 400/3400, 400/8500 7200, 7020 1.25
aRelative to best-fit explosion date on 2015 December 14.5. To get phase relative to g-band peak, subtract 37.7 days.
bComma-separated values indicate setup for blue and red arms, respectively.
8
Supplementary Table 3. Emission Line Properties
MJD Time since explosion Line centroid Line FWHM Line flux
(days) (rest-frame days) (A˚ , rest-frame) (A˚ , rest-frame) (10−16 erg s−1 cm−2)
57513.4 100.1 2785.41 ± 0.85 13.7 ± 2.0 1.89 ± 0.37
57546.3 123.2 2790.59 ± 0.76 15.7 ± 1.8 1.42 ± 0.22
57549.4 125.3 2787.48 ± 0.73 12.0 ± 1.7 1.17 ± 0.23
57575.3 143.5 2793.11 ± 0.67 16.6 ± 1.5 1.24 ± 0.16
57755.6 269.8 2820.50 ± 0.24 13.7 ± 0.6 2.02 ± 0.11
57811.5 309.0 2825.24 ± 0.29 12.5 ± 0.7 1.03 ± 0.07
57841.4 329.9 2827.56 ± 1.64 14.4 ± 4.0 0.49 ± 0.17
57872.4 351.7 · · · · · · < 0.28
Note. — Table is also available in machine-readable form.
9
Supplementary Table 4. Blackbody Parameters and Pseudo-Bolometric Light Curve
MJD Time since explosion Pseudo-bolometric luminosity Blackbody temperature Blackbody radius
(days) (rest-frame days) (1044 erg s−1) (103 K (1015 cm)
57427.3 39.8 2.73 ± 0.14 16.0 ± 1.4 3.6 ± 0.4
57429.2 41.2 2.61 ± 0.07 15.6 ± 0.7 3.7 ± 0.2
57431.2 42.6 2.63 ± 0.05 15.1 ± 0.5 3.9 ± 0.2
57435.3 45.4 2.55 ± 0.07 14.2 ± 0.5 4.1 ± 0.2
57439.2 48.1 2.67 ± 0.13 16.3 ± 1.5 3.5 ± 0.4
57441.2 49.5 2.81 ± 0.23 12.6 ± 1.1 5.0 ± 0.7
57443.2 50.9 2.53 ± 0.13 13.9 ± 1.0 4.2 ± 0.4
57445.4 52.5 2.50 ± 0.09 13.0 ± 0.6 4.7 ± 0.3
57451.5 56.7 2.66 ± 0.20 13.0 ± 1.3 4.8 ± 0.7
57464.2 65.6 2.33 ± 0.08 12.3 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.3
Note. — Full table is available as a separate, machine-readable file. A portion is shown here for clarity.
10


Effects of a localized beam on the dynamics of excitable cavity solitons

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions