ken nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp paolo mazzali@circe.oat.ts.astro.it %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sat Feb 23 10:19:12 2002 To: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Cc: nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Subject: polarization of SN2002ap Dear David, How is New Mexico. I got your address from Kazuhito. As you may know, SUBARU group has observed the polarization of the hypernova SN 2002ap with FOCAS (see IAUC below). This is the first observations of spectro-polarimetry with FOCAS. Here nobody is familiar with the polarization of supernovae. I know you have studied a lot about supernova polarization. (Lifan and Peter Hoflich have their own ESO/VLT observations.) So I would appreciate it if you could join our study of the polarization of SN 2002ap to write one section about the implication of the polarization of this hypernova in a week or so. If the results are interesting, we could write a separate theory-oriented paper as well. Please look at http://www.astr.tohoku.ac.jp/~kawabata/sn2002/SN2002A3.jpg Since SN2002ap will be behind the Sun after March 1, no more data available until the end of June. Any comments are welcome. I have electronic data of flux but not polarization yet. If you need, I will be able to send you those electronic data. Hope you can join us. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 23 Dear Ken: Thanks for thinking of me. I'd be happy join on and write a section. You'll probably notice that I've not published anything on supernova polarization in 11 years, but recently my interest has been revived and I've written a paper on a new (?) bipolar jet model for SN polarization. At most the bipolar jet model can only probably account for some polarization of some supernovae. But it at least has the virtue of simplicity: essentially one equation reprocesses flux data given a few parameters and generates a synthetic polarization spectrum. Alas, my paper has been hanging fire since September due to teaching duties and general sloth, but it's close to a final product. I'll send along a postscript preprint after this message. It may not be worth reading yet, but the synthetic polarization spectra to first order look interesting---unfortunately almost any asymmetry model would do the same. I have to confess, I've been oblivious SN 2002ap. I've been doing a fast catch-up this evening. It's certainly a remarkable object. No hint of a gamma-ray burst---but then I guess it may not be beamed toward us. But if there were jets streaming out not beamed toward us, that would enhance their polarization signature through high-angle scattering---assuming that the jets are highly ionized and polarizing. Please do send me the flux spectra in ASCII two-column format. After all these years I still don't know how to use IRAF. Is Paolo working on the flux specta? Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sun Feb 24 05:19:50 2002 To: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Subject: SN 2002ap From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Dear David, I am glad to get your positive reply. Please get the flux data from: http://www.astr.tohoku.ac.jp/~kawabata/sn2002/ipt.tar.gz immdd.xy: A - flux(erg/cm2/sec/A) pmmdd.xy: A - polarization (%) tmmdd.xy: A - angle Flux data is OK, but the latter two are old ones. I will get the revised ones which are used in the plots you saw. Paolo Mazzali, fortunately, happened to be visiting Tokyo from Feb 12 to March 24. We are trying to constrain models with spectra and light curves, although the final answer has not been reached yet. Anyway, please start with your approach. In the IR spectrum (CISCO), He like (helium-like) feature is seen as reported in IAUC. If you need it, I will send that one as well. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 24 Hi Ken: Unfortunately, I don't have permission to acces the http://www.astr.tohoku.ac.jp/~kawabata/sn2002/ipt.tar.gz Best Regards David David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 24 Hi Ken: Are you-all aiming at a letter with my section being quite short. If you have anything written now, I'd be grateful to see it. Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sun Feb 24 21:19:46 2002 Subject: ipt.tar.gz From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Cc: nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Hi David, I attach ipt.tar.gz file, where i files give flux for 4 days (0208-0211), which should be OK, and p, t files give polarization data, which are old; if polarization data are better than just plots, please use them. I will try to get updated ones, but don't know when they will release. We are trying to write something, but not yet a draft form. Around the SUBARU observations, SN2002ap looks more like 97ef than 98bw. Thanks. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 24 Hi Ken: Could you send me the files in ASCII: my capacity for reading attachments seems to be off-line tonight. Sorry for the nuisance. Best Regards David David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 24 Hi Ken: You could you send those files again. I'm not having a very good night with email retrieval. Sorry again. Best Regards David David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 24 Hi Ken: Thanks finally got them all. I'll have a close look at them tomorrow. Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Mon Feb 25 00:00:31 2002 Hi David, I got the revised data. I will send you 4 files, whose format is as follows. Here i files (flux) are the same files as before. Polarization files include more information. Best wishes, Ken ------------------------------------------ Format of i data (i????.xy) lambda flux (x const.) (A) (erg/cm2/sec/A) 3800. 2.569898E-14 3801.35000002384 2.365333E-14 ------------------------------------------ Format of qupt data (qupt????.xy) lambda Q/I U/I Pol PA (A) (%) (%) (%) (deg) 3800.00 -0.678 +1.890 2.008 54.87 3813.50 +0.346 -0.992 1.050 144.61 3827.00 -1.551 +0.805 1.748 76.28 3840.50 -0.386 +1.549 1.596 51.99 3854.00 +1.030 +0.877 1.353 20.21 3867.50 +0.004 +0.067 0.067 43.15 3881.00 -1.537 +0.711 1.694 77.59 3894.50 -0.917 -0.167 0.932 95.15 3908.00 -0.170 -0.709 0.729 128.26 3921.50 -0.164 +0.511 0.537 53.90 ------------------------------------------ Some observational Parameters UT JD grism/filter Feb 9.24 2452314.74 300B + Y47, L600 10.28 2452315.78 300B + Y47 11.26 2452316.76 300B + Y47, L600 12.26 2452317.76 300B + Y47 David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 February 25 Hi Ken: Can you put me in touch with the person handling the calibration, etc. of the spectra and polarimetry. I've some questions detail (which will have to wait till tomorrow since I need to prep for my lecture tonight). In particular the Feb. 11 position angle of polarization is so different than the others that I have to think something is strange about it. Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Mon Feb 25 21:07:52 2002 Subject: SN 2002ap From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Hi David, It's nice that you have already started working on data. Please contact Koji Kawabata on calibration. Looking forward to hearing more from you. Best wishes, Ken From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sat Mar 02 19:40:26 2002 Subject: SN 2002ap Hi David, How is your modeling of the polarization of SN 2002ap ? This SN seems to be a bit less energetic, less massive than SN97ef, but still as energetic as 5-10 foe. Here, we plan to have a TV meeting with SUBARU observers on March 7 (Thr; 9 am in Japan time), i.e., between Tokyo and Hawaii, to discuss our current understanding of SN2002ap. So I would appreciate it hearing any results by the evening of 5th (Tuesday) of your time, so that I can show something. We will then discuss the plan of writing papers on the polarization. For a paper with observers+theorists, we need to provide one section, and I hope we can prepare a follow-up long paper with theorists+observers (of course, you will be the 1st author). Looking forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 March 2 Hi Ken: I'm afraid the supernova polarization is not leading to one consistent believable picture rapidly. I'll send 4 postscript figures after this analysis message. I'll also send this material to Paolo and Koji for their comments. Koji tells me that only Feb 8 and 9 polarization data can be fully trusted and this agrees with what I see since the other two days are inconsistent with Feb 8 and 9. Since Feb 8 has the best wavelength coverage I've concentrated on that day. Figure 1 is an overlay of observed relative flux, polarization, and position angle spectra: the latter two box-car smoothed over 100 A. I've corrected for foreground reddening (E(B-V)=0.075 from Leda data base) and heliocentric velocity shift (v=631 km/s from narrow lines in the SN which Koji approves). But I've not corrected for interstellar polarization (ISP) which is hard to decide on: see below. There are several remarkable points about Figure 1. First, there is a polarization continuum without obvious features, except the big peak across the Ca II triplet drop: I'm assuming that most of the wiggles are still noise even after 100 A box-car smoothing. The Ca II line feature proves there is intrinsic polarization. But I would have expected there to line features associated with some of the other broad absorptions: not as deep as the Ca II feature, but distinct---the Ca II flux absorption is a 50 % drop from the nearby continuum, the other ``absorptions'' are relatively smaller. That there is only one feature is a puzzle. It's possible that the continuum is mostly ISP and the other features are small because depolarizing line opacity in the supernova kills them. (I'm assuming that the electron scattering is the polarizing agent.) But if the ISP is small, then the continuum polarization is intrinsic and one should have more line features. The position angle (PA) on Figure 1 is very constant which is good. But there is some variation over the whole continuum and over the Ca II line polarization peak. To zeroth order intrinsic polarization PA should be constant (if electron scattering is the source which I believe) no matter what the asymmetry since electron scattering is wavelength independent: all flux gets polarized the same way if lines don't interfere. If lines do interfere with polarization, then PA can exhibit shifts unless the asymmetry is axisymmetric: 90 degree shifts can occur in axisymmetry, but perhaps are hard to arrange. Any significant ISP should cause PA to vary strongly over the continuum. This is clear on a QU Stokes diagram (see Fig. 2). Intrinsic polarization with constant PA on the diagram would just be a radial line segment pointed toward the origin. Any ISP would be a vector (Q_isp,U_isp) translating the QU line off the radial line to the origin. Since PA is given by $$ PA=.5*atan(U/Q) , $$ PA would vary with an ISP translation---unless the ISP was accidently colinear with the intrinsic polarization. That the observed PA is fairly constant, except through the Ca II line, suggests that ISP is smallish and the SN asymmetry is somewhat non-axisymmetric. Unfortunately, this contradicts the evidence of the lack line polarization features other than for Ca II. Maybe the resolution is the ISP is accidently aligned with the intrinsic polarization. Or maybe it's some messy mixture of effects of near alignment and weakish, but not negligible ISP (relative to the intrinsic polarization). Of course, maybe I'm all wrong. Figure 2 is the QU plot for Feb. 8. The data have been binned in 200 A intervals from 4200 A to 8000 A: I've left of the far ends of the QU spectra supposing them to be less certain. ---I think all the points shown are significant, except maybe near the shown ends: but observers must tell me how good the ends (shown or unshown) of the QU spectra are. The low wavelength end is where all the little loops are: the big quadrilateral is the Ca II line: the two regions are inexplicably joined by a somewhat out of the trend zone that reappears after the Ca II line. No ISP translation is going to turn this QU curve into a nice radial line segment, but it's actually confined to a radial cone of 40 degrees (20 degrees in PA) which is not so bad in arguing for near constant intrinsic PA. If the ISP correction moved the QU curve further away from the origin in the negative Q direction, then the intrinsic PA would become better more constant. That would be a coincidence on the part of the ISP---but stranger things have happened. I've tried modeling the polarization spectrum with my bipolar jet polarization model. This model assumes electron scattering polarizing jets that are well detached from the photosphere. It is a purely axisymmetric model, and the synthetic position angle is a constant aligned perpendicular to the jet direction. It's a very, very simple model. Figure 3 shows synthetic polarization spectrum (dashed line) consistent with the model's assumptions. I took the SN photosphere to be at beta=0.1 (velocity in units of c) and the jet to be detached to beta=0.2. This means that there is a huge redshift and high polarization can only form to the red of the broad continuum maximum. I've adjusted the parameters to fit the Ca II line. The polarization spectrum starts only at 5200 A because it used the observed flux spectrum as an input and with the big redshift the pushes the start of the polarization spectrum far to the red. The polarization spikes in the synthetic spectrum are because of the telluric lines: I'd get rid of those in any final figure. The parameters of the model can be played with a little, but for a parameter set consistent with well detached jets, I don't think I can fit the Ca II line and the continuum. So either the well-detached jet model is wrong or else ISP forms the continuum (which is consistent with the lack of other polarization lines beside Ca II), but is inconsistent with the fairly constant PA (unless the ISP is accidently highly aligned with the intrinsic polarization which is possible but somewhat unlikely). The jets could, of course, be closer to the SN photosphere (or embedded in it), and so require less of a redshift, but then my simple formulae would only be heuristic and not offer even a semi-accurate way of determining asymmetry parameters. The ellipsoidal asymmetry modelers I think have some of the same dilemmas I'm facing. They should get more line polarization features or no continuum polarization blueward of Ca II line unless the ISP provided the continuum polarization, but in which case the ISP would have to be accidently closely aligned with the intrinsic ISP to prevent large PA variation. Figure 4 shows a better synthetic fit to the polarization spectrum with the bipolar jet model. But this fit is purely heuristic since I have to embed the jets inside the photosphere. As aforementioned this is physically not impossible---the jet model then becomes not so distinct from the ellipsoidal asymmetry model. But also as aforementioned my fitting parameters become somewhat meaningless because my simple formulae assume a well detached jet as a simplifying hypothesis. As you can see I get more line features. There might be some correlation between my line features and the observed bumps in the 4000--7000 A region, but it doesn't look significant to me. Even though my model is only heuristically good for this set of input parameters, I think those line features are hard to avoid for any realistic model unless the continuum polarization is mostly ISP accidently aligned with the intrinsic SN polarization. So firm conclusions elude me, except that there is intrinsic polarization---which you already knew. I'd like to say that there is ISP accidently aligned with the SN intrinsic polarization, and thus save my well-detached bipolar jet model---but that would also save the ellipsoidal models. My analysis is pretty tentative though. Maybe someone can explain the observations without largish ISP accidently aligned with the intrinsic SN polarization. More spectropolarimetry from other epochs would help---or at least so one can say before it comes along and confuses the issue still more. Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sat Mar 02 23:19:02 2002 Subject: SN2002ap Hi David, Thank you very much for quickly sending me your note and figures. Polarization is new to me, so it will take a time to understand your note. We are trying to clarify the success and failure of the spherical model in reproducing the light curve and spectra. Hope we can reach an interesting picture. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 March 2 Hi Ken: The original idea by the bipolar jet model was to keep the bulk of the ejecta spherical. David Branch's Ib spectral analysis paper suggested that many Ib's should be highly alike and yet one presumes (there not be much data for Ib's themselves) that they exhibit polarization like other core collapse models. So the narrow jets were to give polarization and barely affect the flux at all---unless they happened to be beamed directly at us. I thought it was a cute idea. Further thought for 2002ap suggests to me that some ISP (but less than the supernova) somewhat aligned with intrinsic polarization and the ellipsoidal model with 20--30 % asymmetry (some of it non-axisymmetric) might explain the data. There probably isn't a unique explanation. The problem with ISP is that it has to be deduced from the data itself. If it were possible to get a polarization spectrum 300+ days after explosion when the intrinsic polarization had gone to zero (one guesses) because of the decrease in electron optical depth, then that would clarify things. But the SN will be dim then and it's a long epoch away. Thanks for inviting to the project too. It's an interesting object. Best Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sun Mar 03 02:14:22 2002 Subject: asphericity Hi David, Thank you for your another note. How about the model like Maeda et al. (2002 ApJ 565, 405), where the density contour (Fig 3) in the outer layers looks spherical, although abundance distribution is quite aspherical ? Best wishes, Ken %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 May 20 Hi Ken: I just wanted to tell you that I think the 2002ap paper is ready for submission. It seems highly polished now. I'll be out of touch May 22 to June 6: I'll be vacationing in Canada. Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue May 21 05:32:53 2002 From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Dear David, Paolo added bf/ parts based on our discussion as attached. Koji has agreed to include Paolo, Deng, Maeda in the co-authors, and will submit soon by combining this with your corrections (title etc.) Regarding earlier data, I have asked Lifan (and Austin people) about their earlier data. I have not heard from them yet, so I will try again. The results are so interesting that I hope you can make some modeling after coming back from Canada. Best wishes, Ken ========================================================== Subject: Re: some revisions From: "Koji S. Kawabata" To: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 10:02:52 +0900 Nomoto-sama, Thank you very much for your helpful comments and revisions. These discussions are very instructive (for me). It is surely better to add them. I also think it is just reasonable. I am very happy to include them in the co-author. Please give my best regards to Paolo, Deng, and Maeda. I will revise the manuscript carefully for one or two days, and then submit it. Sincerely yours, Koji S. Kawabata ===================================================== David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 May 21 Hi Ken: I sent Paolo and Koji my suggestions on Paolo's suggestions. I think Paolo unbalanced the paper a bit, and so I tried rebalancing it. I think these will have to be my final suggestions as I'll be out of touch in Canada now. It seems good paper. Regards David %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Mon Jun 10 23:34:35 2002 Subject: Question from Shri Kulkarni Shri Kulkarni is going to submit a paper on the radio observations of SN2002ap (tomorrow). I have not had a time to send a reply, but suggested him to read Kawabata et al. Please look at attached his reply. Thanks for your quick comment. K. Nomoto ================================================================ Subject: SN 2002ap From: Shri Kulkarni To: nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Dear Ken: Please take a look at http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~ejb/sn2002ap.ps or .pdf I would like your feedback on this paper. ................. Shri ====================== Return-Path: From: Shri Kulkarni Subject: Kawabata/Questions Dear Ken: I read the Kawabata et al. paper. I am not conversant with polarization as a diagnostic (other than in general terms). However, I have one major concern regarding the interpretation of the data. Specifically, Kawabata et al. seem to suggest that polarization is caused by jets (i.e. some asymmetry) and suggest v=0.23c (as a lower limit) and mass of 0.05 Msun. Taken at face value, the kinetic energy is 2.5x10^51 erg. There is no indication of this kind of energy in a high velocity ejecta. I can say this with confidence since the radio is not sensitive to beaming nor projection effects. This is not a small amount of energy nor is 0.05 Msun a small amount of matter that can have velocity so radically different from the the rest of the star. Acknowledging that my background is not in modeling of optical spectra or polarized light I find the modeling somewhat speculative. Frankly, I am a bit worried that every Ib/c is now becoming a hypernova! I hope I have not annoyed you with my usual frank statements. Keen to hear your reaction. Shri David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 June 10 Hi Ken: I've skimmed over Kulkarni's paper and read his comments on ours. I have to say first off that I'm very ignorant of radio observation and modeling, and so I can't rebut his conclusion. I can quibble though. Is the amount of radio emission really independent of the compactness of clumps of ejecta? Is he really sure that there is enough circumstellar matter to give rise to copious radio emission if there were clumps. It would be interesting to know what another radio expert had to say. In any case, we were cautious in our letter. The jet idea is called ``very speculative'' in the abstract: perhaps we should repeat ``very speculative'' in the conclusion. As for parameters for the jet, I just gave a set that would yield the amount of polarization seen. There are many choices of parameters that would do that and I did say this. However, a fair amount of mass would be needed I think in any case: still it could be much less than 0.05 M_sun. I thought what I wrote was clear. The parameters mentioned are just ones that would produce the right order of polarization: I just wanted to show that it could be done, not how it was done. The parameters arn't fits and we arn't saying anything strong about what they really are. Perhaps, any values written are inevitably read as fits regardless of qualifying remarks. Some suggestions: 1) Repeat the jet model is ``very speculative'' in the conclusion and say that some kind of asymmetry in the bulk of ejecta could account for all polarization. 2) Cite Kulkarni's paper as strong evidence against any jet. But someone more radio expert me should determine just what he is saying. We know there are very broad lines and Paolo found he needed some ejecta up to .2c. Is that conclusion also in contradiction to Kulkarni's results. 3) Where I cite the possible jet model parameters, perhaps we should put in bold face something like ``these are not fits'' but just values that yield the right order of polarization given the assumption that the jet exists. I don't want give up on the idea of a jet altogether because it would mean a fair amount of rewriting. And even if it's wrong for this supernova it might be right in another context. Tchues David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Jun 12 11:14:24 2002 Subject: radio Dear David, Thank you for your note. Let's see what a referee will say, which should be soon. Best wishes, Ken ps. Koji has re-started the observation of SN2002ap with FOCAS. He got already nebula spectra. For polarimetry, brightness seems to be marginal. David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 June 12 Hi Ken: I agree, let's see what the referee says. Koji mentioned to me that he had new data. It would be nice if the new observations confirmed the ISP estimated: Koji hints that they might. Regards David %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Jul 03 11:07:34 2002 From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Kawabata san, I have come back from the Canary Islands on Monday. >I am willing to consider a revised version for Part 1 of The >Astrophysical Journal without abbreviation, or a revised version >for Astrophysical Journal Letters that does not require more than >4 journal pages. It would be better to shorten for Letters because two other Letter papers on the same subject have been submitted. Also we may add new SUBARU results. Addresses can be compressed by removing zip and other details to be accommodated in a half column (like Mazzali et al.). E.g., 2. Opt.& IR Astron. Div., NAOJ, Mitaka, Tokyo is enough Some gain by removing fig d)e) (as suggested by the referee). I don't know if the referee is Shri Kulkarni (astro-ph is not referred but only IAUC might suggest actually Shri). Anyway, can we use radio data of IAUC (no need to use astro-ph) to constrain the model parameters, i.e., Can we say that the jet mass estimate is quite uncertain but can be constrained to be less than *** from weak radio signals ? Best wishes, K. Nomoto David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 July 3 Hi Ken: Koji sent me the referee's report. It's certainly rather negative. I made a somewhat detailed response for Koji's consideration that I append below. I have to say that I don't think the referee read the letter very carefully or with much understanding. Of course, his/her point about the radio observations and modeling is important, but we already knew that. Certainly a less massive jet model can be built, but I don't know that we can get it below the radio constraints especially since I don't know what those constraints are. I should asked Berger et al. what kind of a jet they could tolerate. Since any suggested jet parameters seem to be inevitably read as a strong claim, I suggest we drop them all except the 0.23c redshift. But that redshift doesn't have to be all due to the jet's velocity. The flux can redshift moving to the jet frame and redshift further moving back to the supernova rest frame---if the jet is behind the supernova. Unfortunately if the scattering angle is not 90 degrees getting out enough polarization would be a problem. In any case for letter that has to be shortened, writing more about the model seems prohibited. I hope to work on the data in August, but right now I'm swamped with my teaching duties. Regards David (See the Koji file.) From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Fri Jul 19 10:00:55 2002 Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.16.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17VaBa-0002CG-00 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:00:54 -0600 Received: from localhost (iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.10]) by sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id BAA20684; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:00:51 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:00:50 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020720.010050.113898778.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: semi-final drafts From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Thank you for the semi-final draft. Sorry for being unable to reply earlier. I have been in Leiden since July 17 (Paolo also) for SN Ia workshop. I have had a terrible travel schedule; coming back from IAU Symp in Canary Islands on July 1, Nuclei in the Cosmos in Fuji-Yoshida (as a co-chair). In-between, I had so many deadlines of paper work as a Dept Chair. I discussed with Paolo about the draft. It is fine with us, and please go ahead to re-submit. Best wishes, K. Nomoto From koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Sat Jul 20 01:36:19 2002 Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from mail.mtk.nao.ac.jp ([133.40.4.4]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Vomo-00040y-00 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:36:18 -0600 Received: from genuine.nao.ac.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mtk.nao.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W00121514) with ESMTP id QAA12591; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:35:46 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.7.2.20020720162836.050d9058@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp> X-Sender: kawabtkj@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2-Jr2 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +0900 To: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" From: "Koji S. Kawabata" Subject: Re: semi-final drafts Cc: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu In-Reply-To: <20020720.010050.113898778.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Status: RO Nomoto-sama, Thank you for your reply. I have submitted the revised version. Also, I updated it at astro-ph site. I hope that the referee agrees with it. Please give my best regards to Paolo Mazzali. Sincerely yours, Koji S. Kawabata -------------------------------------------------- Koji S. Kawabata E-mail: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Optical and Infrared Astronomy Division, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan TEL: +81-422-34-3533 FAX: +81-422-34-3545 -------------------------------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Fri Jul 19 10:00:55 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: semi-final drafts Thank you for the semi-final draft. Sorry for being unable to reply earlier. I have been in Leiden since July 17 (Paolo also) for SN Ia workshop. I have had a terrible travel schedule; coming back from IAU Symp in Canary Islands on July 1, Nuclei in the Cosmos in Fuji-Yoshida (as a co-chair). In-between, I had so many deadlines of paper work as a Dept Chair. I discussed with Paolo about the draft. It is fine with us, and please go ahead to re-submit. Best wishes, K. Nomoto %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Mon Aug 12 08:26:47 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, mazzali@ts.astro.it, maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: Asking for another referee From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" I am checking Berger et al (astro-ph/0206183) to compare with Li-Chevalier (ApJ, 526, 716) to see how strong is their radio argument. I first thought that CSM density of 02ap is simply much lower than 98bw. If so, the low radio flux in 02ap (compared with 98bw) is simply the result of the CSM difference, and does not constrain energetics. But Berger et al., on p.3 left column-2nd para, gives Mdot = 9E-9(num^{-0.8}) Ms/y ==> Mdot = 5E-7 Ms/y, which is similar to 98bw (Li Chevalier Eq.17 p.720). According to Fig 2 of Berger and Fig 4c of Li, ne=2.5E2 and 5E0 (or 6E0) at r=1E16 cm for 98bw and 02ap. This gives 9E-9 above, but I don't know where (num^{-0.8}) comes in. I have to go to Discussion with Friedel and his students right now, so please someone check this. Thanks. K.N. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From kei-maeda@jcom.home.ne.jp Tue Aug 13 03:47:32 2002 From: "keiichi maeda" To: , , Hi Kawabata-san, and everyone, I have read through the referee report, Kawabata et al., and Berger et al. again. As almost everyone think, I also feel that the (current) referee has been too stubborn about the jet hypothesis. Thus I find no reason against asking another referee (but please ask nomoto-san's opinion on that, because I am just a new comer in ASTRONOMY). The following are what I have been thinking about these days. 1) About the referee's comment (and Burger et al.) that says 'the jet is (would be) ruled out'. I agree with David that he/she (they) must show detailed analysis before reaching a strong conclusion on that. Many function affect the radio modeling. Not only E, M of the ejecta (or jets), but also the property of CSM, sometime even clumpiness (BTW, I find no statement on clumpiness in Berger et al. According to a series of papers by K.W. Weiler et al., they say it is essential). Because radio emission comes mainly from shocked CSM region, the property of CSM (thus Mdot and/or geometry of CSM) is more than important. However, the referee's concern seems to be based on equation 5 of Berger et al, which includes no CSM properties at all. I do not think it is strong enough. For example, typical SN parameters (E51=1, 1Msun) give E>3e47*V5^(-5.18) according to eq. 5. Even this gives overabundant relative to radio energies (10^45 ergs for 02ap (Sec 2.2 of Berger et al), and comparable for 1993J (e.q., Sutaria et al. 2002, astro-ph/0207137)). 2) Though the radio peak luminosity is small in 02ap, it should be reminded that 02ap is extraordinary early riser in its radio emission (t paek < 5d in 4.86GHz). Actually it is the earliest one but for 87A (t peak (4.86GHz) = 1d). Berger et al. does not give clear explanation why it is. If we look at, for example, Weiler et al. 1998, we find that there is a correlation between t peak and peak luminosity in SNeII. For SNeIb/c it is not clear if such correlation exists or not, this might reflect large inhomogenity in their properties. If the correlation might come from the deference in CSM properties, we expect that there would be tendency that earlier riser show lower peak luminosity in radio, even in SNeIb/c. Thus small radio luminosity in 02ap may not be surprising. Actually, though it is 3 orders smaller than 98bw, it is 2 orders brighter than 87A. 3)Geometry. With 'jet', the estimate of radio emission using eq. 5 of Berger et al. would be even worse. Because the amount of swept-up CSM material (which is responsible for radio) should be divided by solid angle of the jet, it is possible that this amount is not large if compared with a spherical models with the same energy and mass. Best wishes, Keiichi Maeda Dept. of Astronomy, School of Science, University of Tokyo (Nomoto's Supernova Group) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5 From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue Aug 13 10:35:15 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, mazzali@ts.astro.it, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: Asking for another referee Sorry for the delay. Berger et al. is really too sloppy to follow. For Mdot, ne r^2 \prop num^{(1-2p)7/34}, which is {-0.82} for p=2.5 (Li Chavalier) but {-0.62} for p=2 which Berger et al. adopted. Still Fig 2 shows ne at the same r is lower than 98bw by a factor of 50 or so, but nothing about num is mentioned for fig.2. (Mdot of 02ap must be much smaller than 98bw because CO star mass is much smaller.) Matzner-McKee reference is wrong (should be ApJ 510 379) etc etc. It may not be a good idea to refer and discuss Berger et al. paper. As Paolo suggested, we may just explicitly add to the text that our jet is not really relativistic (assuming v>0.3c or v5 >1 as Berger et al. seems to use), and thus it does not cause much radio emission being consistent with IAUC 7817. To the editor, we may say as Kawabata san's draft, but we may not need explicitly to ask the second referee. One more iteration is possible? (I will think more; I have to leave now; sorry.) Also, we still ask for a Letter (not Part 1); the referee agrees with at least the publication of data. Best wishes, K.N. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5 From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Aug 14 10:09:37 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: maeda@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, mazzali@ts.astro.it, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: On the radio studies Kawabata san, OK., I agree with you. Still it's better to ask the editor for a Letter. Let's see how the referee (sounds like Shri) will respond. Best wishes, K. Nomoto ( Well, I think it is hopeless. In fact counterproductive. The referee will take weeks or months and then make a long a long (or short) radio argument that we have difficulty following, but will have lots of holes that radio cognoscenti would see, but that we will have trouble seeing. In my view the referee has already show in regard to our letter that he/she is careless and incompetent, and possibly biased. But if this is Ken's view. He's more experienced than I and maybe he hopes (vainly in my view) for the referee to shed some enlightenment. ) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 August 13 Dear Keiichi: Re your first point: the Berger et al. paper isn't very clear, but it doesn't seem to me that the energy from their equation (5) is not directly comparable to their energy 1.5*10**45 in relativistic electrons and magnetic fields that Berger et al. cite. I think there must be some relation relating the KE in shocked ejecta (before it is shocked) to the that energy in relativistic electrons and magnetic fields: but it's clear Berger et al. don't tell us what that is. Whatever that relation is, it's not obviously independent of the amount of shocked CSM. As you point the amount of shocked CSM is going to be much less for a narrow jet than a spherical shell of ejecta. One would guess the radio emission would go way down if the amount of shocked CSM went down. Regards David (Never sent. No need.) From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Sep 05 07:53:31 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp, jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Cc: nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: Proceeding of IAU APRM2002 From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Kawabata san, > David and I prepared the draft of the proceeding for IAU 8th > Asian-Pacific Regional Meeting held in July. It is indeed a > reduced version of the letter. Thank you for your efforts. The draft is fine with me. > PS I sent an e-mail to the the editor of ApJL and asked to > let us know the current status of out paper. I have not yet > received the response. To: David, Have you made a progress in completing your draft on the jet model (originally for SNe Ib; Jeffery 2002 in preparation) ? It should be helpful for our next step, whatever the referee will write. Best wishes, Ken David J. Jeffery Department of Physics New Mexico Tech 2002 September 5 Hi Ken: I made some progress on the jet model paper. I was stimulated to consider relativistic effects after the referee's concerns and that consumed by inter-semester period. Now my semester has started here again and I being pressed by course work. I hope to get it finished by the end of the month. There isn't that much left to do: I really just have to check everything thoroughly and tune it up. Regards David From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Fri Sep 06 10:01:41 2002 Return-path: Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.16.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17nLYD-0001vB-00 for ; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:01:41 -0600 Received: from localhost (iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.10]) by sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id BAA04107; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 01:01:37 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 01:01:37 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020907.010137.125123527.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Subject: jet From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Cc: nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Dear David, Thank you for your reply. > I made some progress on the jet model paper. > > I hope to get it finished by the end of the month. That's nice. Looking forward to reading it. Best wishes, Ken From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sun Sep 22 20:34:14 2002 Subject: Re: Your ApJ Letters Submission MS# 16415 From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Kawabata san, Thank you for your revision. Today, I am at home, connecting directly the model of our WS. So I cannot see those files. I believe it is critically important to publish early in view of the importance of polarization and the heavy competition with already accepted Leonardo et al. paper and Wang et al. paper (and Berger et al. as well). Thus we absolutely should try to shorten it. I have not seen the revised file, but we can cut out all Acknowledgment (nobody would check Kakenhi number at all), significant fraction of sections 1 and 2 (If similar words are seen in Mazzali et al., we should delete those and just refer to Mazzali et al. All Conclusion section can be replaced with just one line, e.g., "Our results in the present work is summarized in Abstract." Please try shorten in this way, and email me the Tex file. (I will also try.) Thanks K. Nomoto From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue Sep 24 10:57:25 2002 To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Subject: Re: revision From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" Kawabata san, You have reached 4.08 pages. 0.08 pages = 7 lines. Then David reduced 3 lines, and we get 3 lines by deleting the following sentence. And by deleting all ???, a few more lines can be reduced. (The editor counts the number of printed lines, and does not care whether the line is full, according to my experience.) So the length could be OK. Please check. K. Nomoto **** Following sentence can be neglected. Here we should mention that the aspherical model by Maeda et al. still need 10^52 erg to explain the line width in late times. However, we don't have space and this energy issue is mentioned in several Proc papers. Since just mentioning Hoflich et al's (already quite old) work is misleading, it is better to delete this. Then we gain 3 lines. ============================================ \section{INTRODUCTION} Alternatively, \citet{hoe99} suggested that the observed behavior could be explained by a moderate explosion ($2\times 10^{51}$ ergs) if the ejecta had a prolate asphericity with an axial ratio of about 2 and were viewed close to the symmetry axis. ======================================================= >From the derived $E_{B-V} = 0.09$, an upper limit ~~~~~ => ``space'' + From ... \[ p_{\rm jet}(\lambda) = f\cdot\frac{F[\lambda(1-v_{\rm red}/c)]}{F(\lambda)} \mbox{ ,} \] ???High velocity jet-like clumps have ??? been proposed in some hydrodynamic explosion models for SNe and GRB's (e.g., \citealt{nag97,mac99,whe02}). ^ Maeda et al. 2002 **** I feel it would be better to somehow refer Kinugasa et al. I will think 25th morning. ***** > In response to this comparison, \citet{leo02} made > a similar comparison for their SN 2002ap spectropolarimetry and > also obtained a similarly good agreement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ==> confirmed our results. ??? \section{CONCLUSIONS} ==> CONCLUDING REMARKS =============================================================== The referee must be Leonardo. Following is Leonardo's comments to the draft of Chandra Obs of SN1998S. Same style, using ``o''. (This was last year, and the paper was already published in ApJ this year. Leonardo has moved to Massachusetts.) (For SN1998S, I was included in the Chandra proposal, and I have shown that the progenitor is around 18 Msun star from the observed Ne/O, Mg/O, Si/O ratios. It was fun to identify the progenitor's mass.) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Sep 25 00:08:30 2002 Return-path: Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.16.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17u5LZ-0008It-00 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:08:29 -0600 Received: from localhost (iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.10]) by sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id PAA20241; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:08:23 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:08:23 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020925.150823.112414903.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: ps: Re: revision From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Kawabata san, How about the following about Kinugasa et al paper. =========================================== Spectral synthesis for SN~2002ap \citet{maz02} suggests some material at velocities higher than the photospheric velocities of $\sim 0.1c$--$0.117c$ \citep{maz02,kin02} up to $0.22c$. ============================================ If the length estimate is be OK, please go ahead. If they accept it immediately, it will appear in 2002. Please also change the cover letter To Dalgarno something like this: We still consider this paper for publication in Part 2 (Letter) without further reduction of the paper length, but we will readily agree to publication in Part 1 (Main Journal) when the publication in Part 2 is found to be impossible. ========> We have reduced the length of the paper down to 3.98 (?) pages. We now believe that our paper can be accepted for publication n Part 2 (Letter). Best wishes, K. Nomoto From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Sep 25 03:27:40 2002 Return-path: Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.16.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17u8SK-0008Rv-00 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 03:27:40 -0600 Received: from localhost (iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.10]) by sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id SAA23618; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:27:37 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:27:37 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020925.182737.45969820.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: reference From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Kawabata san, I have just noticed that Kinugasa et al. has already appeared in ApJ 577 L97 (2002), Oct 1 issue. (very quick; it was accepted on Aug 22.) In their case (I am also the co-author), I also suggested to remove Acknowledgment and, if there is a space at the proof, to put it back. It seems it already exceeded 4 pages at the proof without Acknowledgment. (Then ApJ seems to allow to add Acknowledgment.) As far as their page estimate is less than 4 pages at this stage, no further reduction will be required even if the actual printing exceeds 4 pages (see also Mazzali et al.). It is better to delete all lines with %, because anyone can get the source file from the web. Best wishes, K. Nomoto From nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Sep 25 05:55:53 2002 Return-path: Envelope-to: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu Received: from sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ([133.11.16.1]) by kestrel.nmt.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17uAlk-00007t-00 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 05:55:52 -0600 Received: from localhost (iron.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.17.10]) by sun1.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id UAA25872; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:55:48 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:55:48 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020925.205548.95688774.nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: koji.kawabata@nao.ac.jp Cc: jeffery@kestrel.nmt.edu, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: reference From: "Ken'ichi Nomoto" X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.7.2.20020925204722.03f2d0f8@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO > I just sent the revised manuscipt. Thank you. > I am sorry, but I neglected the rewording that you recommended, OK, just a suggestion. Best wishes, K. Nomoto