Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T07:59:00.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Why galaxies care about Type Ia supernovae?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Noelia Jiménez
Affiliation:
Institut d'Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (ICE, IEEC/CSIC), E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona
Patricia B. Tissera
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Universidad Andres Bello, Av. Republica 220, Santiago, Chile
Francesca Matteucci
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Trieste, Via G. B. Tiepolo, 11, 34100Trieste. email: jimenez@ieec.uab.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We implement the Single Degenerate (SD) scenario proposed for Type Ia Supernova (SNIa) progenitors in SPH simulations. We analyse the chemical evolution of bulge-type galaxies together with the observed correlations relating SNIa rates with the characteristics of the host galaxy, such as their SFR. The models reproduce the observed signatures shown by [O/Fe] ratios in the Galactic Bulge and the present day SNIa rates. Also, the observed correlation found by Sullivan et al. (2006) between SSFR (specific star formation rate) and the SNIa rate per unit of galaxy mass (SSNIaR), naturally arises. This analysis helps to set more stringent constraints to the galaxy formation models and gives some hint on the progenitor problem.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Bensby, T., Yee, J. C., Feltzing, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A147Google Scholar
Greggio, L. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 22Google Scholar
Jiménez, N., Cora, S. A., Bassino, L. P., Tecce, T. E. & Smith Castelli, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 785Google Scholar
Kobayashi, C. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecureur, A., Hill, V., Zoccali, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 465, 799Google Scholar
Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473Google Scholar
Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773Google Scholar
Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 807Google Scholar
Matteucci, F. & Greggio, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 279Google Scholar
Matteucci, F. & Recchi, S. 2001, ApJ, 558, 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scannapieco, C., Tissera, P. B., White, S. D. M., & Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scannapieco, C., Tissera, P. B., White, S. D. M., & Springel, V. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., Dilday, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, M., Le Borgne, D., Pritchet, C. J., Hodsman, A. & Neill, . 2006, ApJ, 648, 868Google Scholar
Tinsley, B. M. 1979, ApJ, 229, 1046Google Scholar
Tissera, P. B., Beers, T. C., Carollo, D., & Scannapieco, C. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tissera, P. B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T. C., & Carollo, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3391Google Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181Google Scholar