Abstract
The study of supernovae is hampered by an insufficient knowledge of the initial stellar mass for individual supernova. Because of large uncertainties in estimating both the total mass of a remnant (including the pulsar or black hole) and any mass loss during the pre-supernova stages, the main sequence mass of the progenitor cannot be accurately determined from observations alone. To calculate an initial mass, one must rely on a combination of both theory and observation. Limits on the progenitor's mass range can be estimated by the presence of a compact remnant and comparison of the observed nebular chemical abundances with detailed evolutionary calculations1. The Crab Nebula is an excellent choice for investigation because it contains a unique combination of characteristics: a central neutron star (pulsar) and a bright, well studied nebula having little or no swept-up interstellar material. In fact, several studies1–4 have suggested an initial mass of ∼10M⊙ for the Crab progenitor. Recently, Davidson et al.5, quoting two of us (K.N. and W.M.S.), state that the Crab's progenitor had a mass slightly larger than 8 M⊙. Here we present in detail the reasoning behind this statement and suggest the explosion mechanism.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnett, W. D. Astrophys. J. 195, 727–733 (1975).
Gott, J. R., Gunn, J. E. & Ostriker, J. P. Astrophys. J. Lett. 160, L91–L96 (1970).
Woosley, S. E., Weaver, T. A. & Taam, R. E. in Type I Supernovae (ed. Wheeler, J. C.) 96–112 (University of Texas, Austin, 1980).
Hillebrandt, W. in Supernovae (eds Rees, M. J. & Stoneham, R. J.) 123–128 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982).
Davidson, K. et al. Astrophys. J. 253, 696–706 (1982).
Henry, R. C. & MacAlpine, G. M. Astrophys. J. 258, 11–21 (1982).
Arnett, W. D. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 35, 145–160 (1977).
Davidson, K. Astrophys. J. 186, 223–231 (1973).
Dennefeld, M. & Andrillat, Y. Astr. Astrophys. 103, 44–49 (1981).
Sugimoto, D. & Nomoto, K. Space Sci. Rev. 25, 155–227 (1980).
Nomoto, K., Sugimoto, D. & Neo, S. Astrophys. Space Sci. 39, L37–L42 (1976).
Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K. & Sugimoto, D. Publ. astr. Soc. Japan 32, 303–329 (1980).
Hoyle, F. & Fowler, W. A. Astrophys. J. 132, 565–590 (1960).
Colgate, S. A. & White, R. H. Astrophys. J. 143, 626–681 (1966).
Hillebrandt, W. Astr. Astrophys. 110, L3–L6 (1982).
Nomoto, K. in Fundamental Problems in the Theory of Stellar Evolution (eds Sugimoto, D., Lamb, D. Q. & Schramm, D. N.) 295–315 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981).
Weaver, T. A., Axelrod, T. S. & Woosley, S. E. in Type I Supernovae (ed. Wheeler, J. C.) 113–154 (University of Texas, Austin, 1980).
Falk, S. W. & Arnett, W. D. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 33, 515–562 (1977).
Fesen, R. A. & Kirshner, R. P. Astrophys. J. 258, 1–10 (1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nomoto, K., Sparks, W., Fesen, R. et al. The Crab Nebula's progenitor. Nature 299, 803–805 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1038/299803a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/299803a0
This article is cited by
-
A precursor interpretation for the Crab supernova 1054 A.D. very early light curve
Astrophysics and Space Science (2022)
-
The electron-capture origin of supernova 2018zd
Nature Astronomy (2021)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
