Single vs. Binary Origin: The Diversity of Stripped-Envelope Supernova Remnants

Abstract

Core-collapse supernova remnants (CCSNRs) are crucial for understanding the final stages of massive star evolution, as they reflect the imprints of their progenitors' pre-explosion activities. However, the evolution of CCSNRs, particularly those originating from progenitors with high mass-loss rates -- known as stripped-envelope SNRs (SESNRs) -- remains poorly understood. This is largely due to the lack of comprehensive numerical models connecting progenitor stars to their remnants, especially in the context of binarity. In this study, we perform self-consistent simulations of CCSNRs from both single and binary progenitors, utilizing mass-loss histories and supernova ejecta profiles directly derived from stellar evolution and explosion calculations. Our models reveal significant differences in the circumstellar medium (CSM) structures between single and binary progenitors, which drive distinct SNR dynamics and spectral characteristics. We find that binary-stripped progenitors tend to produce SNRs with more monotonic CSM profiles, resulting in smoother shock dynamics and less pronounced X-ray luminosity peaks compared to their single-star counterparts. Additionally, we introduce a new characteristic timescale, $t_{\rm CSM}$, defined by the total mass lost by the progenitor. This timescale effectively scales the evolutionary phases of CCSNRs in complex CSM environments, thereby facilitating the comparison of SESNRs. Given that observed elemental abundances in SNRs reflect the nucleosynthesis yields of the progenitor, our results highlight the importance of considering the dynamical state of SNRs when interpreting observed abundances. This work provides a fiducial framework for future observational and theoretical studies of CCSNRs, particularly regarding the impact of binary evolution.

Figures (11)

• Figure 1: Evolution of the wind parameters for the 11 and 26 $M_{\odot}$ models. The solid lines show the time evolution of mass loss rates $\dot{M}(t)$ ($M_{\odot} \, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), and the dashed lines show the time evolution of wind velocity $V_{\rm w}(t)$ ($\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}$). The left and right panels represent the single star and binary star models, respectively. The figure shows that the binary models have relatively stronger winds after RLOF compared to their single-star counterparts with the same $M_{\rm ZAMS}$.
• Figure 2: CSM profiles of our models. The top panel shows the gas density, the middle panel shows the gas velocity, and the bottom panel shows the gas temperature, as a function of radius.
• Figure 3: CSM density evolution of our 11 $M_{\odot}$ models. The left panel shows the single star model, and the right panel shows the binary star model. Note that the timestamps shown in the legend represent the "look-back time" before the SN, consistent with Figure \ref{['fig:Mdot_Vw_prof']}. This figure shows how the stronger winds in the binary models blow away the mass ejected via RLOF.
• Figure 4: The shock radius and velocity evolution of our 11, 26 $M_{\odot}$ models. The purple line shows the radius of the forward shock, and the orange line shows the reverse shock, with solid lines representing the velocity and dashed lines representing the radius. Note that all velocities are in the observer's frame. Labels at the top of each panel represent the time scaled by $t_{\rm CSM}$ (defined below). Thin lines represent the analytical solutions from Truelove1999EvolutionRemnantsb. The gradual deviation from the analytical solutions suggests that SNRs evolving within complex CSM cannot be accurately described by a simplified evolutionary model.
• Figure 5: Forward shock velocity (top) and total 0.3-12.0 keV luminosity (bottom) evolution of our models. In the left panels, the SNR age (x-axis) is scaled by the Sedov time ($t_{\rm sedov}$), defined as when the swept-up CSM mass equals the ejecta mass ($M^{\rm sh}_{\rm CSM} = M^{\rm init}_{\rm ej}$). In the right panels, the age is scaled by our new characteristic time, $t_{\rm CSM}$, defined as when the swept-up CSM mass equals the total mass lost by the progenitor ($M^{\rm sh}_{\rm CSM} = M^{\rm loss}_{\rm CSM}$). The panels show that models with significant mass within the bubble (e.g., the single 26 and 33 $M_{\odot}$ models), are not aligned with the other models when scaled by $t_{\rm sedov}$, whereas scaling by $t_{\rm CSM}$ aligns them effectively. This suggests that our new scaling is useful for comparing SESNRs that have experienced considerable mass loss.