English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recent work has revealed that the light curves of hydrogen-poor (Type I)superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), thought to be powered by magnetar centralengines, do not always follow the smooth decline predicted by a simple magnetarspin-down model. Here we present the first systematic study of the prevalenceand properties of "bumps" in the post-peak light curves of 34 SLSNe. We findthat the majority (44-76%) of events cannot be explained by a smooth magnetarmodel alone. We do not find any difference in supernova properties betweenevents with and without bumps. By fitting a simple Gaussian model to thelight-curve residuals, we characterize each bump with an amplitude,temperature, phase, and duration. We find that most bumps correspond with anincrease in the photospheric temperature of the ejecta, although we do not seedrastic changes in spectroscopic features during the bump. We also find amoderate correlation ($\rho\approx0.5$; $p\approx0.01$) between the phase ofthe bumps and the rise time, implying that such bumps tend to happen at acertain "evolutionary phase," $(3.7\pm1.4)t_\mathrm{rise}$. Most bumps areconsistent with having diffused from a central source of variable luminosity,although sources further out in the ejecta are not excluded. With thisevidence, we explore whether the cause of these bumps is intrinsic to thesupernova (e.g., a variable central engine) or extrinsic (e.g., circumstellarinteraction). Both cases are plausible, requiring low-level variability in themagnetar input luminosity, small decreases in the ejecta opacity, or a thincircumstellar shell or disk.

Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae