# On the frequency and remnants of Hypernovae

## 1 Introduction

Recent studies of Gamma-Ray Burst afterglows (van Paradijs et al 1997; Costa et al 1997; Frail et al 1997; Kulkarni et al 1998a, Galama et al 1998) and the determination of some host or intervening galaxy redshifts (Metzger et al 1997, Kulkarni et al 1998b; Djorgovski et al 1998) have indicated the presence of one or more new classes of astrophysical explosion. The tentative identification of extragalactic star-formation regions as the site of these events (Paczynski 1998; Djorgovski et al 1998) suggests a link of such events with massive star evolution. In this letter I shall consider the possibility that these events represent unusually energetic stellar explosions, termed ‘hypernovae’ in the literature.

Given a new class of astrophysical object or event, several natural questions arise. What is the frequency with which it occurs (in our Galaxy and others)? What, if any, are the observable manifestations of such an event in manners other than that of the discovery?

## 2 Rate Estimates

Estimates of the cosmological Gamma-Ray Burst (or GRB) rate range from $`10^6\mathrm{yr}^1`$ per Galaxy for a constant comoving rate (Cohen & Piran 1995) to $`10^8\mathrm{yr}^1`$ per Galaxy (Totani 1997; Wijers et al 1998) for a population that follows the cosmological star formation rate (Lilly et al 1996; Madau et al 1996). These estimates assume an isotropically emitting source. The estimated observed $`\gamma `$-ray energy of the GRB 971214 is $`3\times 10^{53}`$ ergs (Kulkarni et al 1998b), 300 times the total energy output of an average supernova. This may be reduced drastically if the emission is strongly beamed, but the corresponding event rate increases by the same factor as the energy is reduced. Thus, one may scale the event rate according to the true energy output of the average GRB,

$$R10^7\mathrm{yr}^1\left(\frac{3\times 10^{52}ergs}{ϵE}\right)$$
(1)   
where I have used the star formation rate estimate (The comoving rate will be 100 times larger). E is the total energy release and $`ϵ`$ is the efficiency of conversion to observed $`\gamma `$ ray energy.

Observations of a supernova 1998bw associated with the GRB980425 (Galama et al 1998; Kulkarni et al 1998a) suggests that there exists a second class of GRB events which are indeed associated with the explosion of a massive star and with $`\gamma `$-ray energy output ($`10^{48}`$ ergs) significantly less than the few other bursts with known distances. Thus, bursts of this type can only be detected out to distances $`100`$ Mpc (Bloom et al 1998), as opposed to the Gpc distances to other detected bursts. Hence the detectable volume for such events is $`10^3`$ that for the cosmological bursts and, given that as much as $`10\%`$ of observed bursts could belong to this second class (Bloom et al 1998), the intrinsic comoving event rate is almost certainly higher.

The association of type Ib/c SN1998bw and GRB980425 have prompted some (Wang & Wheeler 1998) to suggest an association between GRB and all type Ib/c supernovae. This is disputed by several authors (Bloom et al 1998; Kippen et al 1998; Graziani et al 1998) who point out the lack of other convincing associations as well as the unusually bright nature of SN1998bw. Although event rates based on a single event are necessarily uncertain, I shall adopt a hypernova Ib rate $`10\%`$ that of the Supernova Ib rate. This is based on the fact that Kippen et al present a catalogue of 160 bright supernovae (selection effects are claimed to be less important for this subset) since 1991 (the BATSE era), which contains 11 type Ib supernovae. The 10$`\%`$ hypernova fraction is high enough to allow the detection of at least one hypernova from samples of this size while remaining consistent with the lack of other convincing associations (Bloom et al 1998; Kippen et al 1998; Graziani et al 1998). The Supernova Ib rate is approximately half that of type II supernovae (van den Bergh & Tammann 1991). Thus, I shall adopt a rate of $`10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ in the Galaxy as a hypernova rate.

## 3 A Possible Class of Hypernova Remnants

The offspring of supernovae are believed to be neutron stars (Baade & Zwicky 1934). This is supported by the association of some young pulsars with supernova remnants and the approximate agreement of the pulsar birthrate with the supernova rate (Helfand & Becker 1984; Weiler & Sramek 1988; Gaensler & Johnston 1998). In some scenarios, the offspring of a hypernova is an isolated black hole (Woosley 1993; Paczynski 1998), which powers the GRB from either the binding energy of accreted material or by magnetic field extraction of rotational energy. In the latter case, the rotational energy required implies that the massive stellar core of the pre-collapse giant star must be spinning rapidly with respect to the overlying envelope, contrary to some evolutionary calculations (Spruit & Phinney 1998 and references therein). Others (Wang & Wheeler 1998; Cen 1998) have suggested that the high mean velocities of the pulsars (Lyne & Lorimer 1994) result from hypernova-like processes. However, these authors claim associations between all supernovae of type Ib/c and GRB, which seems unlikely (Bloom et al 1998; Kippen et al 1998; Graziani et al 1998).

Here I suggest a modified version of the above scenario. Recent work on the distribution of pulsar velocities, incorporating information from different sources such as pulsar-supernova remnant associations (Kaspi 1996), X-ray binary properties (Brandt & Podsiadlowski 1995; Kalogera, King & Kolb 1998) as well as improved treatments of the proper motion data (Hansen & Phinney 1997; Hartman et al 1997; Cordes & Chernoff 1998) all favour a lower median velocity of $`200300\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1`$. However, there is dramatic evidence in some individual cases for very high pulsar velocities (e.g. Cordes, Romani & Chernoff 1993; Cordes & Chernoff 1998). The detailed statistical studies indicate that the fraction of pulsars with velocities $`>800\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1`$ is less than 20%(Hansen & Phinney 1997; Cordes & Chernoff 1998). This curious bimodal distribution is, as yet, unexplained.

If we associate the pulsars in the lower velocity, majority component with the ordinary supernovae (birthrate $`10^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$), then the high velocity pulsars represent a population with a birthrate appropriate to that of the hypernovae $`10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Furthermore, modelling of the SN1998bw lightcurve (Iwamoto et al 1998; Woosley, Eastman & Schmidt 1998) suggests an energy release $`3\times 10^{52}`$ ergs, approximately 30 times that of a traditional supernova. If we regard this extra energy as the defining characteristic of a hypernova, we might expect a consequently higher velocity for the remnant as well. Indeed, if the fraction of the total energy channelled into pulsar kinetic energy is constant, the median velocity of pulsars born from hypernovae is $`\sqrt{30}\times 200\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^11100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1`$, appropriate for the observed fast pulsar population. However, the exact link between energy release and pulsar velocities is still unknown. Proposed scenarios range from hydrodynamic or global instabilities and asymmetric collapse (Burrows, Hayes & Fryxell 1995; Janka & Müller 1996; Goldreich, Lai & Sahrling 1998) to various anisotropic radiation (‘rocket’) mechanisms (Harrison & Tademaru 1975; Chugai 1984; Vilenkin 1995; Kusenko & Segre 1996; Horowitz & Li 1997; Lai & Qian 1998).

What of the spins of the hypernova pulsar offspring? Spruit & Phinney (1998) have conjectured that the velocities and spins of the observed pulsars may have the same origins (since an off-centre kick will generate both linear and angular momentum). If that holds true in this case as well, we expect the spins of the high velocity pulsars to also be particularly rapid. The initial spins of pulsars are difficult to determine, since young pulsars undergo rapid spin down, but the fastest rotating young X-ray pulsar rotates at a period of 16ms (Marshall et al 1998). This suggests that initial spins $`<3`$ms may be possible in hypernova events. I shall return to this point in the next section.

Hypernovae may also find application in the study of the production of r-process material. The most widely accepted site of r-process production is the neutrino-heated ejecta of hot protoneutron stars (Woosley & Baron 1992; Meyer et al 1992). However, Qian, Vogel & Wasserburg (1998) find that the production of <sup>129</sup>I and <sup>180</sup>Hf for the protosolar nebula requires at least two different production sites, with different ratios of neutrons to seed nuclei. They find that the two hypothetical processes have to occur at different rates, with the less frequent events occurring at a rate $`1/10`$ as often as the more frequent events and with lower ratios of neutrons to seed nuclei. If we associate the high rate option with traditional core collapse supernovae, then our inferred hypernova rate is appropriate to be the second kind of event. Furthermore, the r-process operates on neutrino diffusion timescales $``$1-10s and on length scales corresponding to the neutrino-heated ‘hot bubble’ surrounding the nascent neutron star $`1050`$km, where the mostly dissociated material yields a high neutron/seed nuclei ratio (Meyer et al 1992). A neutron core moving at velocities $`1000\mathrm{km}.\mathrm{s}^1`$ will cross this bubble length within $`0.1`$ seconds. The neutrino-heated wind velocities on these scales are $`1001000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1`$ also (Qian & Woosley 1996). Thus, the velocity of the neutron star is likely to have a significant effect on the nucleosynthetic yield. If hypernovae result in black hole remnants, they will not contribute to this process, as they swallow most of their heavy element production (Timmes, Woosley & Weaver 1996 and references therein).

Finally, it is worth noting that the distance ($`40`$ Mpc) of SN1998bw/GRB980425 is approximately the value of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz’min cutoff, estimated to be $`30`$ Mpc (Protheroe & Johnson 1995). Thus, if GRB events are responsible for the generation of Ultra-High Energy cosmic rays (Milgrom & Usov 1995; Waxman 1995), there are reasonable prospects for detection of Cosmic Rays associated with this event. Recall that delays of $``$ 1 year are expected due to Galactic magnetic fields.

## 4 Magnetars and Cosmological Bursts

If the spins of pulsars are determined by the kicks they receive during their birth, as suggested by Spruit & Phinney (1998), then the spins of pulsars born from hypernovae will be particularly fast. Indeed, if spins reach $`<1`$ms, the conditions for efficient field amplification by proto-neutron star convection are met (Duncan & Thompson 1992) and the remnant will most likely be a magnetar,<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The existence of such objects has recently been demonstrated by Kouveliotou et al (1998). or neutron star with magnetic field $`10^{15}10^{16}`$ G. However, there is likely to be a distribution of spins and some normal field pulsars must result, since many of the known high velocity pulsars have average magnetic field strengths.

If some fraction of hypernovae do yield magnetars, these events may power the cosmological GRB as well, providing a common origin for the two observed classes. Several authors (Usov 1992; Fatuzzo & Melia 1993; Thompson 1994; Blackman, Yi & Field 1996) have discussed powering cosmological bursts using high field neutron stars, although the usual scenario invokes accretion induced collapse of a strongly magnetic white dwarf. The scenario presented here plumbs a different energy source to power the burst in that the rotational energy of the magnetar arises from the same mechanism that taps the explosion to provide the kick velocity.

The estimated birthrate of magnetars in the Galaxy (see Kouveliotou et al 1998 and references therein) suggest a rate of similar order of magnitude to the hypernova rate. Thus, the fraction of hypernovae that yield magnetars is $`f_m0.11`$. Assuming that one requires $`P<1`$ms to generate a magnetar (Duncan & Thompson 1992), cosmological GRB should then tap an energy reservoir $`E>2\times 10^{52}`$ergs in this scenario. If we wish to match a rate $`f_m\times 10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ $`10^4\mathrm{yr}^1`$ with the rate in equation (1), then we need only a total energy in the beam $`3\times 10^{49}`$ergs, corresponding to a beaming angle $`3`$ degrees and an efficiency of conversion of rotational to beamed energy of $`10^3`$. If we use the constant comoving rate estimate, then the beaming angle is $`30`$ degrees and conversion efficiency $`0.1`$. Thus, this scenario can easily generate sufficient events with appropriate energies and beaming angles. If only a fraction of magnetar births generate GRB, then we require a greater efficiency and larger beaming angle. Further constraints on the beaming are possible by studying the effects of afterglows in other wavebands (Perna & Loeb 1998). The high spins appropriate to the magnetars may also help to explain the variation in durations between bursts via the competition between gravitational and electromagnetic radiation (Blackman & Yi 1998).

## 5 Constraints and Predictions

The scenarios I have described above invoke the release of energy in the core collapse of a massive star to power them. As such, there is little dependance on the stellar envelope composition. Thus, just as we believe type II and type Ib supernovae to correspond to core collapse of stars with and without hydrogen envelopes respectively, we must expect hypernovae to occur in both hydrogen-rich and hydrogen-poor forms. SN1998bw is believed to be a type Ib hypernova and we might ask whether there exist any candidates for type II hypernovae? One possible candidate for such an event would be SN1979c (Branch et al 1981) which outshone most other type II by 2-3 magnitudes. Furthermore, this was a supernova of type II-L, a class which Gaskell (1992) claims is the hydrogen-rich equivalent of the type Ib events, in that this subset seem to be much closer to standard ‘bombs’ than the full, rather heterogeneous, type II sample. Gaskell’s estimate for the fraction of unusually luminous type II-L is $`48\%`$, consistent with our assumption that the overenergetic fraction of all core collapse explosions is $`<20\%`$.

How many hypernovae generate GRB? Let us first consider the SN1998bw/GRB980425 class. Kulkarni et al (1998a) find evidence in the radio emission for a relativistic shock preceding the main shock. It is thought that this decelerating shock may have generated the gamma-rays at an earlier time by an as yet poorly understood mechanism. To generate such a shock a significant amount of energy $`>10^{49}`$ ergs must have been coupled to the outer $`10^5M_{}`$ of the stellar envelope. As such it is likely that this type of GRB will be associated only with type Ib hypernovae (by virtue of the smaller envelope mass and steeper density gradient).

If we believe that this model can also explain the more energetic cosmological GRB, the scenario requires the beaming of energy from a young magnetar. Whether such events can occur in type II hypernovae will depend on whether the jet can penetrate the overlying hydrogen envelope while still avoiding the baryon loading problem. If not, we do not expect a GRB associated with such an event. However, the rotational energy $`10^{52}`$ergs released is still a substantial fraction of the hypernova energy and may perhaps result in observable asymmetry in the explosion. Such events should be detected in high-z supernova or direct optical transient searches.

If we consider the possibility that GRB may be associated with cosmological type II hypernovae, what are the chances of observing such an association? Let us consider the detectability of a bright supernova such as SN1979c in each of the well-studied cosmological afterglow cases. I model the peak flux of this event as a diluted black body of effective temperature $`13000`$ K as inferred from the parameters presented in Schmidt, Kirshner & Eastman (1992) and Cappellaro, Turatto & Fernley (1995). The maximum brightness may be compared to the observed afterglow or host galaxy emission at the appropriate redshifted time of maximum light ($``$ 7 days in the rest frame for SN1979C). In all three cases with redshift information (Metzger et al 1997;Kulkarni et al 1998a; Djorgovski et al 1998), the peak R magnitude is larger than the afterglow or host magnitude at the appropriate time. Furthermore, the sensitivity to extinction is large since the observed emission is from the rest-frame UV. The detectability of type Ib events ($``$ 1.5 magnitudes fainter at peak) is even harder. At limiting magnitudes $`R25`$, type II hypernovae are detectable out to $`z1`$ even for reasonable extinctions, but may be dwarfed by the GRB afterglow itself.

The connection between high velocities and spins proposed by Spruit & Phinney (1998) and the connection between rapid spins and strong magnetic fields proposed by Duncan & Thompson (1998) naturally leads to a halo of magnetars and neutron stars about our Galaxy and others. This is, in fact, the GRB scenario proposed by Duncan & Thompson which sought to explain GRB as magnetic reconnection events in the Galactic magnetar halo. Although I now invoke their births as the source of the GRB, it is possible that there is a third class of GRB event waiting to be discovered<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Perhaps some of the bursts with no observable optical afterglow could arise in this extended halo.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper I have presented circumstantial evidence from pulsar velocity and r-process nucleosynthesis studies which support the existence of another class of astrophysical explosion besides the supernovae, and with a rate and properties similar to that inferred for the hypernovae. Such links are highly speculative, but, given the complexity of the theory underlying these phenomena, any suggestion or hint of corroborating evidence is invaluable. Furthermore, the conditions that are likely to result in a hypernova are appropriate for the production of magnetars, which could generate the cosmological GRB as well.

An important point to note here is that the connection between kicks and spins proposed by Spruit & Phinney provides a new source of rotational energy to power cosmological GRB. This scenario is essentially the inverse of that proposed by Cen (1998) or Wang & Wheeler (1998), in that we invoke the kick mechanism (whatever that may be) to provide the energy source of the burst (rather than a momentum imbalance in the burst jet emission to provide the kicks). It may also serve to alleviate the problems associated with strong core-envelope coupling in collapsar progenitor models for GRB.

Note also that this model rests on an (as yet) unknown mechanism for generating $`2030`$ times the canonical $`10^{51}`$ ergs of mechanical energy in a core collapse explosion. Under this hypothesis, hypernovae should occur in both hydrogen-rich and hydrogen-poor form, just as core-collapse supernovae do. However, it may be more difficult to generate GRB if there is a massive hydrogen envelope to penetrate. Nevertheless, both events should appear in optical transient searches that don’t trigger on gamma rays.

This model provides an explanation for the curious bimodality in the pulsar velocity distribution, given the reasonable assumption that the contribution to kinetic energy is an approximately constant fraction of the collapse energy release. However, it must be noted that this is based on a sample of $`100`$ objects and pulsar surveys are bedevilled by myriad selection effects. Ongoing observational programs will add to the data in forthcoming years and should conclusively address the veracity of the velocity bimodality.