Supernova of 1006 (G327.6+14.6) (2024)

1 Introduction

SN1006 (G327.6+14.6) was the brightest supernova (SN) recorded in human history. According to various historical records ($\sim$30 in total from China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the Arab world) and their different interpretations, the peak magnitude of SN1006 ranges from $-2$ to $-10$ (e.g., Stephenson (2010)). Of these, the most straightforward estimate would be $-7.3$ to $-7.6$ (Winkler et al. 2003), based on a simple interpretation of the Egyptian astrologer Ali bin Ridwan’s description: “its size 2$\frac{1}{2}$ to 3 times the magnitude of Venus” and “a little more than a quarter of the brightness of the Moon”. On the other hand, Stephenson (2010) paid more attention to information from China: “It was so brilliant that one could scrutinize things (presumably nearby objects).” Since one can start to discern objects only when the Moon is about five days old (approximate magnitude $-8.5$ or $-9$) in a clear and very dark sky, he concluded that the peak brightness was around $-8.5$. Perhaps, a fair estimate would be somewhere between these two plausible evaluations.

Today, it can be observed in many wavelengths as a shell-type supernova remnant (SNR) with a radius of 30^′, as shown in Fig.1 — a deep X-ray image taken by Chandra in 2012 (Winkler et al. 2014). SN1006 was almost certainly a Type Ia event, based on its location far above the Galactic plane ($b=14.6^{\circ}$ = several hundreds of pc above the Galactic plane at a distance of 1–2 kpc), the lack of both a nearby OB association and a compact remnant, and recorded visibility for nearly two years. By combining the apparent magnitude of $-8$ with the absolute visual magnitude of normal SN Ia ($-19.12$: Leloudas et al. 2015) and the visual extinction of $A_{\rm v}=0.31$ (Winkler et al. 2003), the distance is estimated to be only 1.45 kpc. It stands out among all historical SNRs as the closest, highest above the Galactic plane and thus least obscured, and largest. It has been an excellent laboratory to study explosion mechanisms and nucleosynthesis of SNe Ia, as well as collisionless shock physics including cosmic ray acceleration.

2 Searching for a Surviving Companion Star to Constrain a Progenitor System

There is a consensus that SNe Ia originate from thermonuclear explosions of C+O white dwarfs whose masses are close to the Chandrasekhar mass (1.38 M_⊙). However, it is not clear how normal C+O white dwarfs, born with $\sim$0.6 M_⊙, approach the Chandrasekhar mass. There are two main scenarios to increase the white dwarf mass: 1) the merger of two white dwarfs, i.e., the double-degenerate (DD) scenario (Iben & Tutukov 1984), 2) mass accretion from a non-degenerate companion, i.e., the single-degenerate (SD) scenario (Nomoto 1982). The two scenarios predict a testable observational difference; nothing is left behind the explosion in the first channel, while a companion can survive the explosion in the second channel.

Using Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 4-m telescope, Schweizer & Middleditch (1980) searched for a surviving companion star, and found an unusually hot subdwarf sdOB star (hereafter, the SM star) at 2.5^′ south from the geometric center of the SNR. Since the distance to this object, 1.1${}^{+1.4}_{-0.6}$ kpc, was similar to SN1006, they suggested that it may be the surviving companion star. However, Savedoff & van Horn (1982) argued against this interpretation, since the time for a surviving companion to cool to the observed temperature was much longer than the SNR age. Also, the offset of 2.5^′ from the SNR center indicates a proper motion of $\sim$0.15^′′ yr^-1, which was not detected. Subsequently, using the International Ultraviolet Explore satellite, Wu et al. (1983) discovered broad absorption features corresponding to Fe II and Si II, III, IV in the UV spectrum of the SM star. The large broadening clearly shows that they are not caused by the interstellar medium (ISM) but are due to freely expanding cold SN ejecta. The fact that all of these absorption features have redshifted components means that the SM star should be located behind SN1006, ruling out its physical associated with SN1006. Furthermore, Winkler et al. (2005) found two other background UV sources within SN1006 that show similar broad absorption lines, which means that the SM star is not unique, and thus is undoubtedly not a stellar remnant of SN1006.

Continuous searches for a stellar remnant have failed to detect viable candidates. González-Hernández et al.(2012) found that all subgiants and main-sequence stars down to an absolute magnitude of the Sun ($L_{\odot}$) within a 4^′ radius of the apparent explosion site do not show any hints of surviving companions, i.e., noteworthy elemental abundances on the surface, radial velocity, and rotation. Kerzendorf et al.(2012) performed a deeper optical survey within a 2^′ radius, scrutinizing all stars to a limit of 0.5 $L_{\odot}(V)$ and performed radial velocity measurements of stars down to a limit of $\sim$0.1 $L_{\odot}(V)$ at the distance of SN1006. The brightness limits investigated are well below theoretical expectations of surviving companion stars; giant donors or subgiant/main sequence donors will become $\sim$1000 $L_{\odot}$ for at least 10⁵ yr (giant donor) or $\sim$500 $L_{\odot}$ for 1400–11,000 yr, respectively (Marietta et al. 2000). Despite the complete samples, no candidate companion was found. This is in conflict with the SD scenario, and favors the DD scenario or something else such as a spin-up/spin-down SD scenario in which the donor star evolved to a white dwarf before the SN explosion (Hachisu et al. 2012).

3 Spectroscopic Studies of Unshocked and Shocked Ejecta

While detections of the broad UV absorption lines from the SM star revealed that it is not physically related to SN1006 (Wu et al. 1983), these absorption features provide us with an unusual opportunity to probe unshocked ejecta within SNRs. Therefore, extensive observational and theoretical studies have been performed for the SM star.

As shown in Fig.2 upper panels (Hamilton et al. 1997), Fe II absorption lines at 2383 Åand 2600 Åare very broad ($\pm$5000 km s^-1), and are centrally symmetric with respect to rest frames, suggesting that they are caused by symmetrically-distributed cold Fe inside the remnant. The Fe II absorption profiles enable us to directly estimate a density profile of the singly-ionized Fe along the line of sight. By integrating the density profile, Hamilton et al.(2007) calculated the mass of Fe⁺ to be 0.029$\pm$0.004 M_⊙, assuming spherical symmetric distribution of cold Fe. Based on the fact that the ionization state of unshocked Fe appears to be quite low (Blair et al. 1996), with Fe⁺/Fe being inferred to be 0.66${}^{+0.29}_{-0.22}$, the total Fe mass was estimated to be 0.044${}^{+0.022}_{-0.013}$ M_⊙ with a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of 0.16 M_⊙. This is inconsistent with the expected presence of several tenths of a solar mass of Fe for normal SNe Ia.

Different from the symmetric profiles of Fe II lines, Si absorption lines are entirely at redshifted velocities. As an example, we show the Si II 1260 Åfeature in Fig.2 lower panel (Hamilton et al. 2007). The absence of the blueshifted Si absorption indicates no cold Si in the near side, suggesting a strong asymmetry in the ambient density along the line of sight in the sense that the far side is particularly tenuous compared with other regions of the remnant (Hamilton et al. 1997). In addition, the sharp red edge at 7070 km s^-1 indicates the position of the reverse shock. This edge was later found to be shifting at a rate of $-4.2\pm$1.0 km yr^-1, suggesting that the reverse shock is entering slower ejecta (Winkler et al. 2011). Hamilton et al.(1997) interpreted that the Si II line consists of both unshocked and shocked Si II, whereas absorption features of Si III and Si IV do not show such a sharp edge, indicating that they arise mostly from shocked Si.

Apart from the UV spectroscopy used to probe the cold ejecta, X-ray spectroscopy is a strong tool to probe shocked ejecta, if the X-ray spectrum contains prominent line emission. Becker et al.(1980) found that the X-ray spectrum from SN1006 is featureless, which is in sharp contrast to line-dominated spectra seen in other shell-like SNRs such as CassiopeiaA, Tycho, and Kepler. This fact led the authors to suggest that the X-ray emission is predominantly nonthermal. However, later X-ray observations started to show various indications of thermal emission. These include O K-shell lines with the imaging gas scintillation proportional counter (Vartanian et al. 1985), a relatively steep slope of the hard X-ray spectrum compared with typical synchrotron nebula with Tenma (Koyama et al. 1987), and an Fe K-shell lines complex with the Ginga (Ozaki et al. 1994) and the BeppoSAX satellites (Vink et al. 2000). After these studies, the ASCA satellite finally settled the question of the nature of the X-ray emission (Koyama et al. 1995); bright northeastern (NE) and southwestern (SW) limbs are dominated by synchrotron radiation, while the faint interior regions are dominated by thermal emission. Remarkable spectral differences between these two regions can be readily seen in Fig.3 — X-ray spectra from the SW limb (in red) and the interior area (in black) acquired by the Suzaku satellite.

The spectrum from the interior region (black in Fig.3) shows a number of lines from different species as labelled in the figure. Their line center energies as well as the line intensity ratios indicate an extreme non-equilibrium ionization state (Yamaguchi et al. 2008), as is expected from the low environmental densities in the thermal-dominated limbs (Acero et al. 2007; Winkler et al. 2014) as well as nonthermal-dominated limbs (Korreck et al. 2004; Katsuda et al. 2009). Clumpy structures inside or outside the forward shock of the thermal emission suggests that it is dominated by the reverse-shocked SN ejecta rather than the swept-up ISM (Cassam-Chenaï et al. 2008), although some fractions (especially for O and Ne) must be attributed to the swept-up ISM (Winkler et al. 2014). Yamaguchi et al.(2008) and Uchida et al.(2013) measured the relative abundances of shocked ejecta to be consistent with theoretical expectations based on standard SN Ia models. They also found that the distribution of heavier elements, i.e., Si through Fe, is highly asymmetric, biased to the SE quadrant of the remnant, which was confirmed by Chandra and XMM-Newton’s deep followup observations (Winkler et al. 2014; Li et al. 2015). The asymmetry would be caused by either the SN explosion asymmetry or the inhom*ogeneous ambient density. If the former is the case, the deficiency of Fe inferred from UV absorption studies could be resolved; most of Fe would have been ejected toward the SE quadrant where the UV background sources are not present.

4 Cosmic Ray Acceleration at the Forward Shock

In the early 1950s, detections of nonthermal radio emission from SNRs established that SNRs contain nonthermal, power-law populations of relativistic electrons/positrons with energies of the GeV range. About 40 years later, the ASCA and ROSAT satellites discovered the first nonthermal X-ray emission from the NE and SW limbs of SN1006 (Koyama et al. 1995; Willingale et al. 1996). This was the first evidence that SNR shocks can accelerate electrons up to TeV energies. Since then, SN1006 has been one of the most important SNRs to study cosmic ray acceleration such as mechanisms of diffusive shock acceleration (a widely accepted acceleration process at SNR shocks) and magnetic field amplification.

4.1 Geometry of Synchrotron Emission

The synchrotron surface brightness of SN1006 shows a clear bilateral symmetry that the NE and SW limbs are particularly bright compared with other regions (cf.Fig.1). This indicates that the synchrotron geometry forms either polar caps or an equatorial belt. In the polar cap model, the ambient magnetic field should be aligned NE–SW direction (parallel to the Galactic plane), while in the equatorial belt model it is aligned the SE–NW direction. Since the shock obliquity, i.e., the angle between the shock normal and the magnetic field vector, plays a fundamental role in many aspects of SNR shocks, considerable efforts have been devoted to reveal the synchrotron geometry and the direction of the ambient magnetic field.

It appears that the equatorial belt model was initially considered to be viable than the polar cap model (Fulbright & Reynolds 1990; Reynolds 1996), suggesting a large scale magnetic field aligned SE to NW. However, one problem with this model is that the injection of thermal particles into acceleration is lower in the synchrotron-bright limbs than in the synchrotron-faint limbs, which conflicts to the observations. The injection problem led Völk et al.(2003) to propose that the polar cap model is more reasonable than the equatorial belt model. By performing spatially-resolved spectral analyses of the entire periphery of SN1006 with XMM-Newton data, Rothenflug et al.(2004) found clear azimuthal variations of the cutoff frequency, ranging from 0.1 keV at the synchrotron-bright limbs to 5 keV at synchrotron-faint limbs. The azimuthal variation was confirmed in more detail by followup X-ray observations (Miceli et al. 2009; Katsuda et al. 2010). Such a strong variation can be explained only by the polar cap model, ruling out the equatorial belt model. Another strong azimuthal variation was found in the ratio of radii between the forward shock and the contact discontinuity, based on the X-ray and optical data analyses (Cassam-Chenaï et al. 2008). This is also in favor of the polar cap model. Finally, Bocchino et al.(2011) compared an observed radio morphology at 1 GHz with synthesized radio maps based on 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, finding that a model assuming quasi-parallel injection efficiency better represents the data than the quasi-perpendicular model.

Direct estimates of the magnetic-field orientation were performed through radio polarization measurements for the bright lobes (Kundu 1970). These observations consistently measured fractional polarization of 10–20% as well as the orientation of the magnetic field aligned NE to SW. Since this orientation is radial as is generally observed in young SNRs (Dickel & Milne 1976), the result was not conclusive in determining the direction of the magnetic field around SN1006. Reynoso et al.(2013) performed sensitive polarimetric observations of the faint SE and NW limbs for the first time, finding highly polarized (60$\pm$20%) radio emission as well as magnetic fields aligned tangent to the shock fronts as shown in Fig.4. This result strongly suggests that the ambient field is aligned this (SE–NW) direction, and that the bilateral synchrotron morphology is due to the polar cap geometry. Recent 3D MHD simulations of polarized emission in SN1006 also supported the quasi-parallel model (Schneiter et al. 2015).

4.3 Gamma-Ray Emission

A direct clue to probing high-energy ions would be to detect MeV-TeV gamma-ray emission from the decay of neutral pions resulting from inelastic collisions between high-energy ions and ambient ions (the hadronic process). It should be noted however, that high-energy electrons can also produce gamma-rays via inverse-Compton upscattering of ambient photons (the leptonic process). Thus, it is important to reveal contributions of both hadronic and leptonic gamma-rays, based on the intrinsic spectral difference of each emission process.

The High Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS) collaboration reported the first robust detection of very high-energy (TeV) gamma-rays from SN1006 (Acero et al. 2010). As shown in Fig.5, the morphology of TeV gamma-ray emission strongly correlates with that of synchrotron X-ray emission. The gamma-ray emitting region is compatible with a thin shell, although we should keep in mind that the spatial resolution of HESS (3^′–6^′) is too poor to discuss spatial scales down to a few arcminutes. This fact suggests that the gamma-ray emission originates from the accelerated particles at the SNR shock.

The broadband SED was, however, not very helpful to constrain the gamma-ray emission processes, so that a leptonic, hadronic, and their mixture processes could explain the SED. From an astrophysical point of view, the magnetic field downstream must be as low as 30 $\mu$G, in order to produce sufficient gamma-ray flux in the leptonic scenario. Since such a field is much lower than the inference from X-ray observations (Section4.2), Berezhko et al.(2012) to propose that the TeV emission is dominated by the hadronic process. The authors showed that a nonlinear kinetic model, which assumes a uniform high magnetic field of 150 $\mu$G and comparable contributions from leptonic and hadronic processes in the TeV flux, can reasonably explain the broadband spectrum and the radial profile of TeV gamma-ray emission.

Later, Fermi gave tight upper limits in the GeV band (Araya & Frutos 2012; Acero et al. 2015). The revised SED strongly favors the leptonic scenario for the origin of TeV gamma-rays. In this context, we may need to invoke detailed spatial variations in the magnetic field as well as the accelerated particles within SN1006. Petruk et al.(2011) constructed a leptonic model that takes into account detailed distributions of the magnetic field and high-energy particles inside the remnant, and showed that the model can explain not only the SED but also a locally high-magnetic field for the sharpest filaments in a low effective (emissivity-weighted average) magnetic field of 32 $\mu$G.

5 Collisionless Shock Physics

Shock waves are ubiquitous in a wide range of astrophysical sites including the solar wind, stellar wind bubbles, SNRs, and the merging galaxy clusters (Ghavamian et al. 2013, for a recent review). In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dissipation process at shocks is through direct collisions of particles, whereas in the space the density is too low to form collisional shocks, so that the dissipation is via collective interactions between particles and magnetic fields (hence, collisionless shocks). However, dissipation mechanisms in the collisionless shocks have been still poorly understood. For example, while one expects to find a mass-proportional temperature for each particle species, according to the Ranking-Hugoniot relation: $kT_{\rm i}=3/16m_{\rm i}V_{\rm s}^{2}$, where $m_{\rm i}$ is the particle mass and $V_{\rm s}$ is the shock speed, it has long been known that this relation does not always hold in SNR shocks.

Measurements of post-shock temperatures have been performed based mainly on optical and UV spectroscopy of narrow filaments tracing the forward shocks in SNRs (the so-called Balmer-dominated filaments). Figure6 left shows the entire SN1006 taken by the 4 m Blanco telescope at the CTIO (Winkler et al. 2014). The brightest optical feature in this remnant is the NW filament which has been an excellent site to investigate parameters of collisionless shocks faster than 2000 km s^-1. As shown in Fig.6 right, optical emission from the shock is dominated by Balmer lines of hydrogen rather than forbidden lines of cosmically abundant elements. Each line consists of narrow and broad components: the former is produced when cold neutrals that passed through the shock are excited in the post shock, and the latter is produced when charge-exchange reactions take place between cold neutrals and hot protons and generate a hot neutral population behind the shock. The width of the broad component is proportional to the postshock proton temperature, while the ratio of broad to narrow flux ($I_{\rm b}/I_{\rm n}$) is sensitive to electron-proton temperature equilibration. Ghavamian et al.(2002) measured the FWHM of the H$\alpha$ line and $I_{\rm b}/I_{\rm n}$ to be 2290$\pm$80 km s^-1 and 0.84${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$, respectively, which resulted in a shock speed of 2890$\pm$100 km s^-1 and an electron-to-proton temperature ratio of $<$0.07. Van Adelsberg et al.(2008) revised the shock velocity down to 2100$\pm$80 km s^-1, by taking into account that excitation by proton collisions and charge transfer to excited levels favor the high-speed part of the neutral hydrogen velocity distribution. A similar result was reported based on the analysis of VIMOS integral-field unit spectroscopy of the NW filament (Nikolic et al. 2013). In this work, it was also found that broad line widths and $I_{\rm b}/I_{\rm n}$ show spatial variations across tens of atomic mean free paths, suggesting presence of suprathermal protons, the potential seed particles for generating high-energy cosmic rays.

At UV wavelengths, Raymond et al.(1995) first detected line emission of He II, C IV, N V, O VI from the NW filament, using the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope. Followup far-UV observations by the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explore with much better spectral resolution revealed line widths for He II, C IV, and O VI to be 2558$\pm$618 km s^-1, 2641$\pm$355 km s^-1, and 2100$\pm$200 km s^-1, respectively. By attributing the velocities to thermal broadening, the temperatures of He II, C IV, and O VI were found to be less than mass proportional by 48%, 18%, and 21%, respectively. This is not easy to understand at the moment, and the roles of density, pressure, magnetic field orientation, velocity, and Mach numbers should be carefully investigated to better determine the ion heating mechanisms.

An X-ray radial profile obtained by the ROSAT High Resolution Imager peaks 8^′′ (corresponding to $\sim$0.07 pc at a distance of 1.5 kpc) inward from the optical filaments (Winkler & Long 1997). Using higher spatial and spectral resolution data with Chandra, Katsuda et al.(2013) noticed that the offset in the radial profiles differ with energies; the 0.5–0.6 keV peak dominated by O VII is closer to the shock front than that of the 0.8–3 keV emission. Such displacements are likely due to the fact that heavier elements need longer times to reach ionization states where they produce strong X-ray emission. Using the reflective grating spectrometer onboard XMM-Newton, Vink et al.(2003) and Broersen et al.(2013) measured a width of O VII line in a compact knot on the NW filament, finding the velocity to be 1250$\pm$160 km s^-1. This is much slower than those of other ions measured by UV and optical wavelengths listed above, which may be explained by either Coulomb equilibration with electrons or contribution from the reverse-shocked SN ejecta or both.

An important by-product from these shock studies is a distance, which can be derived by combining a shock velocity and a proper motion. Using the observed values, $V_{\rm s}=2100\pm 80$ km s^-1 and $\mu=0.280\pm 0.008^{\prime\prime}$ yr^-1 (Winkler et al. 2003), the distance is estimated to be 1.57$\pm$0.07 kpc. This is in rough agreement with a totally independent estimate (1.45 kpc: Section1) based on the peak brightness of SN1006.

6 Conclusions

The present state of knowledge on SN1006 has been reviewed. The main conclusions are summarized below.

This work is supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI Grant Numbers 25800119 and 16K17673.

7 Cross-references

References

• Acero et al. (2007) Acero, F., Ballet, J., & Decourchelle, A.: The gas density around SN 1006. A&A 475, 883–890 (2007)
• Acero et al. (2010) Acero, F., Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Anton, G, Barres de Almeida, U., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al.: First detection of VHE -rays from SN 1006 by HESS. A&A 516, 62 (2010)
• Acero et al. (2015) Acero, F., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Renaud, M., Ballet, J., Hewitt, J. W., Rousseau, R., & Tanaka, T.: Study of TeV shell supernova remnants at gamma-ray energies. A&A 580, 74 (2015)
• Allen et al. (2008) Allen, G. E., Houck, J. C., & Sturner, S. J.: Evidence of a Curved Synchrotron Spectrum in the Supernova Remnant SN 1006. ApJ 683, 773–785 (2008)
• Araya & Frutos (2012) Araya, M., & Frutos, F.: On the nature of the TeV emission from the supernova remnant SN 1006. MNRAS 425, 2810–2816 (2012)
• Bamba et al. (2003) Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., & Koyama, K.: Small-Scale Structure of the SN 1006 Shock with Chandra Observations. ApJ 589, 827–837 (2003)
• Becker et al. (1980) Becker, R. H., Szymkowiak, A. E., Boldt, E. A., Holt, S. S., & Serlemitsos, P. J.: Is the remnant of SN 1006 Crablike. ApJL 240, L33–L35 (1980)
• Berezhko et al. (2003) Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., & Völk, H. J.: Confirmation of strong magnetic field amplification and nuclear cosmic ray acceleration in SN 1006. A&A 412, L11–L14 (2003)
• Berezhko et al. (2012) Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., & Völk, H. J.: Nonthermal Emission of Supernova Remnant SN 1006 Revisited: Theoretical Model and the H.E.S.S. Results. ApJ 759, 12 (2012)
• Blair et al. (1996) Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., Raymond, J. C.: A Search for Fe III in SN 1006 Using the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope. ApJ 468, 871–882 (1996)
• Bocchino et al. (2011) Bocchino, F., Orlando, S., Miceli, M., & Petruk, O.: Constraints on the local interstellar magnetic field from non-thermal emission of SN1006. A&A 531, 129 (2011)
• Broersen et al. (2013) Broersen, S., Vink, J., & Miceli, M.: The northwestern ejecta knot in SN 1006. A&A 552, 9 (2013)
• Cassam-Chenaï et al. (2008) Cassam-Chenaï, G., Hughes, J. P., Reynoso, E. M., Badenes, C., & Moffett, D.: Morphological Evidence for Azimuthal Variations of the Cosmic-Ray Ion Acceleration at the Blast Wave of SN 1006. ApJ 680, 1180–1197 (2008)
• Dickel & Milne (1976) Dickel, J. R., & Milne, D. K.: Magnetic fields in supernova remnants. Australian Journal of Physics 29, 435–460 (1976)
• Fulbright & Reynolds (1990) Fulbright, M. S., & Reynolds, S. P.: Bipolar supernova remnants and the obliquity dependence of shock acceleration. ApJ 357, 591–601 (1990)
• Ghavamian et al. (2002) Ghavamian, P., Winkler, P. F., Raymond, J. C., & Long, K. S.: The Optical Spectrum of the SN 1006 Supernova Remnant Revisited. ApJ 572, 888–896 (2002)
• Ghavamian et al. (2013) Ghavamian, P., Schwartz, S. J., Mitchell, J., Masters, A., & Laming, J. M: Electron-Ion Temperature Equilibration in Collisionless Shocks: The Supernova Remnant-Solar Wind Connection. Space Science Reviews 178, 633–663 (2013)
• González-Hernandez et al. (2012) Gonzalez Hernandez, J. I., Ruiz-Lapuente, P., & Tabernero, H. M.: No surviving evolved companions of the progenitor of SN1006. Nature 489, 533–536 (2012)
• Hachisu et al. (2012) Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K.: Final Fates of Rotating White Dwarfs and Their Companions in the Single Degenerate Model of Type Ia Supernovae. ApJL 756, L4 (2012)
• Hamilton et al. (1997) Hamilton, A. J. S., Fesen, R. A., Wu, C.-C., Crenshaw, D. M., & Sarazin, C. L.: Interpretation of Ultraviolet Absorption Lines in SN 1006. ApJ 481, 838–856 (1997)
• Hamilton et al. (2007) Hamilton, A. J. S., Fesen, R. A., & Blair, W. P.: A high-resolution ultraviolet absorption spectrum of supernova ejecta in SN1006. MNRAS 381, 771–778 (2007)
• Iben & Tutukov (1984) Iben, I., Jr., & Tutukov, A. V.: The evolution of low-mass close binaries influenced by the radiation of gravitational waves and by a magnetic stellar wind. ApJ 284, 719–744 (1984)
• Katsuda et al. (2009) Katsuda, S., Petre, R., Long, K. S., Reynolds, S. P., Long, K. S., Winkler, P. F., et al.: The First X-Ray Proper-Motion Measurements of the Forward Shock in the Northeastern Limb of SN 1006. ApJL 692, L105–L108 (2009)
• Katsuda et al. (2010) Katsuda, S., Petre, R., Mori, K., Reynolds, S. P., Long, K. S., Winkler, P. F., et al.: Steady X-ray Synchrotron Emission in the Northeastern Limb of SN 1006. ApJ 723, 383–392 (2010)
• Katsuda et al. (2013) Katsuda, S., Long, K. S., Petre, R., Reynolds, S. P., Willams, B. J., & Winkler, P. F.: X-ray Proper Motions and Shock Speeds along the Northwest Rim of SN 1006. ApJ 763, 85 (2013)
• Kerzendorf et al. (2012) Kerzendorf, W. E., Schmidt, B. P., Laird, J. B., Podsiadlowski, P., & Bessell, M. S.: Hunting for the Progenitor of SN 1006: High-resolution Spectroscopic Search with the FLAMES Instrument. ApJ 759, 7 (2012)
• Korreck et al. (2004) Korreck, K. E., Raymond, J. C., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Ghavamian, P.: Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer Observation of the Nonradiative Collisionless Shock in the Remnant of SN 1006. ApJ 615, 280–285 (2004)
• Koyama et al. (1987) Koyama, K., Tsunemi, H., Becker, R. H., & Hughes, J. P.: A redetermination of the X-ray spectrum of SN 1006 and excess diffuse emission from the Lupus region. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 39, 437–445 (1987)
• Koyama et al. (1995) Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E. V., Hwang, U., Matsuura, M., Ozaki, M., et al.: Evidence for shock acceleration of high-energy electrons in the supernova remnant SN1006. Nature 378, 255–258 (1995)
• Kundu (1970) Kundu, M. R.: Brightness and Polarization Structure of Three Supernova Remnants at 6-AND 11-centimeter Wavelengths. ApJ 162, 17–26 (1970)
• Leloudas et al. (2015) Leloudas, G., Hsiao, E.Y., & Johansson, J.: Supernova spectra below strong circ*mstellar interaction. A&A 574, 61 (2015)
• Li et al. (2015) Li, J-T., Decourchelle, A., Miceli, M., Vink, J., & Bocchino, F.: XMM-Newton large program on SN1006 - I. Methods and initial results of spatially resolved spectroscopy. MNRAS 453, 3953–3974 (2015)
• Long et al. (2003) Long, K. S., Reynolds, S. P., Raymond, J. C., Winkler, P. F., Dyer, K. K., & Petre, R.: Chandra CCD Imagery of the Northeast and Northwest Limbs of SN 1006. ApJ 586, 1162–1178 (2003)
• Marietta et al. (2000) Marietta, E., Burrows, A., & Fryxell, B.: Type IA Supernova Explosions in Binary Systems: The Impact on the Secondary Star and Its Consequences. ApJS 128, 615–650 (2000)
• Marcowith & Casse (2010) Marcowith, A., & Casse, F.: Postshock turbulence and diffusive shock acceleration in young supernova remnants. A&A 515, 90 (2010)
• Miceli et al. (2009) Miceli, M., Bocchino, F., Iakubovskyi, D., Orlando, S., Telezhinsky, I., Kirsch, M. G. F., et al.: Thermal emission, shock modification, and X-ray emitting ejecta in SN 1006. A&A 501, 239–249 (2009)
• Miceli et al. (2013) Miceli, M., Bocchino, F., Decourchelle, A., Vink, J., Broersen, S., & Orlando, S.: The shape of the cutoff in the synchrotron emission of SN 1006 observed with XMM-Newton. A&A 556, 80 (2013)
• Morlino et al. (2010) Morlino, G., Amato, E., Blasi, P., & Caprioli, D.: Spatial structure of X-ray filaments in SN 1006. MNRAS 405, L21–L25 (2010)
• Nikolic et al. (2013) Nikolic, S., van de Ven, G., Heng, K., Kupko, D., Husemann, B., Raymond, J. C., et al.: An integral view of fast shocks around supernova 1006. Science 340, 45–48 (2013)
• Nomoto (1982) Nomoto, K.: Accreting white dwarf models for type I supernovae. I - Presupernova evolution and triggering mechanisms. ApJ 253, 798–810 (1982)
• Orlando et al. (2012) Orlando, S., Bocchino, F., Miceli, M., Petruk, O., & Pumo, M. L.: Role of Ejecta Clumping and Back-reaction of Accelerated Cosmic Rays in the Evolution of Type Ia Supernova Remnants. ApJ 749, 156 (2012)
• Ozaki et al. (1994) Ozaki, M., Koyama, K., Ueno, S., & Yamauchi, S.: GINGA observations of SN 1006 and the Lupus region. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 46, 367–373 (1994)
• Petruk et al. (2011) Petruk, O., Beshley, V., Bocchino, F., Miceli, M., & Orlando, S.: Observational constraints on the modelling of SN 1006. MNRAS 413, 1643–1656 (2011)
• Pohl et al. (2005) Pohl, M., Yan, H., & Lazarian, A.: Magnetically Limited X-Ray Filaments in Young Supernova Remnants. ApJ 626, L101–L104 (2005)
• Raymond et al. (1995) Raymond, J. C., Blair, W. P., & Long, K. S.: Detection of Ultraviolet Emission Lines in SN 1006 with the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope. ApJL 454, L31–L34 (1995)
• Raymond et al. (2007) Raymond, J. C., Korreck, K. E., Sedlacek, Q. C., Blair, W. P., Ghavamian, P., & Sankrit, R.: The Preshock Gas of SN 1006 from Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys Observations. ApJ 659, 1257–1264 (2007)
• Ressler et al. (2014) Ressler, S. M., Katsuda, S., Reynolds, S. P., Long, K. S., Petre, R., Williams, B. J., et al.: Magnetic Field Amplification in the Thin X-Ray Rims of SN 1006. ApJ 790, 85 (2014)
• Reynolds (1996) Reynolds, S. P.: Synchrotron Models for X-Rays from the Supernova Remnant SN 1006. ApJL 459, L13–L16 (1996)
• Reynolds (2008) Reynolds, S. P.: Supernova Remnants at High Energy. ARA&A 46, 89–126 (2008)
• Reynoso et al. (2013) Reynoso, E. M., Hughes, J. P., & Moffett, D. A.: On the Radio Polarization Signature of Efficient and Inefficient Particle Acceleration in Supernova Remnant SN 1006. ApJ 145, 104 (2013)
• Rothenflug et al. (2004) Rothenflug, R., Ballet, J., Dubner, G., Giacani, E., Decourchelle, A., & Ferrando, P.: Geometry of the non-thermal emission in SN 1006. Azimuthal variations of cosmic-ray acceleration. A&A 425, 121–131 (2004)
• Stephenson (2010) Stephenson, F. R.: SN 1006: the brightest supernova. A&G 51, 5.27–5.32 (2010)
• Savedoff & van Horn (1982) Savedoff, M. P., & van Horn, H. M.: The Schweizer-Middleditch star - Not a stellar remnant of SN 1006. A&A 107, L3–L4 (1982)
• Schneiter et al. (2015) Schneiter, E. M., Velazquez, P. F., Reynoso, E. M., Esquivel, A., & De Colle, F.: 3D MHD simulation of polarized emission in SN 1006. MNRAS 449, 88–93 (2015)
• Schweizer & Middleditch (1980) Schweizer, F., & Middleditch, J.: A hot blue star near the center of the remnant of supernova A.D. 1006. ApJ 241, 1039–1044 (1980)
• Uchida et al. (2013) Uchida, H., Yamaguchi, H., & Koyama, K.: Asymmetric Ejecta Distribution in SN 1006. ApJ 771, 56 (2013)
• Uchiyama et al. (2007) Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y.: Extremely fast acceleration of cosmic rays in a supernova remnant. Nature 449, 576–578 (2007)
• Vartanian et al. (1985) Vartanian, M. H., Lum, K. S. K., & Ku, W. H.-M.: Imaging X-ray spectrophotometric observation of SN 1006. ApJ 288, L5–L9 (1985)
• van Adelsberg et al. (2008) van Adelsberg, M., Heng, K., McCray, R., & Raymond, J. C.: Spatial Structure and Collisionless Electron Heating in Balmer-dominated Shocks. ApJ 689, 1089–1104 (2008)
• Vink et al. (2000) Vink, J., Kaastra, J. S., Bleeker, J. A. M., & Preite-Martinez, A.: The BeppoSAX X-ray spectrum of the remnant of SN 1006. A&A 354, 931–937 (2000)
• Vink et al. (2003) Vink, J., Laming, J. M., Gu, M. F., Rasmussen, A., & Kaastra, J. S.: The Slow Temperature Equilibration behind the Shock Front of SN 1006. ApJL 587, L31–L34 (2003)
• Völk et al. (2003) Völk, H. J., Berezhko, E. G., & Ksenofontov, L. T.: Variation of cosmic ray injection across supernova shocks. A&A 409, 563–571 (2003)
• Willingale et al. (1996) Willingale, R., West, R. G., Pye, J. P., & Stewart, G. C.: ROSAT PSPC observations of the remnant of SN 1006. MNRAS 278, 749–762 (1996)
• Winkler & Long (1997) Winkler, P. F., & Long, K. S.: X-Ray and Optical Imagery of the SN 1006 Supernova Remnant. ApJ 491, 829–838 (1997b)
• Winkler et al. (2003) Winkler, P. F., Gupta, G., & Long, K. S.: The SN 1006 Remnant: Optical Proper Motions, Deep Imaging, Distance, and Brightness at Maximum. ApJ 585, 324–335 (2003)
• Winkler et al. (2005) Winkler, P. F., Long, K. S., Hamilton, A. J. S., & Fesen, R. A.: Probing Multiple Sight Lines through the SN 1006 Remnant by Ultraviolet Absorption Spectroscopy. ApJ 624, 189–197 (2005)
• Winkler et al. (2011) Winkler, P. F., Hamilton, A. J. S., Long, K. S., & Fesen, R. A.: Time Evolution of the Reverse Shock in SN 1006. ApJ 742, 80 (2011)
• Winkler et al. (2014) Winkler, P. F., Williams, B. J., Reynolds, S. P., Petre, R., Long, K. S., Katsuda, S., et al.: A High-resolution X-ray and Optical Study of SN 1006: Asymmetric Expansion and Small-scale Structure in a Type Ia Supernova Remnant. ApJ 781, 65 (2014)
• Wu et al. (1983) Wu, C.-C., Leventhal, M., Sarazin, C. L., & Gull, T. R.: High-velocity iron absorption lines in supernova remnant 1006. ApJ 269, L5–L9 (1983)
• Yamaguchi et al. (2008) Yamaguchi, H., Koyama, K., & Katsuda, S., Nakajima, H., Hughes, J. P., Bamba, A., et al.: X-Ray Spectroscopy of SN 1006 with Suzaku. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 60, S141–S152 (2008)