REVIEW 1 cited by
Identifying a point-symmetric morphology in supernova remnant Cassiopeia A: explosion by jittering jets
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We identify a point-symmetric morphology of the supernova remnant (SNR) Cassiopeia A compatible with shaping by at least two, and more likely more than four, pairs of opposite jets, as expected in the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) of core-collapse supernovae. Using an old Spitzer Telescope infrared map of argon, we identify seven pairs of opposite morphological features that we connect with lines that cross each other at the same point on the plane of the sky. The opposite morphological features include protrusions, clumps, filaments, and funnels in the main SNR shell. In addition to these seven symmetry axes, we find two tentative symmetry axes (lines). These lines form a point-symmetric wind-rose. We place this point-symmetric wind-rose on a new JWST and X-ray images of Cassiopeia A. We find other morphological features and one more symmetry axis that strengthen the identified point-symmetric morphology. Not all symmetry axes correspond to jets; e.g., some clumps are formed by the compression of ejecta between two jet-inflated lobes (bubbles). The robust point-symmetric morphology in the iconic Cassiopeia A SNR strongly supports the JJEM and poses a severe challenge to the neutrino-driven explosion mechanism.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The two alternative explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae: 2024 status report
A review paper argues that neutrinos alone cannot power most core-collapse supernova explosions and that jittering jets from the newborn neutron star are the primary explosion mechanism.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.