Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Suppression of Shock X-ray Emission in Novae from Turbulent Mixing with Cool Gas

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Turbulent mixing with cool gas sets the X-ray power of nova shocks and explains why hard X-rays are about 10^4 times dimmer than the shock power inferred from gamma rays.

desk verdict A plausible and transparent explanation for the nova X-ray deficit, but the headline luminosity rests on a self-regulation step the authors themselves flag as unclear. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08907 v2 pith:2NIS6YWP submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Brian D. Metzger , Lachlan Lancaster , Rebecca Diesing This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords novaeshockinteractionturbulentmixingX-raysuppressiongamma-rayemissionradiativeshockswhitedwarfsinteractingsupernovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Classical novae are known from gamma rays to host powerful shocks, yet their observed hard X-ray luminosities are typically more than four orders of magnitude below the shock power implied by those gamma rays. The paper tries to close that gap by showing that turbulent mixing behind the reverse shock transfers energy from hot shocked gas into a cool, dense shell faster than the hot gas can radiate it, so most of the shock power is reprocessed into optical/UV rather than X-rays. Equating the mixing energy loss with the shock heating fixes the smallest outer turbulent scale $L_{\min}$, and taking the X-ray-emitting layer to be that thin yields minimum X-ray efficiencies $f_{X,\min} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-5} f_{t,-2}^{-3/2} v_{w,3}^{-3}$ and luminosities $L_{X,\min} \approx 2 \times 10^{33}$ erg/s when only about 1% of the shock power is turbulent. These numbers fall in the observed range of nova hard X-ray luminosities, so the mechanism offers a resolution of the four-order-of-magnitude puzzle, and the same logic applies to other shock-powered transients such as interacting supernovae.

What carries the argument

The central object is the turbulent mixing layer at the hot/cold interface behind the reverse shock. Turbulence with outer scale $L$ and a 1/3-law cascade $v_t(\ell) = v_t(L)(\ell/L)^{1/3}$ makes the interface fractal, enhancing its area by $(L/\ell_c)^d$ with $d \approx 1/2$; the controlling scale $\ell_c$ is where the eddy turnover time equals the minimum cooling time $t_{c,\min}$ of mixed gas at $T_{c,\min} \approx 1.6 \times 10^4$ K. The mixing energy flux is $\dot{E}_{\rm mix} = (5/2) P_{\rm sh} A_{\rm sh} \langle v_{\rm out}\rangle$ with $\langle v_{\rm out}\rangle \approx v_t(\ell_c)$. Equating $\dot{E}_{\rm mix}$ with the shock power $L_w$ fixes the minimum outer scale $L_{\min} = (8/15)^4 f_t^{-3/2} v_w t_{c,\min}$. The argumentative hinge is then the identification $\Delta_X \approx L_{\min}$: taking the X-ray-emitting layer's thickness to be $L_{\min}$ converts the energy balance into a quantitative luminosity, $L_X = (9/32) L_w (L_{\min}/\Delta_{\rm rad})$, rather than leaving the suppression as an undetermined factor.

What would settle it

A radiative-shock simulation that resolves the turbulent mixing scale $\ell_c$ and measures the post-shock hot-layer thickness: if it finds $\Delta_X \gg L_{\min}$, or if any nova is observed with intrinsic hard X-ray luminosity within an order of magnitude of its gamma-ray-inferred shock power ($f_X \gtrsim 0.1$), the suppression claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the keV-emitting gas behind a nova reverse shock is not the primary radiator of the shock's energy. Instead, the hot gas at $T_X \gtrsim 10^7$ K sits against a cool, dense shell at $T \lesssim 10^4$ K, and the interface becomes a turbulent fractal surface across which mixing removes thermal energy at a rate $\dot{E}_{\rm mix} = (5/2) P_{\rm sh} A_{\rm sh} \langle v_{\rm out}\rangle$. When this mixing term balances the shock luminosity $L_w$, the hot layer need only be a tiny fraction of the laminar radiative cooling length $\Delta_{\rm rad}$; the required outer turbulent scale is $L_{\min} = (8/15)^4 f_t^{-3/2} v_w t_{c,\min} \approx 5 \times 10^{-5} f_{t,-2}^{-3/2} v_{w,3}^{-3} \Delta_{\rm rad}$, and the minimum X-ray efficiency is $f_{X,\min} = (9/32)(L_{\min}/\Delta_{\rm rad}) \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-5} f_{t,-2}^{-3/2} v_{w,3}^{-3}$. With $L_w \approx L_{\rm Edd} \approx 10^{38}$ erg/s this gives $L_{X,\min} \approx 2 \times 10^{33}$ erg/s, matching the observed range $L_X \sim 10^{32}{-}10^{34}$ erg/s. The paper reads the closeness of the observed $f_X$ values to $f_{X,\min}$ as evidence that the outer turbulent scale is self-regulated to $L_{\min}$, while acknowledging that the feedback mechanism is not yet identified.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the hot X-ray-emitting layer having exactly the thickness of the smallest self-regulating turbulent eddy $L_{\min}$, set by balancing mixing cooling against shock heating; if the outer turbulent scale is instead set by the geometry or driving process, the predicted minimum X-ray luminosity does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nova hard X-ray luminosities of about $10^{32}{-}10^{34}$ erg/s become the expected outcome, not an anomaly, provided roughly 1% of the shock power drives turbulence behind the reverse shock.
  • The X-ray-emitting layer behind a nova shock is extremely thin, $\Delta_X \sim L_{\min} \ll \Delta_{\rm rad}$, so a shock that would look only marginally radiative in a laminar treatment is actually deeply radiative because of mixing.
  • If the self-regulation $L \approx L_{\min}$ operates, the hard X-ray luminosity becomes a probe of the turbulence fraction $f_t$ and wind velocity $v_w$ rather than a direct calorimeter of shock power.
  • The same turbulent-mixing suppression should operate at the forward shock and in any shock-powered transient with cool gas nearby, such as Type IIn supernovae, greatly reducing their thermal X-ray output relative to the shock calorimetric expectation.
  • The near-coincidence of observed $f_X$ with $f_{X,\min}$ suggests a feedback loop connecting post-shock thermodynamics to turbulent driving, a mechanism the paper leaves for global simulations to test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if X-rays trace the turbulent mixing rate rather than the shock power, then a nova's hard X-ray light curve encodes changes in $f_t$ and $v_w$; simultaneous gamma-ray and X-ray monitoring across many novae could map how the turbulence fraction varies with ejecta properties.
  • Beyond the paper: the mechanism predicts that novae with weaker evidence of a cool, dense shell should show less X-ray suppression, approaching the laminar efficiency $f_X \sim 1$; X-ray detections of novae with different ejecta morphologies can test this.
  • Beyond the paper: applied to interacting supernovae, the same argument implies that X-ray-based estimates of reverse-shock luminosity may systematically underestimate the true shock power, which would lower the inferred progenitor mass-loss rates from X-ray observations.
  • Beyond the paper: because mixing at the transport scale is only marginally faster than magnetic wave speeds, stronger magnetic field amplification than assumed would throttle mixing and raise $L_X$; monitoring X-ray suppression across novae could thus become a diagnostic of field amplification at shocks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that turbulent mixing between hot shocked gas and cool gas behind nova reverse shocks removes thermal energy from the X-ray-emitting layer far more rapidly than direct radiative cooling, thereby explaining the observed hard X-ray luminosities that are four orders of magnitude below the naive shock-power expectation. The authors construct a one-zone energy balance in which the shock luminosity is balanced by turbulent mixing losses, parameterize the mixing rate using a Kolmogorov cascade and a fractal hot-cold interface, and define a minimum outer turbulent scale L_min at which mixing cooling equals shock heating. By identifying the thickness of the X-ray-emitting layer with L_min, they derive a minimum X-ray efficiency f_X,min and luminosity L_X,min, and show that the predicted values roughly match observations for about one percent of shock power going into turbulence. They also discuss magnetic fields, conduction, and possible applications to interacting supernovae.

Significance. If the quantitative prediction holds, the paper offers an elegant and physically motivated resolution of a long-standing discrepancy in nova physics: the observed X-ray deficit relative to shock power inferred from gamma-rays and reprocessed optical emission. The analytic framework is transparent, the turbulent mixing scalings are grounded in recent high-resolution simulation work, and the model makes a specific, falsifiable prediction for L_X,min as a function of shock velocity, shock luminosity, and turbulent energy fraction. The paper is also commendably explicit about the key limitation of the argument, the unclear feedback that would set the outer turbulent scale to L_min. The proposed mechanism may have broader relevance to other shock-powered transients, and the paper should stimulate useful numerical tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 / Eq. (22) and Sec. 4.2] The central quantitative prediction L_X,min rests entirely on the identification Δ_X = L_min. The feedback argument given before Eq. (22) assumes that the outer turbulent scale L is tied to the thickness of the hot layer, so that L > L_min leads to contraction and L < L_min leads to expansion. If L is set externally, for example by the corrugation wavelength of the thin-shell instability or by the shock geometry, this equilibrium changes: for L > L_min the layer can shrink below L and the mixing rate is then set by the smaller eddies that fit within the layer, while for L < L_min the layer can grow without the driving scale growing with it. The manuscript itself states in Sec. 4.2 that the regulation process is 'not yet clear' and can only be tested with global simulations. As written, Eq. (26) and Fig. 2 therefore present a conditional scenario rather than a robust prediction; the paper should either provide a concrete mechanism or explicitly reframe L_X,min as a lower-limit/conditional estimate whose agreement with observations is suggestive rather than decisive.
  2. [Eq. (21)] There is an internal inconsistency in the final numerical form of Eq. (21). From the preceding expression, (15/8) f_t^{1/2} (t_c,min/t_eddy)^{-1/4}, with t_eddy = L/(f_t^{1/2} v_w) and t_c,min proportional to v_w R^2/L_w, the scaling is E_dot_mix/L_w proportional to f_t^{3/8} (L/R)^{1/4} L_w^{1/4} R^{-1/4} v_w^{-1/2}. The printed expression has v_w,3^{+1/2}, which is the wrong sign. The coefficient 41 is consistent with the fiducial value at v_w,3 = 1, so the error only appears away from the normalization point, but as written the formula will overestimate the mixing efficiency for faster shocks and should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The numerical value quoted for the X-ray cooling time appears inconsistent with the preceding formula. Inserting L_w,Edd = 1, v_w,3 = 1, and R_14 = 1 into t_c,X = 8π v_w R^2 (kT_X)^2/(L_w Λ), with kT_X = 1.4e7 K and Λ ≈ 7.5e-24 erg cm^3/s for free-free cooling, gives t_c,X ≈ 9e4 s rather than the stated 8e5 s, a discrepancy of about a factor of nine. Because Δ_rad (Eq. 5) and hence f_X,min (Eq. 25) are inversely proportional to t_c,X, this numerical error propagates into the quantitative predictions shown in Fig. 2 and should be checked carefully.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, text near Eq. (10)] Equation (26) is referenced before it is defined; the cross-reference should be renumbered or replaced with the actual equation number for the luminosity expression.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The relation A_sh = 4πR^2 (L/ℓ_c)^d is introduced after A_sh ≈ 4πR^2/⟨r·n⟩; the text should state explicitly that the parametrization corresponds to ⟨r·n⟩ ≈ (ℓ_c/L)^d, which would help readers connect the fractal-area prescription to the earlier definition.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The figure would benefit from a brief sentence noting that the systematic uncertainty in L_w from the assumed gamma-ray efficiency dominates the plotted formal error bars, since the text currently makes this point only in the body.
  4. [Section 4.2 near Eq. (33)] The sensitivity of L_X,min to the difference d-p is important and acknowledged; placing the caveat about the uncertain exponent in the abstract or conclusions would better reflect its weight for the quantitative claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray suppression prediction is derived from turbulence scalings and external comparisons; the self-regulation assumption is an acknowledged conditionality, not a definitional loop.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the required sense. The energy-balance equation (Eq. 7) is a physical conservation statement; the turbulent mixing flux (Eq. 9) is taken from prior simulation literature; Eq. (21) computes the ratio of mixing cooling to shock heating; Eq. (22) defines L_min by the condition E_dot_mix = L_w; and Eqs. (25)-(26) follow by setting Delta_X = L_min. None of these steps redefines an unknown in terms of the target claim: the numerical prediction L_X,min ~ 2e33 erg/s is not fitted to nova X-ray data, and the comparison in Fig. 2 uses external observations. The turbulence fraction f_t = 0.01 and fractal dimension d = 1/2 are calibrated from independent simulations (Steinberg & Metzger 2018; Lancaster et al. 2024), and those simulations do not encode the nova X-ray luminosity being 'predicted'; the self-citations are therefore evidentiary, not definitional. The key assumption that the outer scale L settles to L_min, with Delta_X ~ L, is explicitly labeled by the authors as a regulation process whose mechanism is 'not yet clear' (Sec. 4.2) and which requires future global simulations. That is an honest model limitation and a conditionality on the quantitative comparison, not a circular reduction: L_min is derived from a physical balance condition, and the X-ray luminosity is then computed from the resulting layer thickness rather than assumed to match observations. No quoted step reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step meets the hard-rule standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model introduces no new physical entities. It depends on the turbulent energy fraction f_t, fractal dimension d, cascade slope p, and gamma-ray efficiency epsilon_gamma, all calibrated from simulations or prior modeling rather than measured for nova shocks. The key closing assumption that the hot layer thickness equals the minimum turbulent scale L_min (Sec. 3.3) is an ansatz the authors flag as requiring further testing.

free parameters (4)
  • f_t (turbulent kinetic energy fraction) = 0.01 (canonical, from Steinberg & Metzger 2018)
    The predicted X-ray luminosity scales as f_t^{-3/2} (Eq. 26); order-of-magnitude agreement with observations requires f_t in the range 1e-3 to 1e-2. The value is adopted from a prior simulation by this group, not measured for nova shocks.
  • d (excess fractal dimension of hot-cold interface) = 1/2 (from Lancaster et al. 2024 simulations)
    Fiducial value adopted for the fractal area enhancement (Eq. 20). The result is sensitive to the difference d - p (Eq. 33), so uncertainties in d strongly affect the predicted luminosity.
  • p (turbulent cascade slope) = 1/3 (Kolmogorov)
    Assumed subsonic Kolmogorov scaling (Eq. 14). The combination d - p controls the exponent of f_t in L_X,min, so this standard choice is not innocuous for the quantitative prediction.
  • epsilon_gamma (gamma-ray efficiency) = 0.003
    Used to convert observed L_gamma into L_w for the data points in Fig. 2 (Sec. 4.2). The authors acknowledge systematic uncertainties exceed the plotted statistical errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The post-shock flow is isobaric and mixed gas cools at constant pressure P_sh.
    Used to define the minimum cooling time t_c,min at intermediate temperatures (Eq. 18). Standard for subsonic post-shock turbulence but not directly verified for nova shocks.
  • domain assumption The hot/cold interface is fractal with area A_sh = 4πR_sh^2 (L/ℓ_c)^d and heat is transported at velocity v_t(ℓ_c).
    Motivated by simulations of turbulent mixing layers (Fielding et al. 2020; Lancaster et al. 2021a,b, 2024); adopted rather than derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Turbulent mixing dominates over direct radiative cooling, Compton cooling, conduction, and magnetic suppression.
    The paper argues each in Sec. 4.1 using order-of-magnitude estimates; if magnetic fields or conduction alter the transport, the suppression could be weaker.
  • ad hoc to paper The outer turbulent scale L is tied to the hot layer thickness, and the system regulates to L = L_min such that Δ_X = L_min.
    This closing assumption, introduced in Sec. 3.3 before Eq. (25), converts the balance condition into a specific X-ray luminosity. The authors state the feedback mechanism is not yet clear (Sec. 4.2).
  • domain assumption The shock is approximately spherical, steady-state, and one-zone with volume 4πR_sh^2 Δ_X.
    Simplifies geometry; clumpiness and angular structure of real nova ejecta are neglected.
  • domain assumption Cooling function values: free-free Λ(T) ~ 2e-27 T^1/2 for T > 1e7 K and Λ(T_c,min) ~ 2e-22 erg cm3/s at T_c,min ~ 1.6e4 K.
    Standard collisional ionization equilibrium cooling curves; the paper notes the minimum cooling time is insensitive to CNO enhancement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Suppression of Shock X-ray Emission in Novae from Turbulent Mixing with Cool Gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NIS6YWP

@misc{pith2026250508907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Suppression of Shock X-ray Emission in Novae from Turbulent Mixing with Cool Gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NIS6YWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08907}
}
read the original abstract

Shock interaction in classical novae occurs when a fast outflow from the white dwarf > 1000 km s/s collides with a slower, cooler shell of gas released earlier in the outburst. The shocks radiate across the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio synchrotron to GeV gamma-rays. The hot shocked gas also emits >~ keV thermal X-rays, typically peaking weeks after the eruption, once the ejecta becomes transparent to photoelectric absorption. However, the observed hard X-ray luminosities are typically >4 orders of magnitude smaller than would be naively expected given the powerful shocks implied by the gamma-rays. We argue that a key missing piece to this puzzle is turbulence behind the shock, driven, e.g., by thin-shell and/or thermal instabilities. Turbulence efficiently mixes the hot X-ray emitting gas with cooler gas, sapping the hot gas of energy faster than it can directly radiate. Using analytic arguments motivated by numerical simulations, we show that energy losses due to turbulent mixing can easily balance shock heating, greatly reducing the volume of the hot gas and suppressing the X-ray luminosity. Equating the characteristic thickness of the X-ray emitting region to the minimum outer length scale of the turbulence capable of cooling the hot gas through mixing, we obtain X-ray luminosities consistent with nova observations if only ~1% of the shock's kinetic power goes into turbulent motions. A similar process may act to suppress thermal X-rays from other shock powered transients, such as interacting supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of how mixing behind the shocks in novae suppresses the X-ray luminosity. A fast outflow from the white dwarf of velocity vw ≳ 1000 km s−1 collides with slower material released earlier of velocity vs ≪ vw. By timescales at which X-ray emission has become visible of weeks to a month, this occurs at a characteristic radius Rsh ≳ 1014 cm. The bulk of the slow material resides in a cool, dense, and clumpy … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Optically Motivated Gamma-ray Study of Fermi-LAT Novae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For 26 Fermi-LAT novae, the optical three-magnitude decay time is the most common time window that maximizes gamma-ray detection significance.

  2. Luminous Red Novae as shock-powered transients I: Electron-scattering wings and deviations from Case B

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Luminous red novae show electron-scattering wings and Case B recombination deviations, indicating shock interaction with dense circumstellar material powers these transients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann M., et al., 2010, Science, 329, 817

    Abdo A. A., Ackermann M., et al., 2010, Science, 329, 817

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2014, Science, 345, 554

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Aydi E., Chomiuk L., Izzo L., et al., 2020, , 905, 62

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    V., Chomiuk L., Steinberg E., Li K

    Aydi E., Sokolovsky K. V., Chomiuk L., Steinberg E., Li K. L., Vurm I., Metzger B. D., et al., 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 776

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    R., 2004, , 353, 550

    Bell A. R., 2004, , 353, 550

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Caprioli D., Spitkovsky A., 2014, , 783, 91

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1961, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability

    1961

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    C., Jean P., Shore S

    Cheung C. C., Jean P., Shore S. N., Stawarz ., Corbet R. H. D., Kn \"o dlseder J., Starrfield S., Wood D. L., Desiante R., Longo F., Pivato G., Wood K. S., 2016, , 826, 142

    2016

  2. [10]

    A., Imamura J

    Chevalier R. A., Imamura J. N., 1982, , 261, 543

    1982

  3. [11]

    A., Irwin C

    Chevalier R. A., Irwin C. M., 2012, , 747, L17

    2012

  4. [12]

    D., Yang J., O'Brien T

    Chomiuk L., Linford J. D., Yang J., O'Brien T. J., Paragi Z., Mioduszewski A. J., Beswick R. J., Cheung C. C., Mukai K., Nelson T., Ribeiro V. A. R. M., Rupen M. P., Sokoloski J. L., Weston J., Zheng Y., Bode M. F., Eyres S., Roy N., Taylor G. B., 2014, , 514, 339

    2014

  5. [13]

    D., Shen K

    Chomiuk L., Metzger B. D., Shen K. J., 2020, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2011.08751

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    V., Walter F., 2025, arXiv e-prints, p

    Chong A., Aydi E., Craig P., Chomiuk L., Stone A., Strader J., Kawash A., Sokolovsky K. V., Walter F., 2025, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2501.04098

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M., Bildsten L., 2015, , 803, 76

    Cunningham T., Wolf W. M., Bildsten L., 2015, , 803, 76

    2015

  8. [16]

    M., Metzger B

    Derdzinski A. M., Metzger B. D., Lazzati D., 2017, , 469, 1314

    2017

  9. [17]

    Diesing R., Caprioli D., 2019, , 123, 071101

    2019

  10. [18]

    D., Aydi E., Chomiuk L., Vurm I., Gupta S., Caprioli D., 2023, , 947, 70

    Diesing R., Metzger B. D., Aydi E., Chomiuk L., Vurm I., Gupta S., Caprioli D., 2023, , 947, 70

    2023

  11. [19]

    C., Chu Y.-H., Chen C

    Dunne B. C., Chu Y.-H., Chen C. H. R., Lowry J. D., Townsley L., Gruendl R. A., Guerrero M. A., Rosado M., 2003, , 590, 306

    2003

  12. [20]

    C., Kim C.-G., Quataert E., Weisz D

    El-Badry K., Ostriker E. C., Kim C.-G., Quataert E., Weisz D. R., 2019, , 490, 1961

    2019

  13. [21]

    D., Vurm I., Aydi E., Chomiuk L., 2020, , 904, 4

    Fang K., Metzger B. D., Vurm I., Aydi E., Chomiuk L., 2020, , 904, 4

    2020

  14. [22]

    B., 1965, , 142, 531

    Field G. B., 1965, , 142, 531

    1965

  15. [23]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, , 894, L24

    2020

  16. [24]

    D., et al., 2018, , 852, 108

    Finzell T., Chomiuk L., Metzger B. D., et al., 2018, , 852, 108

    2018

  17. [25]

    C., Buson S., 2018, , 609, A120

    Franckowiak A., Jean P., Wood M., Cheung C. C., Buson S., 2018, , 609, A120

    2018

  18. [26]

    Friedjung M., 1987, , 180, 155

    1987

  19. [27]

    S., Starrfield S., 1976, , 176, 53

    Gallagher J. S., Starrfield S., 1976, , 176, 53

    1976

  20. [28]

    D., 1988, , 26, 377

    Gehrz R. D., 1988, , 26, 377

    1988

  21. [29]

    C., Aydi E., Page K

    Gordon A. C., Aydi E., Page K. L., Li K.-L., Chomiuk L., Sokolovsky K. V., Mukai K., Seitz J., 2021, , 910, 134

    2021

  22. [30]

    Hachisu I., Kato M., 2022, , 939, 1

    2022

  23. [31]

    Harper-Clark E., Murray N., 2009, , 693, 1696

    2009

  24. [32]

    Kato M., Hachisu I., 1994, , 437, 802

    1994

  25. [33]

    D., Owocki S., ud-Doula A., 2014, , 438, 3557

    Kee N. D., Owocki S., ud-Doula A., 2014, , 438, 3557

    2014

  26. [34]

    C., 2023, , 264, 10

    Kim J.-G., Gong M., Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2023, , 264, 10

    2023

  27. [35]

    C., Kim C.-G., Kim J.-G., Bryan G

    Lancaster L., Ostriker E. C., Kim C.-G., Kim J.-G., Bryan G. L., 2024, , 970, 18

    2024

  28. [36]

    C., Kim J.-G., Kim C.-G., 2021a, , 914, 89

    Lancaster L., Ostriker E. C., Kim J.-G., Kim C.-G., 2021a, , 914, 89

  29. [37]

    C., Kim J.-G., Kim C.-G., 2021b, , 914, 90

    Lancaster L., Ostriker E. C., Kim J.-G., Kim C.-G., 2021b, , 914, 90

  30. [38]

    D., Chomiuk L., Vurm I., Strader J., Finzell T., Beloborodov A

    Li K.-L., Metzger B. D., Chomiuk L., Vurm I., Strader J., Finzell T., Beloborodov A. M., Nelson T., Shappee B. J., Kochanek C. S., Prieto J. L., Kafka S., Holoien T. W. S., Thompson T. A., Luckas P. J., Itoh H., 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 697

    2017

  31. [39]

    M., O'Brien T

    Lloyd H. M., O'Brien T. J., Bode M. F., Predehl P., Schmitt J. H. M. M., Truemper J., Watson M. G., Pounds K. A., 1992, , 356, 222

    1992

  32. [40]

    A., Krumholz M

    Lopez L. A., Krumholz M. R., Bolatto A. D., Prochaska J. X., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2011, , 731, 91

    2011

  33. [41]

    Martin P., Dubus G., 2013, , 551, A37

    2013

  34. [42]

    Martin P., Dubus G., Jean P., Tatischeff V., Dosne C., 2018, , 612, A38

    2018

  35. [43]

    D., Whitworth A

    McLeod A. D., Whitworth A. P., 2013, , 431, 710

    2013

  36. [44]

    D., Caprioli D., Vurm I., Beloborodov A

    Metzger B. D., Caprioli D., Vurm I., Beloborodov A. M., Bartos I., Vlasov A., 2016, , 457, 1786

    2016

  37. [45]

    D., Finzell T., Vurm I., Hasco \"e t R., Beloborodov A

    Metzger B. D., Finzell T., Vurm I., Hasco \"e t R., Beloborodov A. M., Chomiuk L., 2015, , 450, 2739

    2015

  38. [46]

    D., Vurm I., Hasco \"e t R., Beloborodov A

    Metzger B. D., Vurm I., Hasco \"e t R., Beloborodov A. M., 2014, , 437, 703

    2014

  39. [47]

    Mukai K., Ishida M., 2001, , 551, 1024

    2001

  40. [48]

    Mukai K., Orio M., Della Valle M., 2008, , 677, 1248

    2008

  41. [49]

    D., Chomiuk L., Sokoloski J

    Nelson T., Mukai K., Li K.-L., Vurm I., Metzger B. D., Chomiuk L., Sokoloski J. L., Linford J. D., Bohlsen T., Luckas P., 2019, , 872, 86

    2019

  42. [50]

    K., Fransson C., Kozma C., 2006, , 449, 171

    Nymark T. K., Fransson C., Kozma C., 2006, , 449, 171

    2006

  43. [51]

    F., Her S., Hernanz M., Sala G., 2021, , 505, 3113

    Orio M., Dobrotka A., Pinto C., Henze M., Ness J.-U., Ospina N., Pei S., Behar E., Bode M. F., Her S., Hernanz M., Sala G., 2021, , 505, 3113

    2021

  44. [52]

    Orlando S., Bocchino F., Reale F., Peres G., Pagano P., 2008, , 678, 274

    2008

  45. [53]

    N., 1953, , 117, 431

    Parker E. N., 1953, , 117, 431

    1953

  46. [54]

    R., Pittard J

    Parkin E. R., Pittard J. M., Corcoran M. F., Hamaguchi K., 2011, , 726, 105

    2011

  47. [55]

    M., 2009, , 396, 1743

    Pittard J. M., 2009, , 396, 1743

    2009

  48. [56]

    L., Lopez L

    Rosen A. L., Lopez L. A., Krumholz M. R., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2014, , 442, 2701

    2014

  49. [57]

    V., 2017, , 153, 246

    Ross M., Dwarkadas V. V., 2017, , 153, 246

    2017

  50. [58]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1979

  51. [59]

    W., 1991, , 374, 623

    Shankar A., Livio M., Truran J. W., 1991, , 374, 623

    1991

  52. [60]

    J., Quataert E., 2022, , 938, 31

    Shen K. J., Quataert E., 2022, , 938, 31

    2022

  53. [61]

    J., Wheeler J

    Smith N., Li W., Foley R. J., Wheeler J. C., Pooley D., Chornock R., Filippenko A. V., Silverman J. M., Quimby R., Bloom J. S., Hansen C., 2007, , 666, 1116

    2007

  54. [62]

    V., Li K.-L., et al., 2022, , 514, 2239

    Sokolovsky K. V., Li K.-L., et al., 2022, , 514, 2239

    2022

  55. [63]

    V., Mukai K., Chomiuk L., Lopes de Oliveira R., Aydi E., Li K.-L., Steinberg E., Vurm I., Metzger B

    Sokolovsky K. V., Mukai K., Chomiuk L., Lopes de Oliveira R., Aydi E., Li K.-L., Steinberg E., Vurm I., Metzger B. D., Kawash A., Linford J. D., Mioduszewski A. J., Nelson T., Ness J.-U., Page K. L., Rupen M. P., Sokoloski J. L., Strader J., 2020, , 497, 2569

    2020

  56. [64]

    D., 2018, , 479, 687

    Steinberg E., Metzger B. D., 2018, , 479, 687

    2018

  57. [65]

    R., Blondin J

    Stevens I. R., Blondin J. M., Pollock A. M. T., 1992, , 386, 265

    1992

  58. [66]

    P., Gronke M., 2021, , 502, 3179

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2021, , 502, 3179

    2021

  59. [67]

    K., Feigelson E

    Townsley L. K., Feigelson E. D., Montmerle T., Broos P. S., Chu Y.-H., Garmire G. P., 2003, , 593, 874

    2003

  60. [68]

    T., 1994, , 428, 186

    Vishniac E. T., 1994, , 428, 186

    1994

  61. [69]

    D., 2016, , 463, 394

    Vlasov A., Vurm I., Metzger B. D., 2016, , 463, 394

    2016

  62. [70]

    D., Metzger B

    Vlasov A. D., Metzger B. D., Lippuner J., Roberts L. F., Thompson T. A., 2017, , 468, 1522

    2017

  63. [71]

    D., 2018, , 852, 62

    Vurm I., Metzger B. D., 2018, , 852, 62

    2018

  64. [72]

    Walder R., Folini D., 2000, , 274, 343

    2000

  65. [73]

    Weaver R., McCray R., Castor J., Shapiro P., Moore R., 1977, , 218, 377

    1977

  66. [74]

    Weston J. H. S., Sokoloski J. L., Metzger B. D., Zheng Y., Chomiuk L., Krauss M. I., Linford J. D., Nelson T., Mioduszewski A. J., Rupen M. P., Finzell T., Mukai K., 2016, , 457, 887

    2016

  67. [75]

    Williams R., Mason E., 2010, , 327, 207

    2010

  68. [76]

    Zacharegkas G., Caprioli D., Haggerty C., Gupta S., Schroer B., 2024, , 967, 71

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.