Extending the susy model to core-collapse supernovae

L. Clavelli

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Extending the susy model to core-collapse supernovae

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Above 700 million g/cm3, a supersymmetric bubble ends stellar collapse

desk verdict The unification idea is interesting, but the mechanism is carried by an uncontrolled linear term in the action that goes negative at high density; not ready for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11397 v2 pith:EGPCBPU2 submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

L. Clavelli This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph

keywords supersymmetrycore-collapsesupernovaetypeIavacuumphasetransitionbubblenucleationdelaytimedistributionheavyelementnucleosynthesisneutronstarremnants

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

This paper argues that a phase transition to an exact supersymmetric vacuum, already proposed as the trigger for Type Ia supernovae, can also explain core-collapse supernovae with only one additional parameter. The key move is to add a small positive correction, $b_0=0.02$, to the vacuum-decay action so that the transition rate keeps growing with density instead of saturating. During the gravitational collapse of a massive star's core, that rate becomes catastrophic once the mean density passes roughly $7\times10^8$ grams per cubic centimeter, releasing about $10^{52}$ erg from a $2.8\times10^{-2}$ solar-mass supersymmetric core. If correct, the same mechanism unifies the two supernova classes, makes the heavy elements, and leaves a small remnant, while preserving the model's good fit to the Type Ia delay-time distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified bubble-nucleation action, $B(r) = (\rho_c/(Z\rho(r)))^3 - b_0 Z\rho(r)/\rho_c$, with $b_0=0.02$. The first term is the bare inverse-cube action from the earlier Type Ia model; the new negative term is the paper's proposed first correction, chosen so the transition rate $A\int d^3r\,e^{-B(r)}$ grows without bound at high density. This action feeds the lifetime estimate $\tau^{-1}=A\,V_{\rm eff}$ used in Table 3, where the collapse time step $\Delta t$ and the transition lifetime $\tau$ are compared stage by stage; the sudden passage of $\tau/\Delta t$ below unity near $\rho\sim7\times10^8$ grams per cubic centimeter is what turns collapse into explosion.

What would settle it

Integrate the transition probability over a realistic, time-dependent density profile of a collapsing 20-solar-mass star using the paper's action with $b_0=0.02$; if the total probability stays below one before the core reaches black-hole density, the claimed prompt explosion does not occur. Observationally, a pulsar shown to require spin-1/2 fermionic constituents would also falsify the extension, as the paper itself concedes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the supersymmetric phase-transition model is not confined to white dwarfs: with the modified action $B(r) = (\rho_c/(Z\rho(r)))^3 - b_0 Z\rho(r)/\rho_c$ and $b_0=0.02$, the lifetime against the transition in a collapsing iron core drops sharply when the average density exceeds about $7\times10^8$ grams per cubic centimeter, so the transition happens within a fraction of a second during collapse rather than after gigayears. The released degeneracy energy, about 20 percent of the rest mass of a small core near $2.8\times10^{-2}$ solar masses, is enough to unbind the star, accelerate iron-seed nuclei into heavy elements by rapid neutron capture, and leave behind a compact remnant that, because ordinary neutron stars would immediately become supersymmetric, must be partially or wholly made of scalar constituents. The paper therefore claims a unified account of Type Ia and core-collapse supernovae, the black hole mass gap, and heavy-element nucleosynthesis at the cost of one extra parameter, and states that in this model all massive stars below a certain mass will explode.

Load-bearing premise

The whole core-collapse prediction rests on the assumption that the first correction to the vacuum-transition rate is a positive term linear in density, with coefficient $b_0=0.02$, that continues to make the transition faster without bound at arbitrarily high density; if that correction saturates, changes sign, or is suppressed, the predicted prompt explosion of massive stars disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, every massive star below about $10^4$ solar masses explodes promptly after fusion ceases, removing the need for finely tuned initial conditions or a revived stalled shock.
The energy budget is fixed by the observed $10^{52}$ erg: a small supersymmetric core near $2.8\times10^{-2}$ solar masses releases 20% of its rest mass, ejecting most of the progenitor while leaving a small remnant.
Degeneracy energy released in the iron core supplies the external energy needed for rapid neutron capture, so core-collapse supernovae become a heavy-element source including gold and uranium.
Observed neutron stars would be unstable in this model, so pulsars would have to be boson stars made of scalar neutrons; pulsar kicks could be recoil from off-center bubble nucleation.
Stars above about $10^4$ solar masses collapse to black holes before the transition, explaining the black-hole mass gap, while all black holes eventually sit in a supersymmetric background.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's sharp threshold near $7\times10^8$ grams per cubic centimeter and its remnant-mass scale can be checked against large supernova samples: a well-observed event that clearly violates the predicted progenitor-mass to remnant-mass relation would put pressure on the $b_0=0.02$ scenario.
Because the same degeneracy factor $Z$ enters both Type Ia and core-collapse rates, the model implies correlated metallicity and environment dependencies across the two supernova classes; this is a testable prediction the paper does not develop.
If the linear-in-density correction is universal, the same transition should operate in neutron star mergers, potentially contributing extra energy or ejecta to kilonovae; the paper does not discuss this application.
A hydrodynamical simulation using a realistic, time-dependent density profile rather than the fixed factor-of-54 peak-density estimate would reveal whether the transition cliff in Table 3 survives; this is the most direct numerical check of the paper's central claim.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper extends the author's susy phase-transition model from Type Ia supernovae to core collapse, and I want to give it credit before the criticism: it is an honest, clearly written exploration. The b0 term preserves the Type Ia delay-time fit, and the author openly flags the speculative parts, even listing possible criticisms in the summary. That is exactly how exploratory physics should be presented. But the central mechanism does not survive contact with the numbers.

The load-bearing assumption is Eq. (3.7): B = (rho_c/(Z rho))^3 - b0 Z rho/rho_c. The paper calls the second term a correction, and says the sign is uncertain but no derivation is offered. At the densities that trigger the explosion in Table 3, it is not a correction. For Z=28, rho_c=4.5e8 g/cm3, and rho_peak~3.8e10 g/cm3, the dimensionless ratio x=Z rho/rho_c is about 2360. The leading Coleman term is x^-3 ~ 7.6e-11, while the linear term is b0 x ~ 47. So the 'correction' is eleven orders of magnitude larger than the original action and drives the total action negative. A negative Euclidean action has no semiclassical bounce interpretation; e^{-B} is no longer a decay probability. The paper is not making a perturbative correction—it is assuming the transition rate grows without bound with density, and all the core-collapse conclusions are built on that assumption.

The circularity is also real: b0 is chosen precisely so that tau drops below Delta t when density exceeds about 7e8 g/cm3. The paper acknowledges this when it says smaller b0 leaves massive stars on Gyr timescales and larger b0 spoils the SN Ia fit. So the core-collapse prediction is not independent; it is a restatement of the chosen parameter. The collapse calculation is admittedly rough, with rho_peak/rho=54, M_core/M=1/10, and rho_ini taken arbitrarily, but those order-unity guesses are not the main problem. The main problem is that the exponent in the nucleation rate becomes positive, which removes the physics that supposedly drives the explosion.

What the paper does well is set out a testable picture: neutron stars would be boson stars, the black hole gap gets an explanation, and heavy elements could be produced by degeneracy energy release. Those are interesting bullet points for a research program. But none of them are supported by the calculation as written. The author deserves credit for saying, in effect, 'if pulsars are really spin-1/2, we give up'—that is a real falsifiability condition, though it is far downstream of the uncontrolled action.

Who should read this? People working on exotic supernova mechanisms or on the susy phase-transition literature. It is a useful reference for 'we considered this' but not a result. I would not send it to peer review as is; the author needs to either derive the linear term from microphysics or show that the bounce action remains well defined and positive. Without that, this is a spec note, not a paper. If the derivation lands, the unification idea would become much more interesting. For now, I would treat it as an extended research proposal and not cite it as evidence for anything.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to extend a supersymmetric phase-transition model for Type Ia supernovae to core-collapse supernovae by modifying the bubble-nucleation action to B = (rho_c/(Z rho))^3 - b0 Z rho/rho_c (Eq. 3.7). With b0 = 0.02, chosen so that the Type Ia delay-time fit remains acceptable, the lifetime against nucleation (Eq. 2.5) drops sharply once the core mean density exceeds about 7e8 g/cm^3, interrupting collapse and producing a prompt explosion (Table 3). The paper then argues that the same mechanism produces heavy elements, leaves a small remnant, and explains the black hole mass gap. The author acknowledges the approximate nature of the collapse calculation and the speculative status of several parameters, devoting Section 8 to possible criticisms.

Significance. If the mechanism were supported, it would offer a unified model of Type Ia and core-collapse supernovae with a single extra parameter, a new r-process site, and an explanation of the black hole mass gap. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and explicitly lists objections in Section 8, which is to its credit. However, the core-collapse result is not an independent consequence of the previously successful Type Ia model: the new linear term in Eq. (3.7) is not a small correction at the densities invoked, and the value of b0 is set precisely so that white dwarfs remain stable while massive stars explode. The paper does not provide a derivation of the action correction, a controlled high-density expansion, or a detailed density-profile calculation, so the central prediction rests on an uncontrolled extrapolation. No machine-checkable proofs or reproducible simulations are included.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (3.7), and Table 3] The linear correction in Eq. (3.7) is not a perturbative correction at the densities used to trigger the explosion. With rho_c = 4.5e8 g/cm^3, Z = 28, and peak density 54 rho = 3.8e10 g/cm^3 at rho = 7e8 g/cm^3, the dimensionless ratio is x = Z rho_peak/rho_c ~ 2.4e3. The leading Coleman term is x^-3 ~ 7.6e-11, while the correction is b0 x ~ 47, making the total action B ~ -47. A negative Euclidean action has no semiclassical bubble-nucleation interpretation, and e^{-B} is not a decay probability. The dramatic drop of tau in Table 3 is therefore produced by assuming that the action can become arbitrarily negative with density, not by a controlled correction to the Coleman formula. If the correction saturates, changes sign, or is bounded below, the prompt-explosion prediction disappears.
[Section 3 and Sections 4/8] The core-collapse prediction is effectively engineered by the choice of b0. Section 3 states that too small a b0 leaves massive stars on gigayear timescales and too large a b0 unacceptably disturbs the Type Ia delay-time fit, and b0 = 0.02 is selected in this window. The threshold density at which tau drops below Delta t in Table 3 is thus set by the single new parameter, making the explosion claim partly circular rather than an independent success. The collapse calculation also relies on unverified order-unity choices in Eqs. (4.15), (4.29), and (4.30), and on replacing the volume integral of Eq. (2.6) with the local approximation of Eq. (4.14). Section 8 concedes that a more precise calculation would require the time-dependent density profile but asserts the conclusion would survive; given the exponential sensitivity of the lifetime to the action, that assertion is not demonstrated.
[Section 6] To prevent observed neutron stars from immediately undergoing the susy transition with b0 = 0.02, the paper introduces 'sneutron stars' made of scalar neutrons and stabilized by an unspecified short-range repulsive force. This is a new, unmotivated entity rather than a model prediction, and the paper itself states that pulsar phenomenology could rule out the extension. Since the identity of the remnant is one of the stated goals of the model in the introduction, this ad hoc element is load-bearing for the claimed unification.
[Sections 4 and 5] The symbol Mcore is used with two different meanings that are not reconciled. Eq. (4.30) sets Mcore = M(n)/10 for the collapse dynamics and the tau prefactor, while Eq. (5.40) fixes Mcore = 2.8e-2 M_sun from the total observed energy release of about 1e52 erg. For a 10 M_sun progenitor these differ by more than two orders of magnitude, and releasing 20% of the rest mass of the larger core would produce far more energy than observed. If the two masses are meant to be different, this needs to be stated explicitly and the relation between them derived.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The first sentence contains a typo: 'noteable' should be 'notable'.
[Eq. (4.32)] The displayed formula for Bpeak appears to be missing the cube in the first term and the division in the second term that are present in Eq. (3.7); as printed it does not match the text.
[Table 3] The table columns for t, Delta t, and tau do not indicate units; the text says seconds, but the units should appear in the table headings for readability.
[References] Reference [17] has a stray colon after the journal page number, and the label in the text before Eq. (5.39) refers to 'eq. 5.39' while the displayed equation is unnumbered in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: b0 is fitted to external SN Ia delay-time data; the core-collapse explosion is a quantitative consequence, not a refit.

full rationale

The core-collapse conclusion is not equivalent to the fitted inputs by construction. The paper fixes A, rho_c, and b0 by a chi^2 fit to the Type Ia delay-time distribution using external data (Maoz et al., ref [12]; Table 1), then computes the collapse-stage lifetime tau(i) from Eq. 4.31 with the same parameters in Table 3. The abrupt drop of tau/Delta t below unity near rho ~ 7e8 g/cm3 is a quantitative output of the model, not a parameter tuned to core-collapse observables. The paper does rely on self-citations for the general susy phase-transition proposal and for the form of the action, and Eq. 3.7 is explicitly an ansatz rather than a derived correction; the linear negative term becomes enormous at the densities used in Table 3, which is a serious physical/extrapolation concern. But an unsupported or uncontrolled assumption is a correctness risk, not circularity: the paper is transparent that the correction is conjectural ('one could argue', 'We write, therefore'), and the central numerical fit that selects b0 is independent of the core-collapse data. No specific equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted core-collapse parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations are motivational and non-load-bearing for the quantitative core-collapse step, so the score is 1 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model rests on a large set of chosen or fitted numbers. The most consequential is b0, which is tuned to produce prompt core collapse while keeping the Type Ia fit acceptable. Several structural assumptions such as rho_peak = 54 rho, M_core = M/10, and the unspecified repulsive force in sneutron stars are introduced without independent support.

free parameters (8)

A (nucleation prefactor) = 30.0 R_E^-3 Gyr^-1
Fitted to SN Ia delay time distribution in prior work; enters eq. 2.1.
rho_c (critical density scale) = 58.8 M_sun / R_E^3
Fitted to SN Ia delay time distribution in prior work; used in eqs. 2.2 and 3.7.
b0 (linear action correction) = 0.02
Chosen so that the susy transition happens on core-collapse timescales while the SN Ia DTD fit remains acceptable (Table 1); central to the claimed new result.
Peak density factor rho_peak/rho = 54
Tentatively assumed from Chandrasekhar (eq. 4.29); controls the exponential in the transition rate.
Core mass fraction M_core/M = 0.1
Assumed in eq. 4.30; sets the prefactor in tau(i) and the energy release scale.
Initial collapse density rho_ini = 1.83e5 g/cm3
Chosen 'somewhat arbitrarily' in eq. 4.15; sets the starting point of the collapse timeline.
Iron-core effective Z = 28
Assumed for the degeneracy energy term in the action during collapse (eq. 4.32); affects when B changes sign.
Degeneracy energy release fraction = 0.2
Taken from ref. [5]; used in eq. 5.39 to set the susy core mass to 2.8e-2 M_sun.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The physical vacuum has an exactly supersymmetric ground state reachable by a first-order phase transition in dense matter.
Central postulate of the model, carried from refs. [2,3]; invoked in every section.
domain assumption The transition rate in dense matter is given by the Coleman bubble nucleation formula with action inversely proportional to the cube of the degeneracy energy (eqs. 2.1-2.2).
Basis of eq. 2.1; needed for all numerical results.
ad hoc to paper The first correction to the action is linear in density with a positive coefficient b0 and remains valid to arbitrarily high density (eq. 3.7).
No derivation is offered; its sign and size create the core-collapse explosion mechanism.
domain assumption During collapse the matter is spherically symmetric and governed by gravity plus electron degeneracy pressure, with peak density 54 times the mean density (eqs. 4.21, 4.29).
Needed to convert the collapse into the discrete timeline of Table 3.
domain assumption Degeneracy energy of 0.2 M_core c^2 can be converted into outward kinetic energy of the envelope (eq. 5.39).
Taken from ref. [5]; used to estimate the remnant mass and heavy element yield.
ad hoc to paper Observed neutron stars are actually stable boson stars ('sneutron stars') held up by an unspecified repulsive short-range force.
Required because b0 = 0.02 makes normal neutron stars transition immediately (Section 6).

invented entities (3)

Exact supersymmetric background (susy phase) of dense matter
purpose: Provide the extra energy that triggers supernovae and produces heavy elements
No direct detection; the paper's predicted phenomena are consequences of the model, not independent handles.
Scalar neutrons / sneutron stars
purpose: Keep observed pulsars compatible with the predicted immediate susy transition in neutron stars
Proposed in Section 6; requires a new repulsive force not identified.
Susy iron and other susy nuclei
purpose: Form the remnant and supply additional fusion energy after the phase transition
Mentioned in Section 5, from prior work; no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending the susy model to core-collapse supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGPCBPU2

@misc{pith2026190811397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending the susy model to core-collapse supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGPCBPU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11397}
}

read the original abstract

A notable feature of the two standard models for thermonuclear and core-collapse supernovae is that, although these two models are fundamentally different, the respective supernova types have quite similar rates and appearances. For instance, both types occur one to several times per century per typical galaxy and both types seed the universe with the heavy elements essential to life. In spite of this, neither standard model provides a reasonably problem-free description of its target phenomenon. A major obstacle to providing a unified picture of supernovae would seem to be the fact that type Ia supernovae occur typically with gigayear delay times after the cessation of carbon fusion while the core-collapse explosions occur only days after such fusion cessation. In this article we study the possibility of extending the successful supersymmetric model for type Ia supernovae to core-collapse events. The question is whether and under what assumptions a phase transition to an exact supersymmetric background can efficiently explain both type Ia and core collapse supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11397 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The lifetime, τ (M), vs white dwarf mass, M, with b0 = 0.02. Unlike the b0 = 0 plot shown in [3], with the modified action the lifetime turns down slightly at large M. Of course at M > 1.38 the lifetime would essentially go to zero due to normal fusion. After the energy release from fusion becomes too weak to support the star it undergoes a rapid collapse. The transition rate to the exact susy ground state during th… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The best fit to the delay time distribution with fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

D. Maoz, F. Mannucci, and G. Nelemans, Observational Clues to the Progenitors of Type Ia Supernovae, DOI:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031, (arXiv:1312.062 8v3)

doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031
[2]

A supersymmetric model for triggering Supernova Ia in isolated white dwarfs

P. Biermann and L. Clavelli, A supersymmetric model for triggering Supernova 1a in isolated White Dwarfs , Phys. Rev. D 84,023001 (2011), (arXiv:1011.1687v2)

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[3]

Degeneracy breakdown as a source of supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli, Degeneracy Breakdown as a Source of Supernovae Ia , Journ. of Cosmol. & Astropart. Phys.1801 (2018) no.01, 052 (2018-01-30), (arXiv:1609.02742)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[4]

Six indications of radical new physics in supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli , Six Indications of Radical New Physics in SN Ia , IJMPA 32, No. 31 (2017), (arXiv:1706.03393)

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[5]

Host Galaxy Effects in the Susy Model for Supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli, Host Galaxy Eﬀects in the Susy Model for Supernovae Ia , Int.J.Mod.Phys. A33, no.32, (2018) (arXiv:1802.09501) 15

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[6]

Bethe et al, Astrophys

H. Bethe et al, Astrophys. J. 295, 14 (1985) Revival of a stalled supernova shock by neutrino heating

work page 1985
[7]

Friedrich-Karl Thielemann, Explosive Nucleosynthesis: What we learned and what we still do not understand Springer Proceedings in Physics (Proc. of Intl. Conf. ”Nuclei in the Cosmos XV”, LNGS Assergi, Italy, June 2018, (arXiv:1809.071 87)

work page 2018
[8]

Cˆ ot´ e et al.,Neutron Star Mergers Might not be the Only Source of r-Proces s Elements in the Milky Way , arXiv:1809.03525

B. Cˆ ot´ e et al.,Neutron Star Mergers Might not be the Only Source of r-Proces s Elements in the Milky Way , arXiv:1809.03525

arXiv

Show all 21 references

[9]

Christopher Haynes and Chiaki Kobayashi, Galactic Simulations of r-process Elemental Abundances, arXiv:1809.10991

arXiv
[10]

Siegel, Jennifer Barnes, and Brian D

Daniel M. Siegel, Jennifer Barnes, and Brian D. Metzger, The neutron star merger GW170817 points to collapsars as the main r-process source , (arXiv:1810.00098)

arXiv
[11]

Coleman, Phys

S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977); C.G. Callan, & S. Colem an, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762 (1977); S. Coleman, and F. DeLuccia, Gravitational Eﬀects on and of Vac- uum Decay, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3305 (1980)

1977
[12]

D. Maoz, F. Mannucci, and T. Brandt, Delay Time Distribution of SN Ia from SDSS II, Month. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 426, 3282 (2012), (arXiv:1206.046 5)

2012
[13]

Heger, S.E

A. Heger, S.E. Woosley, and I. Baraﬀe Final Stages of the Most Massive Stars ASP Conference Series Vol. 332, 2005, Eds Roberta M. Humphreys and Krzysztof Z. Stanek

2005
[14]

Chandrasekhar,Chandrasekhar, S., Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure , Dover Publications, New York (1939)

S. Chandrasekhar,Chandrasekhar, S., Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure , Dover Publications, New York (1939)

1939
[15]

En-Hao Feng, Rong-Feng Shen, and Wei-Peng Lin, Mechanical feedback from Black Hole Accretion as an energy source of core collapse explosio ns, Astrophys. J. 867 no 2, 130 (2018), (arXiv:1809.07967)

2018 arXiv
[16]

Melson et al., Neutrino driven supernova of a low mass iron core progenitor boosted by 3D turbulent convection Astrophys

T. Melson et al., Neutrino driven supernova of a low mass iron core progenitor boosted by 3D turbulent convection Astrophys. J. 801, L24 (2015), (arXiv:1501.01961).:

2015 arXiv
[17]

Perna et al., The fate of fallback matter around newly born compact object s, As- trophys

R. Perna et al., The fate of fallback matter around newly born compact object s, As- trophys. J. 781, 119 (2014), (arXiv:1312.4981)

2014 arXiv
[18]

Clavelli, Properties of a Future Susy Universe , Int

L. Clavelli, Properties of a Future Susy Universe , Int. J. of Mod. Phys. E15, No. 6, 1-17 (2006), (hep-th/0508207)

2006 arXiv
[19]

Clavelli and I

L. Clavelli and I. Perevalova, Nuclear Physics in a Susy Universe , Mod.Phys.Lett. A25 (2010) 3291-3298, (arXiv:1007.5054)

2010 arXiv
[20]

Simonetta Liuti, Abha Rajan, and Kent Yagi, Bounds on the Equation of State of Neutron Stars from High Energy Deeply Virtual Exclu sive Experiments , (arXiv:1812.01479). 16

arXiv
[21]

Zwiebach, A ﬁrst course in string theory , Cambridge University Press, New York (2004)

B. Zwiebach, A ﬁrst course in string theory , Cambridge University Press, New York (2004). 17

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

D. Maoz, F. Mannucci, and G. Nelemans, Observational Clues to the Progenitors of Type Ia Supernovae, DOI:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031, (arXiv:1312.062 8v3)

doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

[2] [2]

A supersymmetric model for triggering Supernova Ia in isolated white dwarfs

P. Biermann and L. Clavelli, A supersymmetric model for triggering Supernova 1a in isolated White Dwarfs , Phys. Rev. D 84,023001 (2011), (arXiv:1011.1687v2)

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[3] [3]

Degeneracy breakdown as a source of supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli, Degeneracy Breakdown as a Source of Supernovae Ia , Journ. of Cosmol. & Astropart. Phys.1801 (2018) no.01, 052 (2018-01-30), (arXiv:1609.02742)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

Six indications of radical new physics in supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli , Six Indications of Radical New Physics in SN Ia , IJMPA 32, No. 31 (2017), (arXiv:1706.03393)

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[5] [5]

Host Galaxy Effects in the Susy Model for Supernovae Ia

L. Clavelli, Host Galaxy Eﬀects in the Susy Model for Supernovae Ia , Int.J.Mod.Phys. A33, no.32, (2018) (arXiv:1802.09501) 15

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

Bethe et al, Astrophys

H. Bethe et al, Astrophys. J. 295, 14 (1985) Revival of a stalled supernova shock by neutrino heating

work page 1985

[7] [7]

Friedrich-Karl Thielemann, Explosive Nucleosynthesis: What we learned and what we still do not understand Springer Proceedings in Physics (Proc. of Intl. Conf. ”Nuclei in the Cosmos XV”, LNGS Assergi, Italy, June 2018, (arXiv:1809.071 87)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Cˆ ot´ e et al.,Neutron Star Mergers Might not be the Only Source of r-Proces s Elements in the Milky Way , arXiv:1809.03525

B. Cˆ ot´ e et al.,Neutron Star Mergers Might not be the Only Source of r-Proces s Elements in the Milky Way , arXiv:1809.03525

arXiv