REVIEW 1 cited by
Host Galaxy Effects in the Susy Model for Supernovae Ia
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
Signed reviews
abstract
For more than forty years virtually all work on the theory of type Ia Supernovae (SN Ia) has assumed that these explosions were due to the transfer of mass to a degenerate star from a partner in a binary system. In these binary models, when the mass of one partner closely approaches the Chandrasekhar maximum for a stable degenerate system, fusion can be initiated and the star explodes. However, there are now a number of indications that fusion could instead be triggered by a phase transition in a sub-Chandrasekhar white dwarf star. Although these indications provide no clue as to what specific phase transition initiates the explosion, it is possible that remarkable and well established host galaxy effects as considered in the present work could point to a specific source of the energy deposition. These host galaxy correlations are, at first glance, surprising since the typical distance scale of white dwarf stars is the earth radius while the typical distance between stars is at the light year scale. Performing a least $\chi^2$ fit to the delay time distribution to fix parameters, we give predictions from the susy phase transition model for the host galaxy effects. In addition we discuss a susy insight into the Phillips relation which is basic to the cosmological importance of the type Ia supernovae.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Extending the susy model to core-collapse supernovae
With one new tuned parameter, the paper claims a single supersymmetric phase transition can explain both Type Ia and core-collapse supernovae, heavy element production, and the black hole mass gap.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.