Early supernova emission -- logarithmic corrections to the planar phase

Re'em Sari; Tamar Faran

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Early supernova emission -- logarithmic corrections to the planar phase

T0 review · 2 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 During the planar phase, the shell that supplies a supernova's observed radiation recedes inward logarithmically in mass, reaching about ten times the breakout mass.

desk verdict The luminosity-shell recession is real, but the claimed factor ~10 and the two-order-of-magnitude temperature drop rest on an undisplayed constant in Eq. (23). read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06990 v1 pith:RSJKWJIU submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.HE

Tamar Faran , Re'em Sari This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw95.30.Lz

keywords supernovashockbreakoutplanarphasephotondiffusionself-similarsolutionluminosityshellthermalizationfree-freeemissionearly

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

During the planar phase of a supernova, before the ejecta radius doubles, the radiation that reaches the observer was previously thought to leak from a single fixed mass shell, the breakout shell. This paper derives a self-similar diffusion solution and shows instead that the luminosity shell recedes logarithmically into the envelope in Lagrangian mass, $m_{\rm ls}(t)=m_{\rm bo}[1+\ln(t/t_{\rm bo})]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)}$. By the end of the planar phase the emitting mass is about ten times the breakout-shell mass, so the radiation that escapes comes from regions roughly ten times denser. That shift barely changes the bolometric luminosity, but it strongly accelerates thermalization and lowers the predicted observed temperature, in some cases by two orders of magnitude, for blue supergiant and Wolf-Rayet explosions.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a two-stage self-similar construction. First the post-shock planar hydrodynamics is taken from the Sakurai shock solution, expressed in Lagrangian mass $m$, with density $\rho\propto (R-r)^n$ and shock velocity $v_{\rm sh}\propto (R-r)^{-\mu n}$. Then the energy-diffusion equation $\partial u/\partial t=-\partial(4\pi r^2 F)/\partial m-u/(3t)$ is transformed by normalizing mass and specific energy to the luminosity shell $m_{\rm ls}(t)$; requiring the transformed equation to be an ordinary differential equation fixes $m_{\rm ls}(t)$ to the logarithmic growth law. The same solution yields the outer diffusive energy profile $u\propto m^{-\mu n/(n+1)}$, whose flux sets the bolometric luminosity, and the thermal-coupling coefficient $\eta$ (free-free photon production versus the photon number needed for a blackbody) that sets the observed temperature.

What would settle it

Compute a numerical radiation-hydrodynamics model of a realistic RSG, BSG, or WR progenitor from breakout through the planar phase and track, in Lagrangian mass, the shell whose optical depth satisfies $\tau=c/v$ and the shell from which the escaping luminosity originates. If the emitting shell's mass stays within a few percent of $m_{\rm bo}$ rather than following $[1+\ln(t/t_{\rm bo})]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)}$ up to $\sim 10\,m_{\rm bo}$, the paper's central claim is wrong. A cheaper observational check is to measure the early temperature decline of a nearby type Ib/c supernova: the predicted steepening produces a drop to roughly 100 eV at the end of the planar phase, whereas the fixed-shell model keeps the radiation in hard X-rays.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Lagrangian mass coordinate from which the observed post-breakout radiation escapes is not constant. Because the planar phase contains many dynamical times, photons from shells deeper than the breakout shell have time to diffuse outward and refill the outer diffusive profile; the shell from which luminosity effectively emerges therefore satisfies a growing condition rather than the naive $\tau=c/v$ condition. The self-similar solution forces this mass to grow as $m_{\rm ls}(t)=m_{\rm bo}[1+\ln(t/t_{\rm bo})]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)}$, reaching $m_{\rm pl}\approx 10\,m_{\rm bo}$ at the planar-to-spherical transition. This means the radiation observed during the planar phase originates in layers about ten times denser and with an order of magnitude more mass than the breakout shell. As a direct consequence the free-free photon production rate rises roughly a hundredfold, thermal coupling improves with time, and the observed temperature declines faster than adiabatic cooling alone would predict, although bolometric luminosity is almost unchanged because the internal luminosity profile is flat in mass.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the pre-explosion envelope is a single power-law density profile $\rho\propto (R-r)^n$ and that the Sakurai shock solution holds all the way to the stellar edge; if a realistic progenitor's density deviates over the shells swept by the receding luminosity shell, the logarithmic exponent and the factor of ten would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The bolometric luminosity stays close to $L\propto t^{-4/3}$, so light-curve observations alone will not reveal the correction.
For blue supergiant and Wolf-Rayet explosions, radiation remains out of thermal equilibrium through the planar phase, but the observed peak shifts from X-rays toward the UV or soft X-ray band, with $T_{\rm obs}$ dropping by two orders of magnitude by the end of the phase.
For red supergiant explosions, the radiation reaches thermal equilibrium during the planar phase, whereas previous fixed-shell models predicted a longer nonthermal phase.
At the planar-to-spherical transition, the luminosity shell has grown to roughly $10m_{\rm bo}$ and the transition lasts about $3t_s$, after which the planar correction leaves no trace in the observed properties.
Light-travel-time effects smear the early emission over a timescale $R/c$ and broaden the spectrum into a power law whose slope is set by the temperature decay index.

Reading between the lines

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

If the correction holds, fast-cadence UV and soft-X-ray observations of nearby type Ib/c supernovae could measure the inward recession of the luminosity shell directly by fitting the predicted $[1+\ln(t/t_{\rm bo})]$ temperature slope, without resolving the breakout itself.
The same Lagrangian-recession mechanism should appear in other radiation-dominated diffusion problems with power-law envelopes and many dynamical times, such as failed supernovae or neutron-star merger outflows, with the logarithmic exponent set by the local density index.
Because the predicted breakout temperatures for Wolf-Rayet stars exceed the pair-production threshold near 50 keV, an extension that includes pair production could cap $T_{\rm obs}$ while preserving the density-enhancement effect on thermalization.
Since the bolometric luminosity is almost insensitive to the correction, observers should prioritize spectral and temperature measurements in early-time surveys rather than relying on light-curve shape alone.

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

Short version: the paper finds a genuinely new piece of physics—the luminosity shell during the planar phase is not the breakout shell, it recedes logarithmically in mass—and the self-similar machinery is mostly sound. But the headline numbers, m_ls ~ 10 m_bo and the temperature drop, sit on a constant that the paper never derives.

The heuristic argument in Sec. 4.1 is plausible, and the self-similar solution is a real step beyond Nakar & Sari (2010) and Piro et al. (2010). The authors are right that a fixed mass coordinate was an assumption, not a result. The luminosity itself is only weakly affected, which they say honestly. The temperature effect is the interesting part, and the improvement in thermal coupling from moving to higher-density shells is physical.

The soft spot is Eqs. (22)–(23). Integrating F' F^{-μn/(n+1)} ∝ t^{-1} with F(tbo)=mbo gives F(t) = mbo [1 + A ln(t/tbo)]^q, with A an undetermined constant of proportionality. The paper states A=1. That constant controls everything quantitative: mpl ≈ 10 mbo at ts, the 'density ~10 times higher' in the abstract, and the T_obs ∝ [1+ln(t/tbo)]^{-2.6} drop. If A were 0.1, the factor is ~1.8 and the temperature drop is a factor of a few, not two orders of magnitude. The authors could derive A by substituting the full ansatz (24) into Eq. (19) and requiring time-independence, or fix it by comparison to a numerical calculation. As written, the central quantitative claim is underdetermined.

Other caveats are milder: the single power-law density profile is flagged in Sec. 8, and the 50 keV validity bound is stated. There is no independent numerical validation of the temperature evolution, which would help given the A issue. The self-citation to NS10 is not a problem—the paper is transparently correcting an earlier assumption that Sari co-authored.

Who is this for: anyone modeling early shock-cooling emission from blue supergiants, Wolf-Rayet stars, and compact progenitors. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for the missing derivation before the quantitative predictions can be trusted.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a self-similar solution for the specific energy of radiation diffusing through a supernova envelope during the planar post-breakout phase, building on the Sakurai (1960) power-law hydrodynamic profiles. Its central claim is that the luminosity shell is not fixed at the breakout shell: the Lagrangian mass of the shell from which the observed radiation escapes grows logarithmically with time, m_ls(t) = m_bo [1 + ln(t/t_bo)]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)} (Eq. 23), reaching roughly 10 m_bo by the end of the planar phase. The authors argue that this logarithmic recession exposes regions about ten times denser than the breakout shell, enhancing free-free photon production and accelerating thermalization. They apply the result to RSG, BSG, and WR progenitors, and derive revised bolometric luminosities, observed temperatures, and the planar-to-spherical transition.

Significance. If the derivation is completed, the paper corrects a longstanding assumption in early supernova emission models: the planar-phase luminosity shell is not identical to the breakout shell. The claimed effect on the observed temperature, especially for BSG and WR explosions, is observationally consequential and would shift predicted early-time spectra from X-rays toward the UV/soft X-ray bands. The paper's self-similar framework is transparent, the exponents in the luminosity and temperature scalings are internally consistent, and the authors compare with previous analytic and numerically calibrated models rather than fitting their own output. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on an undetermined normalization in the derivation of Eq. (23), which must be addressed before the factor-of-ten result can be considered established.

major comments (2)

[§4.2, Eqs. (22)–(24)] The derivation of Eq. (23) from Eq. (22) is incomplete and load-bearing. Integrating F'(t) F(t)^{-\mu n/(n+1)} ∝ t^{-1} with F(t_bo)=m_bo yields F(t) = m_bo [1 + A ln(t/t_bo)]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)}, where A is an undetermined combination of the proportionality constant in Eq. (22), the normalization m_bo^{\mu n/(n+1)}, and the exponent. The paper simply states Eq. (23) with A=1, and Eq. (24) builds that choice into the self-similar variables. The subsequent central estimate m_ls(t_s)≈10 m_bo and the associated 'density ~10 times higher' claim are controlled by A; for t_s/t_bo=10^3 and n=3/2, A=0.1 gives m_ls/m_bo≈1.8 while A=10 gives ≈120. The observation in the paragraph following Eq. (23) that the first leaking shell sits at m=0 when t=t_bo/e is a consequence of the A=1 choice, not an independent physical boundary condition, because the power-law profile is explicitly unrealistic as m→0. Please derive A by substituting a general ansatz for F(t) into Eq. (19) and enforcing that the transformed equation is time-independent, or equivalently show that the proportionality in Eq. (22) carries the required coefficient.
[§8 and Eq. (23)] The quantitative application assumes a single power-law density profile ρ ∝ (R-r)^n over the entire radial range probed by the receding luminosity shell. The authors acknowledge this limitation in Section 8, but because the luminosity shell reaches ~10 m_bo, this range is not confined to the outermost envelope where the single power law is best calibrated. I request a quantitative sensitivity test, for example evaluating Eq. (23) for a broken power-law profile or against one of the MESA models mentioned in Section 8.1, to show that the factor ~10 is not an artifact of extrapolating the power law to larger depth.

minor comments (4)

[§4.2] Please specify that log denotes the natural logarithm and show the intermediate integration step between Eq. (22) and Eq. (23), including the proportionality constant explicitly.
[Tables 1 and 2] Table 1 is captioned for γ=5/3 while Table 2 is captioned for γ=4/3; please clarify which adiabatic index is used in the S60 shock solution and which is used for the radiation-dominated internal energy, and whether the table entries are consistent with the equations that follow.
[§4.1 and §4.2] The order-of-magnitude estimate in Eq. (18) gives m_ls ≈ m_bo [2 log(t/...)]^{(n+1)/(n+1-\mu n)}, while the self-similar solution in Eq. (23) gives m_bo [1 + log(t/t_bo)]^{...}; a short paragraph reconciling the factor of two and the additive constant would help readers understand which prefactor is physical.
[Abstract and §8] The abstract states that the observed temperature will decrease by two orders of magnitude, but the quantitative comparison with the uncorrected models in Figures 7 and 8 appears closer to one order of magnitude at the end of the planar phase; please state the comparison point explicitly so the claim is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (23) sets an undetermined integration constant to unity, and the paper's headline factor-10 density/temperature predictions are powers of that choice.

self definitional [Section 4.2, Eqs. (22)-(23); quantitative consequence in Eq. (32)]
"F′(t)·[F(t)]^{−µn/(n+1)} ∝ t^{−1} (22) with the initial condition F(t = tbo) = mbo. The two conditions above give the solution for F(t): mls(t) = F(t) = mbo [1 + log(t/tbo)]^{(n+1)/(n+1−µn)} (23)."

Eq. (22) is a first-order ODE with a free multiplicative constant (the ∝). Integrating it with F(tbo)=mbo gives F(t)=mbo[1+A ln(t/tbo)]^q with q=(n+1)/(n+1−µn), where A is undetermined. Eq. (23) is the A=1 member. The paper never derives A; the following remark that the first leaking shell sits at m=0 when t=tbo/e is a consequence of A=1, not an independent constraint. The headline factor mls(ts)/mbo≈10 in Eq. (32), the abstract's 'density is ∼10 times higher', and the two-order-of-magnitude temperature drop all evaluate [1+ln(ts/tbo)]^q with A=1; e.g. for ts/tbo=10^3 and n=3/2, A=1 gives ≈10, A=0.1 gives ≈1.8. Thus the central quantitative prediction is fixed by the arbitrary normalization placed in the self-similar variable (Eq. 24a), not derived from the diffusion equation.

full rationale

The hydrodynamic and diffusive ingredients are largely self-contained: the Sakurai power-law envelope and the planar self-similar profiles are external inputs, and no parameter is fitted to the predicted luminosity or temperature curves. The only self-citation is NS10, whose thermalization formalism is used in Section 6; that is a prior external framework invoked after the log-correction derivation, so it is not load-bearing for the central claim. However, the central quantitative claim is not fully derived. Eq. (22) fixes only F'(t)F(t)^{-μn/(n+1)} up to a constant; with the stated initial condition the general solution is F(t)=mbo[1+A ln(t/tbo)]^q, and Eq. (23) quietly sets A=1. The 't=tbo/e first leakage' remark restates that choice rather than deriving it, and the later factors mpl≈10mbo, density enhancement ∼10, and the two-order-of-magnitude temperature decrease are powers of [1+ln(ts/tbo)] evaluated with A=1. The qualitative logarithmic propagation survives for any A>0, so the paper is not wholly circular, but the advertised numerical predictions reduce by construction to an unstated normalization. The Section 8 caveat that the single power-law profile may not hold over the full radius range is a correctness/robustness limitation, not itself a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central log-correction result depends on the power-law profile index n and the canonical Sakurai index μ; no parameter is fitted to the shock-cooling observables being predicted. The normalization constants C1 and C2 come from external progenitor models, and A is a numerical constant from solving the self-similar ODE. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

n = 3/2 or 3
Density power-law index for convective or radiative envelopes; chosen as a model input, not fitted to the target result.
mu = 0.19
Shock acceleration index from Sakurai (1960), stated to be insensitive to n; a canonical value used throughout.
C1, C2 = C1~0.5, C2~0.9 (RSG); C1~0.35, C2~0.97 (BSG/WR)
Dimensionless constants setting normalization of density and velocity profiles; estimated from Matzner & McKee (1999) and MESA/Dessart & Hillier models, not from the shock-cooling signal being predicted.
A = 1.17 (n=3/2), 0.97 (n=3)
Numerical constant from integrating the self-similar ODE (Eq. 25); part of the mathematical solution, not an observational fit.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Pre-explosion density is a pure power law in distance from the stellar edge, rho proportional to (R-r)^n
Equation (1), Section 2; used to construct initial conditions for the diffusion calculation.
domain assumption The Sakurai shock solution, derived without gravity, applies all the way to the stellar edge
Section 2; the authors note the analysis may not describe material ahead of the breakout location.
domain assumption Planar phase: radius nearly constant, shell width d ~ v t after width doubles, density proportional to t^{-1}
Sections 3 and 4; used to derive density, velocity, and diffusion time scalings.
domain assumption Fully ionized gas with Thomson scattering as the dominant opacity
Section 4.1, Eq. (12); valid for T > 1 eV.
domain assumption Free-free emission is the dominant photon production process for thermalization
Section 6, Eq. (45); bound-bound and bound-free absorption neglected because T >> 1 eV.
standard math The diffusion equation for specific energy can be reduced to an ODE by a self-similar ansatz with the luminosity shell mass as the sole scale
Equations (19)-(25); standard self-similar reduction method.
domain assumption During the planar phase, thermalization is assumed to occur in shells with mbo < m <= mls
Section 6.1; this locates the colour shell relative to the luminosity shell.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early supernova emission -- logarithmic corrections to the planar phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSJKWJIU

@misc{pith2026190806990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early supernova emission -- logarithmic corrections to the planar phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSJKWJIU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06990}
}

abstract

When the shock wave generated in a supernova explosion breaks out of the stellar envelope, the first photons, typically in the X-ray to UV range, escape to the observer. Following this breakout emission, radiation from deeper shells diffuses out of the envelope as the supernova ejecta expands. Previous studies have shown that the radiation throughout the planar phase (i.e., before the expanding envelope has doubled its radius) originates in the same mass coordinate, called the `breakout shell'. We derive a self-similar solution for the radiation inside the envelope, and show that this claim is incorrect, and that the diffusion wave propagates logarithmically into the envelope (in Lagrangian sense) rather than remaining at a fixed mass coordinate. The logarithmic correction implies that the luminosity originates in regions where the density is $\sim 10$ times higher than previously thought, where the photon production rate is increased and helps thermalization. We show that this result has significant implications on the observed temperature. In our model, the radiation emitted from blue supergiant and Wolf-Rayet explosions is still expected to be out of thermal equilibrium during the entire planar phase, but the observed temperature will decrease by two orders of magnitude, contrary to previous estimates. Considering the conditions at the end of the planar phase, we also find how the temperature and luminosity transition into the spherical phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06990 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The self-similar solution of Eq (25) for the case of n = 3/2. The black curve is the numerical solution, while the dashed lines are the analytic solutions for me 1 (red) and me 1 (green), according to Eq (26). u in the external parts of the ejecta: u(m mls) =Aubo m mbo − µn n+1 h 1 + log(t/tbo) i 1−2µn 3(n+1−µn) × t tbo −1/3 . (27) The solution at me 1 is then used to compute the bolometric luminosity of the SN… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The luminosity shell including the logarithmic correction for n = 3/2 (solid blue line) and the naive luminosity shell, which satisfies τ = c/v throughout the evolution (black dashdotted line). The luminosity shell grows logarithmically with time until it enters the transition phase at ts = R/vbo. It then remains constant until it satisfies τ = c/v and enters the fully spherical phase. At the end of the planar pha… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The intrinsic bolometric luminosity of an RSG with the following parameters: M15 = 1, R500 = 1,E51 = 1 and κ0.34 = 1. Our results are compared to previous analytic works that consider a similar external density profile for the progenitor star. The break in the light curve indictes the transition to the spherical phase. The observed bolometric luminosity will be smeared on a time scale of R/c ∼ 1200 s due to light tr… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Solid black line: the observed temperature of an RSG with M15 = 1, R500 = 1, E51 = 1 and κ0.34 = 1. The dash-dotted blue line is the blackbody temperature of the luminosity shell, and the dashed red line is the observed temperature that would haved been obtained withou…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The intrinsic bolometric luminosity of a BSG with the parameters M15 = 1, R50 = 1,E51 = 1 and κ0.34 = 1. The observed bolometric luminosity will be smeared on a time scale of R/c ∼ 120 s due to light travel time effects. trum of Fν ∝ ν −0.52 during the first ∼ 2 minute…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Aame as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

2010, ApJ, 725, 63

Budnik, R., Katz, B., Sagiv, A., & Waxman, E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 63

work page 2010
[2]

J., et al

Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008

work page 2006
[3]

Chevalier, R. A. 1992, ApJ, 394, 599

work page 1992
[4]

A., & Fransson, C

Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2008, ApJ, 683, L135

work page 2008
[5]

Colgate, S. A. 1974, ApJ, 187, 333

work page 1974
[6]

Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.07620

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[7]

1992, ApJ, 393, 742

Ensman, L., & Burrows, A. 1992, ApJ, 393, 742

1992
[8]

Falk, S. W. 1978, ApJ, 225, L133

work page 1978

Show all 28 references

[9]

S., Nadezhin, D

Imshennik, V. S., Nadezhin, D. K., & Utrobin, V. P. 1981, Ap&SS, 78, 105

1981
[10]

I., & Chevalier, R

Klein, R. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 1978, ApJ, 223, L109

1978
[11]

2007, ApJ, 658, L5

Maeda, K., Kawabata, K., Tanaka, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, L5

2007
[12]

Malesani, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., Hjorth, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, L84

2009
[13]

D., & McKee, C

Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379

1999
[14]

A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al

Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1018

2006
[15]

Z., Garnavich, P

Modjaz, M., Stanek, K. Z., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, L21

2006
[16]

L., Renzo, M., & Ott, C

Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., & Ott, C. D. 2016, ApJ, 829, 109

2016
[17]

2010, ApJ, 725, 904 —

Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 904 —. 2012, ApJ, 747, 88

2010
[18]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[19]

A., Masetti, N., et al

Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011

2006
[20]

L., Chang, P., & Weinberg, N

Piro, A. L., Chang, P., & Weinberg, N. N. 2010, ApJ, 708, 598

2010
[21]

2011, ApJ, 728, 63

Rabinak, I., & Waxman, E. 2011, ApJ, 728, 63

2011
[22]

1960, Comm

Sakurai, A. 1960, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 13, 353

1960
[23]

2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.05323

Shussman, T., Waldman, R., & Nakar, E. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.05323

2016 arXiv
[24]

M., Berger, E., Page, K

Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2008, Nature, 453, 469

2008
[25]

1984, MNRAS, 209, 175

Svensson, R. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 175

1984
[26]

Weaver, T. A. 1976, ApJS, 32, 233

1976
[27]

E., Pinto, P

Woosley, S. E., Pinto, P. A., & Ensman, L. 1988, ApJ, 324, 466

1988
[28]

2008, in COSPAR Meeting, Vol

Xu, D., Watson, D., Fynbo, J., et al. 2008, in COSPAR Meeting, Vol. 37, 37th COSPAR Scientiﬁc Assembly, 3512

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

2010, ApJ, 725, 63

Budnik, R., Katz, B., Sagiv, A., & Waxman, E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 63

work page 2010

[2] [2]

J., et al

Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Chevalier, R. A. 1992, ApJ, 394, 599

work page 1992

[4] [4]

A., & Fransson, C

Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2008, ApJ, 683, L135

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Colgate, S. A. 1974, ApJ, 187, 333

work page 1974

[6] [6]

Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.07620

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

1992, ApJ, 393, 742

Ensman, L., & Burrows, A. 1992, ApJ, 393, 742

1992

[8] [8]

Falk, S. W. 1978, ApJ, 225, L133

work page 1978