Paper detail

Constraining early-time dust formation in core-collapse supernovae

There is currently a severe discrepancy between theoretical models of dust formation in core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe), which predict $\gtrsim 0.01$ M$_\odot$ of ejecta dust forming within $\sim 1000$ days, and observations at these epochs, which infer much lower masses. We demonstrate that, in the optically thin case, these low dust masses are robust despite significant observational and model uncertainties. For a sample of 11 well-observed CCSNe, no plausible model reaches carbon dust masses above $10^{-4}$ M$_\odot$, or silicate masses above $\sim 10^{-3}$ M$_\odot$. Optically thick models can accommodate larger dust masses, but the dust must be clumped and have a low ($<0.1$) covering fraction to avoid conflict with data at optical wavelengths. These values are insufficient to reproduce the observed infrared fluxes, and the required covering fraction varies not only between SNe but between epochs for the same object. The difficulty in reconciling large dust masses with early-time observations of CCSNe, combined with well-established detections of comparably large dust masses in supernova remnants, suggests that a mechanism for late-time dust formation is necessary.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.