Paper detail

Dusty Blastwaves of Two Young LMC Supernova Remnants: Constraints on Postshock Compression

We present results from mid-IR spectroscopic observations of two young supernova remnants (SNRs) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) done with the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}. We imaged SNRs B0509-67.5 and B0519-69.0 with {\it Spitzer} in 2005, and follow-up spectroscopy presented here confirms the presence of warm, shock heated dust, with no lines present in the spectrum. We use model fits to {\it Spitzer} IRS data to estimate the density of the postshock gas. Both remnants show asymmetries in the infrared images, and we interpret bright spots as places where the forward shock is running into material that is several times denser than elsewhere. The densities we infer for these objects depend on the grain omposition assumed, and we explore the effects of differing grain porosity on the model fits. We also analyze archival {\it XMM-Newton} RGS spectroscopic data, where both SNRs show strong lines of both Fe and Si, coming from ejecta, as well as strong O lines, which may come from ejecta or shocked ambient medium. We use model fits to IRS spectra to predict X-ray O line strengths for various grain models and values of the shock compression ratio. For 0509-67.5, we find that compact (solid) grain models require nearly all O lines in X-ray spectra to originate in reverse-shocked ejecta. Porous dust grains would lower the strength of ejecta lines relative to those arising in the shocked ambient medium. In 0519-69.0, we find significant evidence for a higher than standard compression ratio of 12, implying efficient cosmic-ray acceleration by the blast wave. A compact grain model is favored over porous grain models. We find that the dust-to-gas mass ratio of the ambient medium is significantly lower than what is expected in the ISM.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors1 topic

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.

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 map preview

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.