Paper detail

On the Expansion, Age, and Origin of the Puzzling Shell/Pulsar Wind Nebula G310.6-1.6

We present a 142-ks Chandra observation of the enigmatic combination supernova remnant G310.6-1.6 consisting of a bright pulsar-wind nebula driven by an energetic pulsar, surrounded by a highly circular, very faint shell with a featureless, probably synchrotron, spectrum. Comparison with an observation 6 years earlier shows no measurable expansion of the shell, though some features in the pulsar-wind nebula have moved. We find an expansion age of at least 2500 yr, implying a current shock velocity less than about 1000 km/s. We place severe upper limits on thermal emission from the shell; if the shell locates the blast wave, a Sedov interpretation would require the remnant to be very young, about 1000 yr, and to have resulted from a dramatically sub-energetic supernova, ejecting << 0.02 M_sun with energy E < 3 x 10^47 erg. Even a merger-induced collapse of a white dwarf to a neutron star, with a low-energy explosion, is unlikely to produce such an event. Other explanations seem equally unlikely.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.

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 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.