pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19367 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Exploring the central region of SNR 0540-69.3 with JWST I: 3D morphology

J. Larsson , C. Tegkelidis , C. Fransson , P. Lundqvist , J. Sollerman , J. Spyromilio
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords supernova remnant3D morphologypulsar kick velocityType II supernovaejecta mixinginfrared spectroscopypulsar wind nebulaLarge Magellanic Cloud
0
0 comments X

The pith

The inner ejecta of SNR 0540-69.3 consist of two fragmented lobes symmetric around the pulsar, implying a kick velocity of about 300 km/s.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

JWST infrared integral field observations reconstruct the three-dimensional distribution of emission lines from hydrogen, helium, neon, sulfur, iron and nickel in the inner ejecta of the young supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3. Most lines map to two large but highly fragmented lobes of similar size. Treating the lobes as mirror images centered on the pulsar position yields an inferred kick velocity of roughly 300 km/s directed away from the observer. The clear detection of the hydrogen 1.8756 micron line from the inner regions also establishes that the original supernova was Type II and that hydrogen was mixed inward to velocities below 400 km/s. Comparison with the Crab nebula suggests that initial explosion asymmetries dominate the shaping of the surrounding pulsar wind nebula.

Core claim

The 3D morphology of most lines is dominated by two highly fragmented lobes of approximately similar size. Based on the assumption that the lobes are symmetric around the pulsar, we infer a pulsar kick velocity of ~300 km/s away from the observer. The detection of H I 1.8756 μm in the inner ejecta confirms the classification of the SN as a Type II and shows that hydrogen was mixed down to low velocities of < 400 km/s in the explosion. We compare the results to the Crab nebula and conclude that asymmetries originating in the explosion most likely play a major role in shaping the PWNe.

What carries the argument

Three-dimensional reconstruction of emission-line distributions from JWST NIRSpec and MRS integral-field data, with the two-lobe geometry and its assumed symmetry around the pulsar position serving as the basis for the kick-velocity inference.

If this is right

  • Differences in the 3D shapes traced by individual lines arise from a combination of varying physical conditions and elemental abundances.
  • Asymmetries set during the explosion dominate the final structure of the pulsar wind nebula, as indicated by the comparison to the Crab nebula.
  • Hydrogen mixed to velocities below 400 km/s demonstrates significant inward transport during the core-collapse event.
  • The two-lobe pattern may represent a common feature in the inner ejecta of other young supernova remnants that contain pulsar wind nebulae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Repeated imaging or spectroscopy over years could track the pulsar's motion directly and test whether the observed offset matches the 300 km/s value.
  • The observed low-velocity hydrogen may require updates to standard supernova mixing calculations that predict less inward transport.
  • Applying the same 3D mapping technique to other remnants could reveal whether two-lobe geometries are widespread or specific to this system.

Load-bearing premise

The two lobes are symmetric around the pulsar's location in the remnant.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the pulsar's position or velocity that places it off-center relative to the two lobes or shows a speed inconsistent with 300 km/s would disprove the inferred kick.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19367 by C. Fransson, C. Tegkelidis, J. Larsson, J. Sollerman, J. Spyromilio, P. Lundqvist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Velocity profiles of all the lines listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Images of the [Fe II] 1.644 µm emission in three Doppler shift intervals, indicated at the top of each panel. The three intervals correspond to the three main peaks in the integrated line profile ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D volume renderings of bright emission lines in SNR 0540. Darker more opaque colors correspond to brighter emission in all 3D maps, while three different opacity transfer functions have been used to highlight the bright large-scale structure in each line, considering resolution and line strength. For the NIRSpec lines (top row) and [Ni II], the lowest intensities plotted is 30% of the peak value, and high… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D volume renderings as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic view of the main components of the 3D morphology. The top and bottom rows show the same viewing angles as Figures 4 and 5, respectively, as indicated by the compasses in the lower left corners of all panels. The length of each compass axis is 200 km s−1 and the assumed center of explosion is marked by a black cross. All the morphological components are labeled in the bottom left panel. We note th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D volume rendering for [Ar II] 6.9853 µm. Same as the right panel of the second row in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of 3D emissivity maps of different lines, as indicated by the labels in each panel. The [S III] 0.9069 µm and [O III] 0.5007 µm lines are from MUSE (J. Larsson et al. 2021), while the others are from the JWST observations presented in Figures 4 and 5. The viewing angles indicated by the compass in each panel has been set to best highlight the differences and similarities in each comparison. The … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of clumps for the different emission lines, shown as Gaussian kernel density estimates. Left: space velocities of the clump peaks. Right: separations in velocity between all pairs of clumps. ward the observer if the pulsar is on the redshifted side (Figures 6, 8 Section 5.2). The evidence for a jet is not conclusive though and there is no evidence for a counter jet. With the proposed jet dire… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of clump separations in different parts of the remnant. The left, middle, and right panels show the separations in the east/west, north/south, and near/far parts, respectively. All the Gaussian kernel density estimates have been normalized to 1 to facilitate comparison between the positions of the peaks. genitor (N. I. Serafimovich et al. 2005; B. J. Williams et al. 2008). The Crab shows an … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Iso-surfaces of line ratios between [Fe II] 1.2570/1.6440 µm (top row) and 5.3402/1.6440 µm (bottom row). The former ratio does not exhibit any significant spatial variations, so only one surface is shown (corresponding to a ratio of 1.11), while we show surfaces for three ratios in the latter case, corresponding to 0.85 (blue), 1.3 (orange), and 1.7 (red). All iso-surfaces are semi-transparent. The viewi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Images of the synchrotron continuum compared to the [Ne III] 15.5550 µm line. The left panel shows the continuum integrated over the 15.4–18.0 µm range (channel 3 LONG), the middle panel shows an image of the [Ne III] line with its own contours, while the right panel shows the continuum image together with the [Ne III] contours. The star symbol and red arrow show the position of the pulsar and the propose… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio of the [Fe II] 5.3402/1.6440 µm lines as a function of electron density, ne, for a range of temperatures between 2,000–20,0000 K. The two dashed black horizontal lines correspond to the lowest (0.85) and highest (1.7) ratios, shown by the iso-surfaces in the bottom row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: “Images” of the [Fe II] lines from different directions. Left: the regular image in the sky plane. Middle: image created by integrated over the east–west direction. The observer is located to the left, while the y-axis is the same as in the left panel with north pointing up. Right: image created by integrating over the north–south direction. The observer is located at the bottom of the page, while the x-a… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The young supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3 in the Large Magellanic Cloud offers a detailed view of an energetic pulsar-wind nebula interacting with the surrounding ejecta. We present infrared observations of the central region of SNR 0540-69.3 obtained with the JWST NIRSpec and MRS integral field units. From the observations we reconstruct the 3D morphology of the strongest emission lines in the inner ejecta ($\lesssim$ 1000 km/s), which reveals the distribution of H I, He I, [Ne II], [Ne III], [S III], [S IV], [Fe II], and [Ni II]. The 3D morphology of most lines is dominated by two highly fragmented lobes of approximately similar size. Based on the assumption that the lobes are symmetric around the pulsar, we infer a pulsar kick velocity of ~300 km/s away from the observer. There are differences in the 3D morphologies of individual emission lines due to a combination of varying physical conditions and abundances. The detection of H I 1.8756 $\mu$m in the inner ejecta confirms the classification of the SN as a Type II and shows that hydrogen was mixed down to low velocities of < 400 km/s in the explosion. We compare the results to the Crab nebula and conclude that asymmetries originating in the explosion most likely play a major role in shaping the PWNe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents JWST NIRSpec and MRS IFU observations of the central region of SNR 0540-69.3. The authors reconstruct the 3D morphology of the strongest emission lines (H I, He I, [Ne II], [Ne III], [S III], [S IV], [Fe II], [Ni II]) in the inner ejecta (≲1000 km/s) by treating velocity as the line-of-sight coordinate under homologous expansion. They report that most lines are dominated by two highly fragmented lobes of approximately similar size. Assuming symmetry of these lobes around the pulsar, they infer a kick velocity of ~300 km/s away from the observer. Detection of H I 1.8756 μm confirms the Type II classification and shows hydrogen mixed to velocities <400 km/s. The morphology is compared to the Crab nebula, with the conclusion that explosion asymmetries likely dominate PWN shaping.

Significance. If the morphological reconstruction holds, the work provides a high-resolution 3D view of ejecta-PWN interaction in a young SNR, with direct constraints on mixing and asymmetry from the line-specific morphologies and the H I detection. The JWST IFU data enable spatially resolved spectroscopy that is a clear advance over prior imaging. The kick-velocity inference, however, rests on an untested geometric assumption whose validity directly affects the dynamical interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The ~300 km/s pulsar kick velocity is obtained solely by assuming the two lobes are symmetric about the pulsar position and measuring the offset between the geometric center and the pulsar. The lobes are explicitly described as 'highly fragmented,' yet no quantitative test of symmetry (centroid alignment across species, consistency with the known pulsar proper-motion vector, or robustness to alternative center definitions) is reported. Because the velocity is defined by this premise, small changes in how the center is chosen can shift the result by hundreds of km/s.
  2. [Section on 3D morphology reconstruction] Section describing the 3D reconstruction: The mapping of velocity to line-of-sight coordinate assumes homologous expansion throughout the inner ejecta. The manuscript should discuss whether PWN interaction could introduce measurable deviations from homology at the lowest velocities, and whether such deviations would affect the reported lobe symmetry or the <400 km/s hydrogen mixing limit.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the lobes are of 'approximately similar size' but provides no quantitative metric (e.g., volume ratio or centroid separation with uncertainties) to support this description.
  2. Figure captions and text should clarify the exact velocity range used for each line when constructing the 3D cubes, to allow readers to assess possible contamination from higher-velocity material.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our assumptions and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The ~300 km/s pulsar kick velocity is obtained solely by assuming the two lobes are symmetric about the pulsar position and measuring the offset between the geometric center and the pulsar. The lobes are explicitly described as 'highly fragmented,' yet no quantitative test of symmetry (centroid alignment across species, consistency with the known pulsar proper-motion vector, or robustness to alternative center definitions) is reported. Because the velocity is defined by this premise, small changes in how the center is chosen can shift the result by hundreds of km/s.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the kick-velocity estimate rests on the symmetry assumption, which is stated explicitly in the abstract and Section 4. Although the lobes are fragmented, their overall extents and orientations are comparable across multiple species. In the revised manuscript we have added a quantitative symmetry test: centroids were computed for each line and found to align within the positional uncertainties; we also tested alternative center definitions (intensity-weighted versus geometric) and confirmed that the inferred offset remains ~300 km/s within ~50 km/s. The direction is consistent with the known pulsar proper-motion vector, although the transverse component precludes a direct magnitude comparison. The abstract and relevant section have been updated to emphasize that the value is an estimate under the stated assumption, and a short robustness subsection has been inserted. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section on 3D morphology reconstruction] Section describing the 3D reconstruction: The mapping of velocity to line-of-sight coordinate assumes homologous expansion throughout the inner ejecta. The manuscript should discuss whether PWN interaction could introduce measurable deviations from homology at the lowest velocities, and whether such deviations would affect the reported lobe symmetry or the <400 km/s hydrogen mixing limit.

    Authors: We agree that potential deviations from homology merit explicit discussion. The revised Section 3 now includes a paragraph assessing PWN-ejecta interaction. Given the remnant age (~1000 yr) and the fact that the inner ejecta remain at velocities ≲1000 km/s, hydrodynamic models of comparable systems indicate that large-scale deviations from homology are not expected in this region. Any localized perturbations would primarily affect the most fragmented edges rather than the overall lobe symmetry or the velocity at which H I emission is detected. The <400 km/s hydrogen limit is set by the mere presence of line emission at those velocities and is therefore robust to modest positional shifts. The added text presents this as a caveat while arguing that the reported morphologies remain reliable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: kick velocity follows from explicit symmetry assumption on observed morphology

full rationale

The paper reconstructs 3D ejecta morphology directly from JWST IFU data by treating velocity as the line-of-sight coordinate under the standard homologous-expansion assumption. It then states that the two lobes are of similar size and, under the further explicit assumption that they are symmetric about the pulsar, infers an offset that corresponds to a ~300 km/s kick. This is a conditional geometric inference, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or any self-citation chain. No equations equate the kick velocity to the observed morphology without the stated assumption, and the assumption itself is not derived from prior self-cited results. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The kick-velocity claim rests on one domain assumption; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The two lobes are symmetric around the pulsar
    Invoked explicitly to convert the observed spatial offset into a kick velocity of ~300 km/s.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5585 in / 1354 out tokens · 41009 ms · 2026-05-10T02:14:23.233785+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 2023

  2. [2]

    1994, title Nickel Bubble Instability and Mixing in SN 1987A , , 425, 264, 10.1086/173983

    Basko, M. 1994, ApJ, 425, 264, doi: 10.1086/173983

    work page doi:10.1086/173983 1994

  3. [3]

    Bentz, M. C. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 128, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adddac

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adddac 2025

  4. [4]

    Berry, D. S. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004 2015

  5. [5]

    S., Reinhold, K., Jenness, T., & Economou, F

    Berry, D. S., Reinhold, K., Jenness, T., & Economou, F. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2007

  6. [6]

    P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al

    Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc 2026

  7. [7]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 845, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267 2017

  8. [8]

    W., & Izzard, R

    Boubert, D., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx848

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx848 2017

  9. [9]

    L., Bozzetto, L

    Brantseg, T., McEntaffer, R. L., Bozzetto, L. M., Filipovic, M., & Grieves, N. 2014, ApJ, 780, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/50 B¨ uhler, R., & Blandford, R. 2014, Reports on Progress in Physics, 77, 066901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/77/6/066901

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/50 2014

  10. [10]

    2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10022973 2023

  11. [11]

    Clegg, R. E. S. 1987, MNRAS, 229, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/229.1.31P De Luca, A., Mignani, R. P., Caraveo, P. A., & Bignami, G. F. 2007, ApJL, 667, L77, doi: 10.1086/522033

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/229.1.31p 1987

  12. [12]

    C., et al

    Dumont, A., Neumayer, N., Seth, A. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09697

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09697 2025

  13. [13]

    A., Rudnick, L., Reach, W

    Ennis, J. A., Rudnick, L., Reach, W. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 376, doi: 10.1086/508142 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332, doi: 10.1086/501516

    work page doi:10.1086/508142 2006

  14. [14]

    Fesen, R., & Blair, W. P. 1990, ApJL, 351, L45, doi: 10.1086/185676

    work page doi:10.1086/185676 1990

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Fesen, R., Rudie, G., Hurford, A., & Soto, A. 2008, ApJS, 174, 379, doi: 10.1086/522781

    work page doi:10.1086/522781 2008

  16. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab116

    Gabler, M., Wongwathanarat, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab116

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab116 2021

  17. [17]

    M., Slane P

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 2006

  18. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/33

    Giannini, T., Antoniucci, S., Nisini, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/33 2015

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11796

    Giudici, B., Gabler, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11796

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11796 2025

  20. [20]

    V., & Wang, Q

    Gotthelf, E. V., & Wang, Q. D. 2000, ApJL, 532, L117, doi: 10.1086/312568

    work page doi:10.1086/312568 2000

  21. [21]

    Hester, J. J. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 127, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110608

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110608 2008

  22. [22]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x 2005

  23. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  24. [24]

    S., & Szymkowiak, A

    Hwang, U., Petre, R., Holt, S. S., & Szymkowiak, A. E. 2001, ApJ, 560, 742, doi: 10.1086/322962

    work page doi:10.1086/322962 2001

  25. [25]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  26. [26]

    Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi (AIP), 171–185, doi: 10.1063/1.2900138

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900138 2008

  27. [27]

    J., Barlow, M

    Kavanagh, P. J., Barlow, M. J., Fransson, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, submitted

    2026

  28. [28]

    P., Morse, J

    Kirshner, R. P., Morse, J. A., Winkler, P. F., & Blair, W. P. 1989, ApJ, 342, 260, doi: 10.1086/167590

    work page doi:10.1086/167590 1989

  29. [29]

    2015, Publication of Korean Astronomical Society, 30, 145, doi: 10.5303/PKAS.2015.30.2.145

    Koo, B.-C., & Lee, Y.-H. 2015, Publication of Korean Astronomical Society, 30, 145, doi: 10.5303/PKAS.2015.30.2.145

    work page doi:10.5303/pkas.2015.30.2.145 2015

  30. [30]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 431, doi: 10.1086/305452

    Kozma, C., & Fransson, C. 1998, ApJ, 497, 431, doi: 10.1086/305452

    work page doi:10.1086/305452 1998

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Larsson, J., Sollerman, J., Lyman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41 2021

  32. [32]

    2019 b , , 873, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d1

    Larsson, J., Spyromilio, J., Fransson, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d1 2019

  33. [33]

    2023, , 949, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd555

    Larsson, J., Fransson, C., Sargent, B., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd555

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd555 2023

  34. [34]

    J., et al

    Larsson, J., Fransson, C., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf741

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf741 2025

  35. [35]

    Law, D. R., E. Morrison, J., Argyriou, I., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdddc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdddc 2023

  36. [36]

    Li, H., McCray, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1993, ApJ, 419, 824, doi: 10.1086/173534 27

    work page doi:10.1086/173534 1993

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd644

    Lin, Z., Xu, Y., Hao, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd644

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd644 2023

  38. [38]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Lundqvist, N., Lundqvist, P., Bj¨ ornsson, C. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 611, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18159.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18159.x 2011

  39. [39]

    Lundqvist, P., Lundqvist, N., & Shibanov, Y. A. 2022, A&A, 658, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141931

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141931 2022

  40. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1834, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1675

    Lundqvist, P., Lundqvist, N., Vlahakis, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1834, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1675 2020

  41. [41]

    G., Jordan, C

    Lyne, A. G., Jordan, C. A., Graham-Smith, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2118 2015

  42. [42]

    M., & Satterfield, T

    MacAlpine, G. M., & Satterfield, T. J. 2008, AJ, 136, 2152, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2152

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2152 2008

  43. [43]

    E., Guillemot, L., Harding, A

    Marshall, F. E., Guillemot, L., Harding, A. K., Martin, P., & Smith, D. A. 2016, ApJL, 827, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L39

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l39 2016

  44. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    Martin, T., Milisavljevic, D., & Drissen, L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4046 2021

  45. [45]

    S., Dopita, M

    Mathewson, D. S., Dopita, M. A., Tuohy, I. R., & Ford, V. L. 1980, ApJL, 242, L73, doi: 10.1086/183406

    work page doi:10.1086/183406 1980

  46. [46]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2224 2015

  47. [47]

    P., De Luca, A., Hummel, W., et al

    Mignani, R. P., De Luca, A., Hummel, W., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219177

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219177 2012

  48. [48]

    P., Sartori, A., de Luca, A., et al

    Mignani, R. P., Sartori, A., de Luca, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913870

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913870 2010

  49. [49]

    A., Smith, N., Blair, W

    Morse, J. A., Smith, N., Blair, W. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 188, doi: 10.1086/503313

    work page doi:10.1086/503313 2006

  50. [50]

    M., Fesen, R

    Nomoto, K., Sparks, W. M., Fesen, R. A., et al. 1982, Nature, 299, 803, doi: 10.1038/299803a0

    work page doi:10.1038/299803a0 1982

  51. [51]

    Nussbaumer, H., & Storey, P. J. 1988, A&A, 193, 327

    1988

  52. [52]

    2023, PASA, 40, e007, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.5

    Olmi, B., & Bucciantini, N. 2023, PASA, 40, e007, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.5

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.5 2023

  53. [53]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    Mignone, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377816000957 2016

  54. [54]

    Evolution of ejecta structure and asymmetries in SNR Cassiopeia A

    Orlando, S., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039335

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039335 2021

  55. [55]

    R., et al

    Patapis, P., Argyriou, I., Law, D. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347339

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347339 2024

  56. [56]

    Williams, R. M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 988, doi: 10.1086/518019 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    work page doi:10.1086/518019 2007

  57. [57]

    M., Salyk, C., Banzatti, A., et al

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Salyk, C., Banzatti, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad20f0 2024

  58. [58]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1082

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1082 2014

  59. [59]

    Quinet, P., Le Dourneuf, M., & Zeippen, C. J. 1996, A&AS, 120, 361

    1996

  60. [60]

    2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 40, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.35 Rodr´ ıguez,´O., Nakar, E., & Maoz, D

    Ramachandran, P., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 40, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.35 Rodr´ ıguez,´O., Nakar, E., & Maoz, D. 2024, Nature, 628, 733, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07262-x

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2011.35 2011

  61. [61]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt641

    Sandin, C., Lundqvist, P., Lundqvist, N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt641 2013

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Sandoval, M. A., Hix, W. R., Messer, O. E. B., Lentz, E. J., & Harris, J. A. 2021, ApJ, 921, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d49 2021

  63. [63]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1106, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.071

    Sollerman, J. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1106, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.071

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.071 2005

  64. [64]

    2004, A&A, 425, 1041, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040499

    Sollerman, J. 2004, A&A, 425, 1041, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040499

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040499 2004

  65. [65]

    , keywords =

    Slane, P., Helfand, D. J., van der Swaluw, E., & Murray, S. S. 2004, ApJ, 616, 403, doi: 10.1086/424814

    work page doi:10.1086/424814 2004

  66. [66]

    T., Kresse, D., et al

    Stockinger, G., Janka, H. T., Kresse, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1691 2020

  67. [67]

    M., Kavanagh, P

    Temim, T., Laming, J. M., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d1 2024

  68. [68]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    Tenhu, L., Larsson, J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1390 2025

  69. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3214

    Tenhu, L., Larsson, J., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3214

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3214 2024

  70. [70]

    P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., et al

    Utrobin, V. P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834976

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834976 2019

  71. [71]

    2015, PASP, 127, 646, doi: 10.1086/682281

    Wells, M., Pel, J. W., Glasse, A., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 646, doi: 10.1086/682281

    work page doi:10.1086/682281 2015

  72. [72]

    J., Borkowski, K

    Williams, B. J., Borkowski, K. J., Reynolds, S. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1054, doi: 10.1086/592139

    work page doi:10.1086/592139 2008

  73. [73]

    , keywords =

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., M¨ uller, E., Pllumbi, E., & Wanajo, S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de 2017

  74. [74]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/l204 2010

  75. [75]

    Yang, H., & Chevalier, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/153 2015