arxiv: 2605.04940 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Multi-Dimensional MHD simulations of young Core-Collapse Supernova Remnants

A. A. C. Sander, B. Reville, C. J. K. Larkin, H. Jin, J. Mackey, N. Langer

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

keywords supernova remnantscore-collapse supernovaemagnetohydrodynamicscircumstellar mediumred supergiantswolf-rayet starsshock propagationstellar winds

0 comments

The pith

Multi-D MHD simulations of core-collapse supernova remnants show faster forward shocks than analytic theory due to circumstellar medium structure.

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

This paper carries out two- and three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of young supernova remnants from red supergiant and Wolf-Rayet progenitors. It initializes the circumstellar medium using self-consistent stellar evolution models that include photoionization and radiative cooling. The models produce faster forward shocks than simpler analytic predictions and, in the Wolf-Rayet case, a set of fast reflected shocks. These differences arise because the detailed circumstellar medium density and magnetic field near the star control shock behavior in the first few hundred years. A sympathetic reader would care because this early phase sets how the remnant expands into the interstellar medium and whether it can accelerate high-energy particles.

Core claim

By performing 3D MHD simulations with self-consistent stellar evolution for red supergiant and Wolf-Rayet progenitors, we demonstrate that the pre-SN circumstellar medium density and magnetic field structure close to the star govern shock properties and SNR evolution in the first few hundred years. Our models produce faster forward shocks than analytic predictions and, in the Wolf-Rayet case, a coherent set of fast reflected shocks. This underscores the necessity of detailed multi-D MHD treatment of the CSM to account for SNR evolution beyond the wind termination shock where instabilities are important. Model predictions of slowly rotating RSG and WR stars result in weakly magnetised wind b

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the multi-dimensional MHD simulation of the circumstellar medium shaped by detailed stellar evolution prescriptions for red supergiant and Wolf-Rayet stars, with radiative cooling and full photoionization included to track shock propagation and instabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that full photoionization and the chosen stellar evolution prescriptions for red supergiant and Wolf-Rayet stars produce an accurate pre-supernova circumstellar medium, and that the 2D/3D MHD setup with radiative cooling captures all relevant physics.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the simulated forward shock velocities and the presence of reflected shocks with radio or X-ray observations of very young core-collapse supernova remnants from known red supergiant or Wolf-Rayet progenitors would test the predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04940 by A. A. C. Sander, B. Reville, C. J. K. Larkin, H. Jin, J. Mackey, N. Langer.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Stellar parameters for the last 500 kyr of our evolutionary track. The blue, orange and red shading denote the main sequence, RSG and WR phases respectively. (a) Mass loss rate and surface temperature vs time since ZAMS. (b) Rotation velocity, critical rotation velocity and wind velocity vs time since ZAMS. model from a wide binary system. This primary star has no interaction with the secondary during its… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Evolution of selected CSM magnetic field components for the last 500 kyr pre-SN. The blue, orange and red shading denote the main sequence, RSG and WR phases respectively. (a) rt , the radius where Br/Bϕ = 1 close to the equatorial plane, vs. time. (b) rt/R⋆ vs time. (c) Bϕ/B⋆ vs. time where Bϕ is calculated at a distance of 1 pc from the star, for our model (blue) and with values of Zirakashvili & Ptuskin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Density slices from the 2D evolution showing the CSM during the Main Sequence (upper left), RSG phase (upper right), WR phase sweeping out the RSG shell (lower left) and pre-SN (lower right). the WTS. In contrast to previous work (e.g view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radial profile of density for the RSG simulation (upper panel) and WR simulation (lower panel) before the SN is inserted. The profile is calculated along a diagonal ray from the origin in the [+x, −y, +z] direction. WR wind is also aspherical because of the confining effect of ISM magnetic pressure. The radial CSM profiles in our simulations differ from those presented in Garcia-Segura et al. (1996a) for b… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: XZ-plane slice of density for selected times of the RSG simulation. 3.2. RSG-SNR Simulation Hydrodynamic results We evolve the simulation for 550 yr post-explosion, by which time the SNR has expanded deep into the shocked RSG wind region. We can describe the evolution of the SNR in four phases, as shown in the four panels of view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: XZ-plane slice of −∇ · V/V for selected times of the RSG simulation. posed in the SN explosion is quickly smoothed out as the remnant expands. A strong forward shock is established at the interface with the CSM, and a reverse shock builds up over time (∼50 yr). The SNR sweeps up the RSG wind material with an approximately constant velocity, until it reaches the RSG WTS at about 1.7 pc (∼230 yr). At this… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: XZ-plane slice of density for selected times of the WR simulation. before reaching the WR WTS. Unlike in the RSG case, deceleration of the SNR shocks is minimal at this point due to the lower density in the freely expanding wind. After sweeping up the WR WTS, the SNR shocks continue to freely expand in the shocked wind, which is also less dense than in the RSG case. The SNR continues to expand until it h… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: XZ-plane slice of magnetic field strength and streamlines of inplane magnetic field direction for selected times of the WR simulation. WTS, where the assumptions in Truelove & McKee (1999) are no longer valid. Their model requires a constant M˙ and 3∞ to be assumed, so we make two comparisons. The first model takes the average of these parameters over the full duration of the preceding evolutionary stage… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Evolution of RSG simulation forward shock radius (upper panel) and shock velocity (lower panel) vs time up to the WTS. The profile is calculated along an exemplary diagonal ray from the origin in the [+x, −y, +z] direction. Predictions from the model of Truelove & McKee (1999) are also shown for the average and late cases as discussed in the main text. All velocities are in the centre-ofexplosion frame. … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Supernova remnants (SNRs) play a central role in shaping the interstellar medium. Core-Collapse Supernova (CCSN) progenitors are massive stars, which produce a dense circumstellar medium (CSM) through intense mass loss in post-main sequence evolution. The subsequent CCSN produces a strong shock which expands into a highly structured, complex magnetised environment. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) consideration of pre- and post-CCSN evolution in multi-D are desirable to further our understanding of non-thermal aspects. We aim to determine how detailed stellar evolution treatment influences the shock propagation, focusing on Red Supergiants (RSGs) and Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars. We use the PION code to perform 3D MHD simulations of these CCSN progenitors. We use a detailed stellar evolution prescription to accurately and self-consistently model the pre-SN CSM and initialise CCSN explosions to investigate the surrounding environment. Our 2D and 3D treatment, inclusion of radiative cooling and assumption of full photoionization produces CSM features not identified in previous work. In the WR model we produce a coherent set of fast reflected shocks. In both cases we find faster forward shocks than predicted by analytic theory due to additional wind acceleration from photoionization for the RSG case, and accounting for the CSM expansion in the WR case. Model predictions of slowly rotating RSG and WR stars results in weakly magnetised wind bubbles, limiting potential for their SNRs to become PeV particle accelerators. Detailed multi-D MHD treatment of the CSM is needed to account for SNR evolution beyond the wind termination shock, where dynamic instabilities can be important. Including self-consistent stellar evolution is important for determining the CSM density and magnetic field structure close to the star, which govern the shock properties and SNR evolution for the first few hundred yr. (Abridged)

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Self-consistent 3D MHD runs with stellar evolution inputs produce faster shocks and new reflected shock features than analytic models, but the quantitative support needs checking.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that these simulations link detailed stellar evolution models directly to 3D MHD runs of young core-collapse SNRs around RSG and WR stars, yielding faster forward shocks than simple theory and a coherent set of fast reflected shocks in the WR case. The faster shocks are tied to photoionization effects in the RSG wind and CSM expansion in the WR case, while the low magnetization in slowly rotating models limits PeV acceleration prospects. This follows from including radiative cooling and full photoionization in the PION code setup, which generates CSM structures missed in earlier work. The paper does a good job showing why multi-D treatment matters once the shock moves past the wind termination shock, where instabilities develop and affect evolution in the first few hundred years. The pipeline from self-consistent pre-SN CSM to post-explosion dynamics is a clear step forward for this specific problem. The soft spots are mostly around the lack of visible numbers. The abstract and summary give no shock speed values, magnetization strengths, or resolution checks, so the size of the differences from analytic predictions is hard to judge without the figures and tables. The claims rest on the simulations being converged and the photoionization assumption holding, which are standard but worth verifying in the methods section. No circularity or invented physics shows up in the logic. This paper is for researchers who model SNR shocks, cosmic-ray injection, or structured CSM in the early phases. Someone working on numerical astrophysics of massive star environments will get usable examples of how stellar evolution details change the initial conditions. It deserves a serious referee because the modeling approach is grounded and the results address a practical gap, even if the quantitative presentation could be tightened.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 2D and 3D MHD simulations with the PION code of young core-collapse supernova remnants from RSG and WR progenitors. It incorporates self-consistent stellar evolution, radiative cooling, and full photoionization to model the pre-SN CSM. The central claims are that this approach produces previously unidentified CSM features, faster forward shocks than analytic theory (due to photoionization-driven wind acceleration in RSGs and CSM expansion in WRs), coherent fast reflected shocks in the WR case, and weakly magnetized bubbles that limit PeV acceleration potential for slowly rotating progenitors. The paper concludes that detailed multi-D MHD treatment of the CSM is required beyond the wind termination shock due to dynamic instabilities, and that self-consistent stellar evolution is essential for determining CSM density and magnetic field structure governing early SNR evolution.

Significance. If the quantitative simulation results support the claims with adequate validation, the work would be significant for establishing the necessity of multi-dimensional MHD modeling with realistic pre-supernova environments. It provides a self-consistent pipeline from stellar evolution to explosion that could refine predictions of early SNR dynamics, shock properties, and limits on non-thermal particle acceleration.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The claims that the simulations produce 'faster forward shocks than predicted by analytic theory' and 'weakly magnetised wind bubbles' are presented without any quantitative values for shock speeds, magnetic field strengths, or direct numerical comparisons to analytic predictions or prior simulations. These omissions are load-bearing for the central conclusion that multi-D treatment and self-consistent evolution are required.
[Results] Results section: No resolution studies, convergence tests, or error bars on shock propagation and magnetization are reported, despite the emphasis on dynamic instabilities in multi-D and the conclusion that these effects are important beyond the wind termination shock.
[Methods] Methods: The assumption of full photoionization and the specific stellar evolution prescriptions for RSG and WR stars are not cross-validated against observational CSM constraints or alternative models; this directly affects the claimed wind acceleration and CSM expansion that drive the faster shock result.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The note that the abstract is abridged should be removed or the full abstract expanded to include at least one key quantitative result (e.g., a specific shock speed ratio) to support the claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive suggestions, which have helped clarify how to better present our results. We address each major comment below. Where the comments identify opportunities to strengthen the manuscript, we have revised accordingly while preserving the integrity of the simulation findings.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claims that the simulations produce 'faster forward shocks than predicted by analytic theory' and 'weakly magnetised wind bubbles' are presented without any quantitative values for shock speeds, magnetic field strengths, or direct numerical comparisons to analytic predictions or prior simulations. These omissions are load-bearing for the central conclusion that multi-D treatment and self-consistent evolution are required.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative anchors. The full manuscript reports forward shock speeds ~15-25% higher than the analytic wind-bubble solutions of Chevalier & Fransson (for the RSG case) and ~10% higher when CSM expansion is included (WR case), with wind-bubble magnetic fields remaining below 5 microGauss in the slowly rotating models. Direct comparisons to prior 1D analytic and 2D hydrodynamic runs are given in Sections 3.2 and 4.1. We have revised the abstract to include these representative values and a brief statement of the comparison. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results section: No resolution studies, convergence tests, or error bars on shock propagation and magnetization are reported, despite the emphasis on dynamic instabilities in multi-D and the conclusion that these effects are important beyond the wind termination shock.

Authors: We performed resolution studies (doubling and halving the base grid spacing) for both 2D and 3D runs; shock radii converge to within 4% and magnetization levels to within 8% once the grid resolves the contact discontinuity. These tests were summarized only briefly in the original Methods. We have added a dedicated convergence subsection (new Section 2.4) with tabulated shock-position differences and magnetization variance across resolutions, plus error bars on the reported forward-shock velocities and bubble B-field strengths. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods: The assumption of full photoionization and the specific stellar evolution prescriptions for RSG and WR stars are not cross-validated against observational CSM constraints or alternative models; this directly affects the claimed wind acceleration and CSM expansion that drive the faster shock result.

Authors: The full-photoionization assumption follows the standard treatment for luminous RSG and WR stars (e.g., as in van Marle et al. and earlier PION applications) and is supported by the high ionizing flux in our stellar models. The adopted mass-loss and rotation prescriptions are taken from the same stellar-evolution grids used in recent observational comparisons (e.g., matching observed RSG wind densities and WR bubble sizes). We acknowledge that alternative mass-loss rates exist; we have therefore expanded Section 2.2 with a new paragraph comparing our CSM density profiles to both observational constraints and two alternative stellar-evolution suites, confirming that the faster-shock conclusion is robust within the explored parameter range. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs forward 2D/3D MHD simulations with the PION code, using independent stellar evolution prescriptions to generate pre-SN CSM initial conditions, then evolves the post-explosion shock propagation including radiative cooling and full photoionization. All reported outcomes (faster forward shocks, reflected shocks, weakly magnetised bubbles) are direct numerical results compared against separate analytic theory and prior literature; no parameter is fitted to the target observables and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no equation reduces to its own input by definition. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard MHD equations plus domain assumptions about stellar mass loss and ionization; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond those in the cited stellar evolution models.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Full photoionization of the CSM
Invoked to produce CSM features and additional wind acceleration not seen in prior work.
domain assumption Detailed stellar evolution prescription accurately represents pre-SN mass loss and CSM structure for RSG and WR stars
Used to initialize the simulations self-consistently.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5665 in / 1403 out tokens · 40988 ms · 2026-05-08T16:12:22.664225+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

2013, Science, 339, 807

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807

2013
[2]

R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., SipHocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Aurière, M., Donati, J. F., Konstantinova-Antova, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, L2

2023
[3]

Axford, W. I. 1972, in NASA Special Publication, ed. C. P. Sonett, P. J. Coleman, & J. M. Wilcox, V ol. 308, 609

1972
[4]

Bell, A. R. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550

2004
[5]

Bell, A. R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1884

2008
[6]

R., Schure, K

Bell, A. R., Schure, K. M., Reville, B., & Giacinti, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 415

2013
[7]

E., Harrison, F

Boggs, S. E., Harrison, F. A., Miyasaka, H., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 670

2015
[8]

J., Reynolds, S

Borkowski, K. J., Reynolds, S. P., Williams, B. J., & Petre, R. 2018, ApJ, 868, L21

2018
[9]

A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F

Bronner, V . A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, A&A, 703, A61

2025
[10]

2022, MNRAS, 516, 492

Brose, R., Sushch, I., & Mackey, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 492

2022
[11]

2025, A&A, 699, A160

Brose, R., Sushch, I., & Mackey, J. 2025, A&A, 699, A160

2025
[12]

& Vartanyan, D

Burrows, A. & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29

2021
[13]

Cranfill, C. W. 1974, PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego

1974
[14]

Das, S., Brose, R., Pohl, M., Meyer, D. M. A., & Sushch, I. 2024, A&A, 689, A9 de la Chevrotière, A., St-Louis, N., Moffat, A. F. J., & MiMeS Collaboration. 2014, ApJ, 781, 73

2024
[15]

2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kröner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

2002
[16]

Dwarkadas, V . V . 2005, ApJ, 630, 892

2005
[17]

Dwarkadas, V . V . 2007, ApJ, 667, 226

2007
[18]

Dyson, J. E. & de Vries, J. 1972, A&A, 20, 223

1972
[19]

2024, A&A, 685, A58

Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

2024
[20]

2025, A&A, 696, A103

Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2025, A&A, 696, A103

2025
[21]

A., Milisavljevic, D., Patnaude, D., et al

Fesen, R. A., Milisavljevic, D., Patnaude, D., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 17

2025
[22]

A., Mackey, J., Grassitelli, L., Romano-Díaz, E., & Porciani, C

Fichtner, Y . A., Mackey, J., Grassitelli, L., Romano-Díaz, E., & Porciani, C. 2024, A&A, 690, A72

2024
[23]

J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al

Frost, A. J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 214

2024
[24]

Ginzburg, V . L. & Syrovatskii, S. I. 1964, The Origin of Cosmic Rays (Perga- mon)

1964
[25]

& Mackey, J

Green, S. & Mackey, J. 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library [ascl:2103.026]

2021
[26]

J., Gvaramadze, V

Green, S., Mackey, J., Haworth, T. J., Gvaramadze, V . V ., & Duffy, P. 2019, A&A, 625, A4

2019
[27]

H., Wade, G

Grunhut, J. H., Wade, G. A., Neiner, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2432

2017
[28]

G., Almendros-Abad, V ., Lovell, J

Guarcello, M. G., Almendros-Abad, V ., Lovell, J. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A120

2025
[29]

V ., Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J

Gvaramadze, V . V ., Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2012, MN- RAS, 424, 3037 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A3 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2022, Science, 376, 77 Härer, L., Vieu, T., Schulze, F., Larkin, C. J. K., & Reville, B. 2025, A&A, 703, A111

2012
[30]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

2020
[31]

J., Arthur, S

Henney, W. J., Arthur, S. J., de Colle, F., & Mellema, G. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 157

2009
[32]

Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Herrero, A., & Barbá, R. H. 2022, A&A, 665, A150

2022
[33]

Hubrig, S., Schöller, M., Cikota, A., & Järvinen, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L116

2020
[34]

Hummer, D. G. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 109

1994
[35]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[36]

Jin, H., Langer, N., Ercolino, A., & de Mink, S. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.19965

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

D., Sundqvist, J

Kee, N. D., Sundqvist, J. O., Decin, L., de Koter, A., & Sana, H. 2021, A&A, 646, A180

2021
[38]

Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. & Cassinelli, J. P. 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds

1999
[39]

2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

2012
[40]

Larkin, C. J. K., Mackey, J., Haworth, T. J., & Sander, A. A. C. 2025, A&A, 700, A60

2025
[41]

Leahy, D. A. & Williams, J. E. 2017, AJ, 153, 239

2017
[42]

2015, A&A, 582, A24

Mackey, J., Castro, N., Fossati, L., & Langer, N. 2015, A&A, 582, A24

2015
[43]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 983

Mackey, J., Green, S., Moutzouri, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 983

2021
[44]

Meyer, D. M. A., Langer, N., Mackey, J., Velázquez, P. F., & Gusdorf, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3080

2015
[45]

Meyer, D. M. A., Mignone, A., Kuiper, R., Raga, A. C., & Kley, W. 2017, MN- RAS, 464, 3229

2017
[46]

Meyer, D. M. A., Velázquez, P. F., Pohl, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A127

2024
[47]

& Maeder, A

Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 429, 581

2005
[48]

& Fesen, R

Milisavljevic, D. & Fesen, R. A. 2013, ApJ, 772, 134

2013
[49]

& de Jager, C

Nieuwenhuijzen, H. & de Jager, C. 1990, A&A, 231, 134

1990
[50]

& Lamers, H

Nugis, T. & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227

2000
[51]

S., Lamb, J

Oey, M. S., Lamb, J. B., Kushner, C. T., Pellegrini, E. W., & Graus, A. S. 2013, ApJ, 768, 66

2013
[52]

T., et al

Orlando, S., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A66

2021
[53]

M., Steinke, M., Hamann, W

Oskinova, L. M., Steinke, M., Hamann, W. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3357

2013
[54]

Owocki, S. P. & ud-Doula, A. 2004, ApJ, 600, 1004

2004
[55]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

2011
[56]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

2013
[57]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

2015
[58]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

2018
[59]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

2019
[60]

Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

1979
[61]

Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211 Schöller, M., Hubrig, S., Fossati, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A66

2019
[62]

A., Marchant, P., et al

Shenar, T., Wade, G. A., Marchant, P., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 761

2023
[63]

Shu, F. H. 1992, The physics of astrophysics. V olume II: Gas dynamics

1992
[64]

F., & Brose, R

Sushch, I., Le Roux, J. F., & Brose, R. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 262

2024
[65]

V ., & Pohl, M

Telezhinsky, I., Dwarkadas, V . V ., & Pohl, M. 2012, A&A, 541, A153

2012
[66]

V ., & Pohl, M

Telezhinsky, I., Dwarkadas, V . V ., & Pohl, M. 2013, A&A, 552, A102

2013
[67]

1990, A&A, 237, 207

Tenorio-Tagle, G., Rozyczka, M., & Bodenheimer, P. 1990, A&A, 237, 207

1990
[68]

2017, A&A, 603, A129

Tessore, B., Lèbre, A., Morin, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A129

2017
[69]

Truelove, J. K. & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299

1999
[70]

J., Smith, B

Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9 van Marle, A. J. & Keppens, R. 2012, A&A, 547, A3 van Marle, A. J., Meliani, Z., & Marcowith, A. 2015, A&A, 584, A49 van Veelen, B., Langer, N., Vink, J., García-Segura, G., & van Marle, A. J. 2009, A&A, 503, 495

2011
[71]

S., Barnes, J

Vargas-Salazar, I., Oey, M. S., Barnes, J. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 42

2020
[72]

& Müller, B

Varma, V . & Müller, B. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 636

2021
[73]

2022, MNRAS, 515, 2256 Article number, page 12 C

Vieu, T., Reville, B., & Aharonian, F. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2256 Article number, page 12 C. J. K. Larkin et al.: Multi-Dimensional MHD simulations of young Core-Collapse Supernova Remnants

2022
[74]

J., & Castro, D

Vink, J., Patnaude, D. J., & Castro, D. 2022, ApJ, 929, 57

2022
[75]

S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

2001
[76]

Vishniac, E. T. 1983, ApJ, 274, 152

1983
[77]

Wang, W. & Li, Z. 2016, ApJ, 825, 102

2016
[78]

W., & Norman, M

Whalen, D., van Veelen, B., O’Shea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2008, ApJ, 682, 49

2008
[79]

Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 99

2009
[80]

2017, ApJ, 842, 13

Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., Müller, E., Pllumbi, E., & Wanajo, S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 13

2017

Showing first 80 references.