From supernova to supernova remnant: comparison of thermonuclear explosion models
Gilles Ferrand, Donald C. Warren, Masaomi Ono, Shigehiro Nagataki,, Friedrich K. Roepke, Ivo R. Seitenzahl, Florian Lach, Hiroyoshi Iwasaki,, Toshiki Sato

TL;DR
This study compares different thermonuclear supernova explosion models and their resulting supernova remnants, revealing how explosion geometry influences remnant morphology and potential observability over centuries.
Contribution
It provides a detailed comparison of multiple explosion models and their impact on supernova remnant structures, highlighting observable signatures that can distinguish explosion types.
Findings
N5 models show strong dipole asymmetry.
Pure deflagration models have central over-density.
SN signatures are detectable in SNR morphology up to 500 years.
Abstract
Progress in the three-dimensional modeling of supernovae (SN) prompts us to revisit the supernova remnant (SNR) phase. We continue our study of the imprint of a thermonuclear explosion on the SNR it produces, that we started with a delayed-detonation model of a Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf. Here we compare two different types of explosion models, each with two variants: two delayed detonation models (N100ddt, N5ddt) and two pure deflagration models (N100def, N5def), where the N number parametrizes the ignition. The output of each SN simulation is used as input of a SNR simulation carried on until 500 yr after the explosion. While all SNR models become more spherical over time and overall display the theoretical structure expected for a young SNR, clear differences are visible amongst the models, depending on the geometry of the ignition and on the presence or not of detonation fronts.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
