Add support for late-time 3D models based on Fornax #375
Conversation
| _fornax_2024_progenitors = [ | ||
| 'u8.1', '9a', '9b', '9.25', '9.5', | ||
| 'z9.6', '11', '12.25', '14', '15.01', | ||
| '16.5', '16', '17', '18', '18.5', | ||
| '19', '19.56', '20', '21.68', '23', | ||
| '24', '25', '40', '60', '100'] | ||
|
|
||
| _fornax_2024_masses = [float(re.sub('[A-Za-z]', '', p)) for p in _fornax_2024_progenitors] << u.Msun |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will map both 9a and 9b progenitors to 9.0 * u.Msun; so the latter would override the former when creating the _mass_to_progenitor dict later and we wouldn’t be able to access the 9a progenitor.
The two both appear to be based on the 9 Msol progenitor from Sukhbold et al. 2016; with the caption of fig. 7 in arXiv:2401.06840 explaining:
The only difference between models 9(a) and 9(b) is the imposition of slight velocity perturbations upon infall in the former (Wang & Burrows 2023a).
Since none of the other progenitors have these velocity perturbations, do you think we should just drop the 9a progenitor and document that 9 Msol corresponds to 9b? Or is it worth the small extra effort to support both?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A late answer to this question: I think it's OK to drop the 9a progenitor, justified by the fact that the velocity perturbations are not present in any other model.
Your proposal is just to remove '9a' from the progenitors list?
This PR adds software support for new 3D models posted in https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~burrows/nu-emissions.3d.update/.
The model files have been uploaded to the snewpy-models-ccsn repository. Complete the following activities before merging this PR:
Fornax_2024class and models.snewpy/models/model_files.ymlso that all CCSN models point to the new release repo.