New NanoSIMS Multielement Isotope Data Reveal CO Novae As Key Sources Of 13C-rich Presolar Silicon Carbide Grains

We present new multielement NanoSIMS isotopic measurements for four putative nova SiC grains and 79 AB SiC grains from the Murchison meteorite to reassess their stellar origins. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

The significance lies in physics only takes a result seriously when the measurement chain remains robust under scrutiny. Experimental particle physics and precision metrology both operate in regimes where the signal sits far below the background noise, and where systematic uncertainties can mimic new physics if not controlled rigorously. The history of the field contains numerous anomalies that generated theoretical excitement before better data showed them to be artifacts, and it also contains genuine discoveries that were initially dismissed as noise. The difference is almost always resolved by independent replication with different instruments and different systematics. We present new multielement NanoSIMS isotopic measurements (C, N, Si, Mg-Al, Ti, and Ni) for four putative nova SiC grains and 79 AB SiC grains from the Murchison meteorite to. High-resolution imaging and a revised Mg/Al relative sensitivity factor for SiC yield substantially improved 26Al/27Al ratios and the most reliable multielement characterization.

To interpret these data, we computed an expanded suite of hydrodynamic CO, ONe, and recurrent nova models spanning a range of white-dwarf masses and pre-enrichment parameters. When all isotopic systems are considered together (C, N, Mg-Al, Si, Ti, and Ni), the CO nova models provide the closest and most self-consistent match to both the putative nova.

CO novae of low- to intermediate-mass naturally reproduce the observed 14N/15N-26Al/27Al trend, the Si isotope compositions of AB grains which dominantly reflect Galactic chemical. In contrast, ONe and recurrent nova models fail multiple isotopic constraints simultaneously.

These results demonstrate that low- to intermediate-mass CO novae (0.6-1.0 Msun) are the most plausible stellar sources of 13C-rich SiC dust lacking s-process signatures (1-2\% of. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

The broader interest lies as much in the method as in the headline number, because a durable measurement procedure can travel farther than a single result. When experimental physicists develop a technique that achieves new sensitivity or controls a previously uncharacterized systematic, that methodological contribution persists even if the specific measurement is later revised. This is one reason why precision physics experiments often generate long-term value that is not immediately visible in the original publication.

ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is more measurement, tighter systematic control and scrutiny from groups whose experimental setups are genuinely independent. In experimental particle physics and precision metrology, the threshold for a discovery claim is a five-sigma excess surviving multiple analyses; an intriguing signal at lower significance is a reason to run more experiments, not a reason to revise the textbooks. Next-generation experiments currently under construction or commissioning will revisit several of the open questions that give the current result its context. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source