DES14X3taz: A Type I Superluminous Supernova Showing a Luminous, Rapidly Cooling Initial Pre-peak Bump

We present DES14X3taz, a new hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) discovered by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) supernova program, with additional photometric data provided by the Survey Using DECam for Superluminous Supernovae. Spectra obtained using Optical System for Imaging and low-Intermediate-Resolution Integrated Spectroscopy on the Gran Telescopio CANARIAS show DES14X3taz is an SLSN-I at z = 0.608. Multi-color photometry reveals a double-peaked light curve: a blue and relatively bright initial peak that fades rapidly prior to the slower rise of the main light curve. Our multi-color photometry allows us, for the first time, to show that the initial peak cools from 22,000 to 8000 K over 15 rest-frame days, and is faster and brighter than any published core-collapse supernova, reaching 30% of the bolometric luminosity of the main peak. No physical 56Ni-powered model can fit this initial peak. We show that a shock-cooling model followed by a magnetar driving the second phase of the light curve can adequately explain the entire light curve of DES14X3taz. Models involving the shock-cooling of extended circumstellar material at a distance of 400  are preferred over the cooling of shock-heated surface layers of a stellar envelope. We compare DES14X3taz to the few double-peaked SLSN-I events in the literature. Although the rise times and characteristics of these initial peaks differ, there exists the tantalizing possibility that they can be explained by one physical interpretation.

Emergence of episodic future though in pre-school aged children

Three experiments examined the development of episodic future thinking: the ability to think ahead about novel future situations (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Each experiment used three novel tasks, similar to the Blow Football task used by Russell, Alexis, and Clayton (2010). In each, there was a different table top with two sides. Children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play with a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between 2 or 3 tools: a) the tool they used today, b) the tool suitable for the other side (correct) and c) a distractor tool which was not suitable for either side. In Experiment 1, 24 four-year-olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. Children selected the correct item above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001). In Experiment 2, in which children were not allowed to look at the apparatus when choosing, 21 three-year olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. This group also selected the right tool above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001).The results of Experiments 1 and 2 imply that 3- and 4-year olds might indeed show episodic future foresight. However, they could have also selected the right tool by default. To control for this, a third tool distractor was introduced in Experiment 3. This time, 3-4 year olds did not perform above chance levels, suggesting that there is an alternative explanation as to why they performed so well in the previous two experiments.