ALMA resolves the hourglass magnetic field in G31.41+0.31

(2) Institut de Ci\`encies de l'Espai; 3); (3) Institut d'Estudis Espacials de de Catalunya; (4) INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia; (5) Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Andaluc\'ia; (6) Departament de F\'isica Qu\`antica i Astrof\'isica; (7) Institute of Astronomy; (8) I. Physikalisches Institut; (9) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian); Academia Sinica

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ALMA resolves the hourglass magnetic field in G31.41+0.31

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The magnetic field in G31.41+0.31 stays hourglass-shaped down to below 1000 au.

desk verdict Solid high-resolution confirmation of G31's hourglass field with a plausible model fit; the DCF-based field strength is the fragile part, but the supercritical conclusion is probably secure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01597 v1 pith:IVL54PL6 submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.GA

M. T. Beltrán (1) , M. Padovani (1) , J. M. Girart (2 , 3) , D. Galli (1) , R. Cesaroni (1) , R. Paladino (4) , G. Anglada (5)

show 18 more authors

R. Estalella (6) M. Osorio (5) R. Rao (7) Á. Sánchez-Monge (8) Q. Zhang (9) ((1) INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri (2) Institut de Ciències de l'Espai (3) Institut d'Estudis Espacials de de Catalunya (4) INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia (5) Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (6) Departament de Física Quàntica i Astrofísica Institut de Ciències del Cosmos Universitat de Barcelona (7) Institute of Astronomy Astrophysics Academia Sinica (8) I. Physikalisches Institut Universität zu Köln (9) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords magneticfieldspolarizeddustcontinuumhotmolecularcoreG31.41+0.31hourglassmorphologymass-to-fluxratiostarformationsubmillimeterpolarization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents 1.3 mm polarized dust continuum observations of the hot molecular core G31.41+0.31 with a spatial resolution of about 875 au, four times finer than the earlier observations that first revealed its hourglass-shaped magnetic field. The central claim is that the magnetic field retains the hourglass morphology down to scales below 1000 au, and that the core is slightly supercritical, with a mass-to-flux ratio of 1.4–2.2. The field is oriented nearly perpendicular to the core's velocity gradient, which the paper interprets as rotation rather than an outflow. A field strength of about 8–13 mG in the central region is high enough to regulate the collapse but not to prevent fragmentation, consistent with at least four embedded protostellar sources. A sympathetic reader should care because this extends the magnetically regulated collapse picture, previously established for low-mass cores, to the high-mass regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing elements are the rotated polarization segments that trace the magnetic field direction, and the semi-analytical magnetostatic model of a singular isothermal toroid threaded by a poloidal field, extended with a toroidal component that changes sign across the midplane. The model is ray-traced through a radiative transfer code to synthesize Stokes maps, which are compared to the observed polarization angles with a chi-squared fit over four parameters: mass-to-flux ratio, toroidal-to-poloidal ratio, axis orientation, and inclination. Field strength is then estimated with the standard dispersion method that relates the scatter of polarization angle residuals and the line-of-sight velocity dispersion to the plane-of-sky field intensity. The model fit is what lets the paper separate the regular field geometry from the turbulent perturbations and assign the inclination angle needed to convert the projected field to a total field.

What would settle it

One decisive test would be to measure the polarization of the same core at a longer wavelength where scattering is far weaker, such as 3 mm, with comparable resolution; if the polarization pattern rotated by about 90 degrees or changed morphology, the magnetic-alignment assumption would be falsified. Another check would be to recompute the mass-to-flux ratio with a much lower kinematic distance or lower core mass: if the value dropped below 1, the paper's conclusion that the core is supercritical would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the resolution of the new 1.3 mm observations, the polarization pattern of the Main core of G31.41+0.31 is consistent with the hourglass field inferred at 870 microns, and the pattern is well fitted by a semi-analytical magnetostatic model of an axially symmetric toroid threaded by a poloidal magnetic field. The best fit gives a toroidal component of at most about 10 percent of the poloidal field, an axis oriented southeast-northwest at about −44 degrees, and an inclination of about −45 degrees to the plane of the sky. The magnetic axis is almost perpendicular to the northeast-southwest velocity gradient measured on scales of $10^{3}$ to $10^{4}$ au, which the paper takes as support for the rotation interpretation of the gradient. The dispersion of the polarization angle residuals yields a field strength of roughly 8 to 13 mG on the plane of the sky, corresponding through the mass and flux estimates to a mass-to-flux ratio in the range 1.4 to 2.2. The paper concludes that the field is dynamically significant but leaves the core slightly supercritical, so fragmentation and infall proceed.

Load-bearing premise

The inference that the polarization traces the magnetic field via magnetically aligned dust grains, so that rotating the polarization segments by 90 degrees reveals the field direction, is load-bearing; if scattering dominated at 1.3 mm the hourglass morphology and strength estimate would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The hourglass geometry extends below 1000 au, implying magnetic regulation persists deep inside a high-mass core collapse.
The near-perpendicular magnetic axis to the velocity gradient indicates the gradient is rotation and the field is roughly parallel to the rotation axis.
The small toroidal component of at most about 10 percent implies either a very young core (rotation has not had time to wind the field) or a partial decoupling of gas and field.
The supercritical mass-to-flux ratio of 1.4–2.2 explains why at least four embedded sources have already formed despite a strong 10 mG class field.
The comparable energies of the turbulent and uniform field components mean that turbulence is not negligible even in a magnetically regulated core.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Should the magnetic-alignment interpretation hold, the toroidal-to-poloidal ratio could serve as a clock for the age of a collapsing core, since the model predicts that rotation winds a purely poloidal field to a ratio of order unity within about 10^4 yr.
The same modeling machinery could be applied to other massive toroids; a survey would tell whether the near-perpendicular rotation-field alignment and the slight supercritical ratio seen in G31.41+0.31 are common or exceptional.
Even higher resolution observations, below 100 au, could test the prediction that each embedded protostar distorts the local field orientation, potentially forming small-scale polarized features around individual sources.
If the small toroidal component is really a sign of youth, one would expect the outflows and the embedded sources in this core to be in an early accretion phase; this is testable with follow-up line observations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, quick take on arXiv:1908.01597. The worthwhile new stuff: the ALMA 1.3 mm polarization map at 0.2" (875 au) confirms the hourglass seen at 1" with SMA and sharpens it; the magnetostatic fit gives a bounded toroidal component b0 <= 0.1, an axis orientation of -44 deg and inclination -45 deg, and the geometric argument that the NE-SW velocity gradient is rotation rather than outflow is persuasive. The paper does what it should: model comparison, maps, honest discussion of residual regions (center, NE core, outflow cavities). Credit where due: the morphology is directly imaged and the fit is genuinely quantitative.

Where it gets soft: the DCF field-strength estimate uses the dispersion of residuals about the best-fit model, and those residuals were minimized by the fit. That is somewhat circular. The paper then clips at +/-45 deg based on inspection, changing sigma_psi from 27.6 to 17.3 deg, and the quoted B = 8-13 mG and lambda = 1.4-2.2 just span these two choices. No error propagation through density, distance, or the DCF correction factor. The stress-test note is right about this. The model also has a few free parameters (lambda, b0, phi, i, effective sound speed); it's not a parameter-free derivation.

That said, the central claim survives. The supercritical conclusion is conservative: if the circularity biases sigma_psi low and B high, lambda is biased low, so the true lambda could be higher. The paper even states the observed lambda is a lower limit because the core mass is a lower limit. The morphology and rotation argument do not depend on the DCF numbers.

Also, the dust alignment assumption is load-bearing but the paper makes a reasonable case against scattering using the 870 micron consistency and the 4-5% polarization fractions. It's not a fatal weakness.

Bottom line: this is a benchmark single-source result for the high-mass star formation subfield, worth a serious referee and a place in the literature. The model fit and the rotation argument are the strongest parts; the DCF section would need more careful treatment (full error propagation, less post-hoc clipping) before I would take the exact B and lambda numbers at face value. But the qualitative conclusion--field important but supercritical, does not stop fragmentation--is well supported.

Who benefits: anyone working on magnetized collapse, high-mass star formation, or polarization in dense cores. I'd bring it to reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA Band 6 (1.3 mm) full-polarization observations of the hot molecular core G31.41+0.31 at approximately 0.2 arcsecond resolution, corresponding to about 875 au at the adopted 3.7 kpc distance. The observations detect polarized dust continuum emission that is interpreted, under the standard assumption of magnetically aligned grains, as tracing the magnetic field. The paper confirms an hourglass-shaped magnetic field morphology down to scales below 1000 au, consistent with earlier SMA 870 micron observations. The authors fit the polarization pattern in the Main core with a semi-analytic magnetostatic toroid model using the DustPol/ARTIST package, finding a best-fit model with mass-to-flux ratio lambda = 2.66, toroidal-to-poloidal field ratio b0 = 0.1, magnetic axis position angle phi = -44 degrees, and inclination i = -45 degrees. Using the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method on the residuals between the observed and model polarization angles, they estimate a magnetic field strength of 8-13 mG and a mass-to-flux ratio of lambda = 1.4-2.2, concluding that the core is slightly supercritical and that the field, while dynamically important, does not prevent fragmentation. They also find that the magnetic field is oriented nearly perpendicular to the NE-SW velocity gradient, supporting the rotation interpretation of that gradient.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper provides one of the clearest resolved examples of an hourglass magnetic field in a high-mass star-forming core at sub-1000 au scales, and it strengthens the case that magnetic fields are dynamically important but not decisive in massive core collapse. The direct imaging of the morphology and the agreement with the earlier SMA observations are valuable, and the model comparison to a magnetostatic toroid is a useful step beyond simple morphology description. However, the central quantitative claims of field strength and mass-to-flux ratio rest on a Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi analysis whose input dispersion is measured from residuals about a best-fit model that was itself tuned to minimize those residuals, with additional post-hoc clipping and no propagated uncertainties. The direction of the resulting bias is likely conservative for the supercritical conclusion, but the stated precision of B = 8-13 mG and lambda = 1.4-2.2 is not supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.2, Eq. (2)] The DCF dispersion sigma_psi is measured from residuals between the observed and best-fit model polarization angles, but the model parameters (lambda = 2.66, b0 = 0.1, i = -45 deg, phi = -44 deg) were chosen in Sec. 4.1 by minimizing the chi-squared of exactly those residuals. The model therefore absorbs part of the observed angular variance, biasing sigma_psi low, B high, and lambda low. Because the central quantitative claim (lambda = 1.4-2.2, slightly supercritical) is derived from this B, this circularity is load-bearing. The authors should quantify the bias, for example by computing the dispersion about an independent mean-field model (such as a uniform field or the lower-resolution SMA field) or by marginalizing over the model parameters, and should report the resulting systematic uncertainty on B and lambda.
[Sec. 4.2, Fig. 6] The choice to clip the residual distribution to |Delta psi| <= 45 deg changes sigma_psi from 27.6 deg to 17.3 deg, and the quoted ranges B = 8-13 mG and lambda = 1.4-2.2 simply bracket these two choices. The clipping is motivated by visual inspection of Fig. 7 and by the presence of embedded sources and outflows, but no objective criterion is given and no uncertainty is attached to the clipping threshold. Since lambda is inversely proportional to B, the lower end of the quoted lambda range depends entirely on this post-hoc cut. The paper should propagate uncertainties in sigma_los, density, distance, and the correction factor xi, and should test the sensitivity of B and lambda to the clipping threshold.
[Sec. 4.2, Eq. (3)] The ratio delta B/B ~ 0.7-1.0 is presented as the ratio of turbulent to uniform magnetic energy, but the residual dispersion that enters Eq. (3) includes systematic departures from the model that the authors themselves identify as non-turbulent: the NE core, the outflow cavities, and the central embedded sources. These are not Alfvenic fluctuations, so the interpretation of delta B/B as a turbulent-to-total field ratio is not well supported. The authors should either exclude those regions with a stated, objective criterion before computing the dispersion, or explicitly qualify delta B/B as a measure of total model deviation rather than turbulence.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'G31.41+0.41is' should read 'G31.41+0.31 is'.
[Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2] Several load-bearing inputs are cited as unpublished work ('Reid et al., in prep' for the distance and 'Beltran et al., in prep' for the embedded sources). The distance enters the density, B, and lambda estimates, so the authors should update these references or provide the relevant values in the present paper.
[Sec. 5.2] The statement that the chi-squared function is maximum at about 40 deg should specify that this refers to the reduced chi-squared in the lower panel of Fig. 3, and it would be helpful to state explicitly that this direction corresponds to the orientation of the velocity gradient, not the magnetic axis.
[Sec. 4.1] The reduced chi-squared values are high because of the very small quoted angle uncertainties, but the text does not give the actual numerical value of the minimum reduced chi-squared for the best-fit model. Reporting the minimum value and the number of data points would help the reader judge the quality of the fit.
[Sec. 3.1] The estimate that at least 40% of the Stokes I flux is contaminated by line emission is important because it makes the polarization fraction a lower limit; the authors state this, but the implications for the polarization fraction map and for the comparison with the model could be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; morphological and quantitative claims rest on independent data and standard methods.

full rationale

The paper's central morphological result—the hourglass B-field morphology persisting down to <1000 au and oriented perpendicular to the NE–SW velocity gradient—is directly visible in the ALMA polarization maps and is consistent with the earlier SMA 870 μm observations, so it does not depend on the model fit. The quantitative B and λ estimates use the standard Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi method applied to the residuals from the best-fit magnetostatic model. Although the model parameters were obtained by minimizing polarization-angle residuals, the model has only three continuous parameters (b0, i, ϕ) plus a discrete λ choice and contains no turbulent degrees of freedom; the residuals therefore are not absorbed by construction and remain a measure of the turbulent component, as the paper itself states ('the model does not include the turbulent component of the magnetic field'). The two quoted σψ values (27.6° and 17.3°) are transparently presented from the full and clipped residual histograms, and the derived λ=1.4–2.2 is not forced to equal the model's λ=2.66; it is computed from the DCF field strength, an independent mass estimate, and the magnetic flux. Self-citations to BEL18, GIR09, and Padovani et al. provide external observational inputs or published model tools, not a load-bearing uniqueness argument. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by definition, and the main claims are self-contained against the direct polarization maps.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model and analysis rely on a small number of fitted parameters (lambda, b0, phi, i, effective sound speed) and standard assumptions about dust alignment, the DCF method, and the revised 3.7 kpc distance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

lambda (mass-to-flux ratio) = 2.66 (best of 1.63, 2.66, 8.38)
Controls the pinching of field lines and density profile. The value 8.38 was discarded via an opacity argument. The fitted model lambda is later compared with the observed lambda.
b0 (toroidal-to-poloidal field ratio) = 0.1
Varied from 0 to 0.5 in the model grid; the chi-squared comparison favors b0 <= 0.1.
phi (position angle of magnetic axis) = -44 deg (+6/-4)
Free parameter of the model fit, constrained by polarization angle residuals.
i (inclination to plane of sky) = -45 deg (+3/-4)
Free parameter of the model fit; affects the conversion B = Bpos/cos(i) and the 3D field configuration.
Effective sound speed = 1.4 km/s
Set to match the observed intensity at 1 arcsec; provides the scaling for density and field strength in the isothermal model.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dust polarization traces the magnetic field via magnetically aligned grains.
Throughout the paper, polarization segments rotated by 90 degrees are interpreted as the magnetic field direction (Section 2).
ad hoc to paper The Main core is an axisymmetric singular isothermal toroid threaded by a poloidal magnetic field, with a force-free toroidal component modified to mimic rotation.
This is the model geometry assumed for the chi-squared fitting (Section 4.1), including an ad hoc kink of the toroidal component at the midplane.
domain assumption The distance to G31 is 3.7 kpc.
Taken from Reid et al. (in prep). All physical scales, masses, densities, and field strengths are re-scaled from the previous 7.9 kpc distance.
domain assumption The temperature profile from BEL18 is correct.
Used in the radiative transfer modeling and to estimate masses. The authors verify a posteriori that a constant 250 K changes residuals negligibly (Section 4.2).
domain assumption Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi assumptions: angle perturbations are due to Alfven waves with deltaB_los = sqrt(4 pi rho) sigma_los, and the correction factor xi = 0.5.
Standard DCF method applied in Section 4.2; validity is limited for large dispersions and non-linear perturbations.
domain assumption The CH3CN line width (Delta V = 5 km/s) is dominated by turbulence, not rotation or thermal broadening.
Used to derive sigma_los in the DCF method; rotation effects are claimed to be avoided by averaging over pixels, and thermal broadening is negligible for T > 100 K.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA resolves the hourglass magnetic field in G31.41+0.31." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVL54PL6

@misc{pith2026190801597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA resolves the hourglass magnetic field in G31.41+0.31},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVL54PL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01597}
}

read the original abstract

Context. Submillimeter Array (SMA) 870 micron polarization observations of the hot molecular core G31.41+0.31 revealed one of the clearest examples up to date of an hourglass-shaped magnetic field morphology in a high-mass star-forming region. Aims. To better establish the role that the magnetic field plays in the collapse of G31.41+0.31, we carried out Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations of the polarized dust continuum emission at 1.3 mm with an angular resolution four times higher than that of the previous (sub)millimeter observations to achieve an unprecedented image of the magnetic field morphology. Methods. We used ALMA to perform full polarization observations at 233 GHz (Band 6). The resulting synthesized beam is 0.28"x0"20 which, at the distance of the source, corresponds to a spatial resolution of ~875 au. Results. The observations resolve the structure of the magnetic field in G31.41+0.31 and allow us to study the field in detail. The polarized emission in the Main core of G31.41+0.41is successfully fit with a semi-analytical magnetostatic model of a toroid supported by magnetic fields. The best fit model suggests that the magnetic field is well represented by a poloidal field with a possible contribution of a toroidal component of ~10% of the poloidal component, oriented southeast to northwest at ~ -44 deg and with an inclination of ~-45 degr. The magnetic field is oriented perpendicular to the northeast to southwest velocity gradient detected in this core on scales from 1E3-1E4 au. This supports the hypothesis that the velocity gradient is due to rotation and suggests that such a rotation has little effect on the magnetic field. The strength of the magnetic field estimated in the central region of the core with the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method is ~8-13 mG and implies that the mass-to-flux ratio in this region is slightly supercritical ...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01597 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (Top panel) 1.3 mm ALMA continuum emission map of the HMC G31. The contours are 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 300 times σ, where 1σ is 1.2 mJy beam−1 . The white dots mark the position of four embedded continuum sources observed at 1.4 mm and 3.5 mm (Beltrán et al., in prep). The red cross indicates the position of the UC Hii region imaged by Cesaroni et al. (1994). The synthesized beam is shown in the lower left… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (Top panel) Linearly polarized intensity P (colors) and dust continuum emission map (contours) at 1.3 mm in G31. Polarized intensity ranges from 0.11 mJy beam−1 to 2.4 mJy beam−1 . (Bottom panel) Polarization fraction p (colors) and dust continuum emission map (contours) at 1.3 mm. Polarization fraction ranges from 0.1% to 13%. The red thick segments in both panels indicate the magnetic field lines. Segments are … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top panel: Minimum reduced chi squared versus the inclination, i, of the model for three different values of the massto-flux ratio, λ, and b0 = 0.1. Solid (dashed) lines show χ¯ 2 for positive (negative) values of i. For a better comparison, negative inclinations are shown in absolute value. Bottom panel: reduced chi squared versus the orientation on the plane of the sky for i = −45◦ . The inset shows a zoom around… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Polarization angles showing the magnetic field direction from observations (red) and the best model (blue: b0 = 0.1, λ=2.66, i = −45◦+3◦ −4◦ , and ϕ = −44◦+6◦ −4◦ ). The gray-scale map shows the polarized intensity, P, while black contours show the 1.3 mm dust emission…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Histogram of the polarization angle residuals for our best model in the region inside the 15σ contour (corresponding to the Main core) of the 1.3 mm dust continuum map. The dashed and solid black lines show two Gaussian fits obtained considering the whole range of ∆ψ a…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Polarization angle residuals (color map) superposed the 1.3 mm dust continuum emission contours (gray solid lines). The black dots mark the position of four embedded continuum sources (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Upper panel: magnetic field configuration inside a radius of 3700 au, corresponding to the radius of the Main core in G31, for b0 = 0.1, i = −45◦ , and ϕ = −44◦ . Lower panel: magnetic field line configuration for b0 = 0.1 shown almost pole-on to emphasize the line twi…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Overlay of the blue-shifted (blue contours) and red-shifted (red contours) SiO (5–4) averaged emission from BEL18 on the polarized intensity map (gray scale). The blue-shifted and red-shifted emission have been averaged over the (73, 90) km s−1 and (103, 119) km s−1 ve…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

ALMA observations of Magnetic Fields in the Massive Star-forming Region IRAS 18360-0537
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An ordered hourglass B-field in IRAS 18360-0537 lies perpendicular to the outflow/rotation axis and is reshaped by rotation, outflow cavity walls, and accretion rather than pure magnetic regulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., Galli, D. et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A56

work page 2018
[2]

Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

work page 2015
[3]

2008, ApJ, 675, 420

Araya, E., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., Olmi, L., & Linz, H. 2008, ApJ, 675, 420

work page 2008
[4]

M., Padovani, M., Podio, L

Bacciotti, F., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., Podio, L. et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, L12

work page 2018
[5]

Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1994, ApJ, 432, 720 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Neri, R., Codella, C., Furuya, R. S.,

work page 1994
[6]

2004, ApJ, 601, L190 Beltrán, M

Testi, L., & Olmi, O. 2004, ApJ, 601, L190 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Neri, R., Codella, C., Furuya, R. S.,

work page 2004
[7]

2005, A&A, 435, 901 Beltrán, M

Testi, L., & Olmi, O. 2005, A&A, 435, 901 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Rivilla, V. M., Sánchez-Monge, Á. et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A141 (BEL18)

work page 2005
[8]

& Hogerheijde, M

Brinch, C. & Hogerheijde, M. 2010, A&A, 523, 25

work page 2010

Show all 67 references

[9]

T., Zhang, Q., Beuther, H., & Fallscheer, C

Cesaroni, R., Beltrán, M. T., Zhang, Q., Beuther, H., & Fallscheer, C. 2011, A&A, 533, A73 Article number, page 12 of 13 Beltrán et al.: Polarization in G31.41+0.31 Fig. A.1. Map of the errors on the observed polarization an- gles according to the color-coding shown in the leg...

2011
[10]

M., & Kurtz, S

Cesaroni, R., Churchwell, E., hofner, P., Walmsley, C. M., & Kurtz, S. 1994, A&A, 288, 903

1994
[11]

2010, A&A, 590, A50

Cesaroni, R., Hofner, P., Araya, E., & Kurtz, S. 2010, A&A, 590, A50

2010
[12]

& Fermi, E

Chandrasekhar, S. & Fermi, E. 1953 ApJ, 118, 113

1953
[13]

2016, ApJ, 819, 159

Ching, T.-C., Lai, S.-P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 159

2016
[14]

C., Girart, J

Cortes, P. C., Girart, J. M., Hull, C. L. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, L15

2016
[15]

A., Novak, G., Matthews, T

Davidson, J. A., Novak, G., Matthews, T. G., Matthews, B. .et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 97

2011
[16]

A., Li, Z.-Y., Hull, C

Davidson, J. A., Li, Z.-Y., Hull, C. L. H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 74

2014
[17]

1951, Phys

Davis, L. 1951, Phys. Rev. 81, 890

1951
[18]

Dent, W. R. F., Pinte, C., Cortes, P. C., Ménard, F. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 482, L29

2018
[19]

K., & Mayen-Gijon, J

Estalella, R., Anglada, G., Díaz-Rodríguez, A. K., & Mayen-Gijon, J. M. 2019, A&A, accepted

2019
[20]

A., & Mouschovias, T

Fiedler, R. A., & Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1993, ApJ, 415, 680

1993
[21]

Frau, P., Galli, D., & Girart, J. M. 2011, A&A, 535, 44

2011
[22]

M., Zhang, Q., & Rao, R

Frau, P., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., & Rao, R. 2014, A&A, 567, A116

2014
[23]

M., et al

Galametz, M., Maury, A., Girart, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A139

2018
[24]

Galli, D., & Shu, F. H. 2006, ApJ, 647, 374

2006
[25]

M., Beltrán, M

Girart, J. M., Beltrán, M. T., Zhang, Q., Rao, R., & Estalella, R. 2009, Science, 324, 1408 (GIR09)

2009
[26]

M., Crutcher, R

Girart, J. M., Crutcher, R. M., & Rao, R. 1999, ApJ, 525, L109

1999
[27]

M., Fernández-López, M., Li, Z.-Y., Yang, H

Girart, J. M., Fernández-López, M., Li, Z.-Y., Yang, H. et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, L27

2018
[28]

M., Frau, P., Zhang, Q., et al

Girart, J. M., Frau, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 69

2013
[29]

M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D

Girart, J. M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D. P. 2006, Science, 313, 812 Gonçalves, J., Galli, D., & Girart, J. M. 2008, A&A, 490, L39 Hildebrand,R.H.,Kirby,L.,Dotson,J.L.,Houde,M.,&Vaillancourt, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 567

2006
[30]

2009, ApJ, 697, 1316

Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1316

2009
[31]

M., Tychoniec, L., Rao, R

Hull, C., Girart, J. M., Tychoniec, L., Rao, R. et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 92

2017
[32]

Hull, C. L. H., Mocz, P., Burkhart, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, L9

2017
[33]

Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Bolatto, A. D., Bower, G. C. et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 159

2013
[34]

Hull, C. L. H., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Kataoka, A. et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 82

2018
[35]

Hull, C. L. H., & Zhang, Q. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 3 Juárez, C., Girart, J. M., Zamora-Avilés, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 44 Kataoka A., Muto, T., Momose, M., Tsukagoshi, T. et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 78

2019
[36]

2017, ApJ, 844, L5

Kataoka, A., Tsukagoshi, T., Pohl, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, L5

2017
[37]

M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P

Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 99

2014
[38]

2018, arXiv:1805.07348

Kwon, W., Stephens, I., Tobin, J., et al. 2018, arXiv:1805.07348

2018 arXiv
[39]

1976, ApJ, 208, 177

Lampton, M., Margon, B., & Bowyer, S. 1976, ApJ, 208, 177

1976
[40]

Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 1996, ApJ, 472, 211

1996
[41]

D., Goodman, A., Hildebrand, R., Novak, G

Li, H.-b., Dowell, C. D., Goodman, A., Hildebrand, R., Novak, G. 2009, ApJ, 704, 891

2009
[42]

H., Otto, F., leung, P

Li, H.-B., Yuen, K. H., Otto, F., leung, P. K. et al. 2015, Nature, 520, 518 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, RvMP, 76, 125

2015
[43]

J., Girart, J

Maury, A. J., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2760

2018
[44]

Lizano, S. et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3766

2014
[45]

P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, ASPC, 376, 127

2007
[46]

2008, ApJ, 681, 1356

Mellon, R., & Li, Z.-Y. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1356

2008
[47]

J., Cesaroni, R., Sanna, A., Xu, Y., & Zhang, Q

Moscadelli, L., Li, J. J., Cesaroni, R., Sanna, A., Xu, Y., & Zhang, Q. 2013, A&A, 549, A122

2013
[48]

C., Hoare, M

Mottram, J. C., Hoare, M. G., Davies, B., Lumsden, S. T. et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, L33

2011
[49]

Ch., & Ciolek, G

Mouschovias, T. Ch., & Ciolek, G. E. 1999, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, Eds. C. J. Lada & N. D. Kylaﬁs (Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers), ASIC 540,305

1999
[50]

2009, ApJ, 694, 29

Osorio, M., Anglada, G., Lizano, S., & D’Alessio, P. 2009, ApJ, 694, 29

2009
[51]

1994, A&A, 291, 943

Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, Th. 1994, A&A, 291, 943

1994
[52]

C., Stone, J

Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980

2001
[53]

& Galli, D., 2011, A&A, 530, A109

Padovani, M. & Galli, D., 2011, A&A, 530, A109

2011
[54]

M., Jørgensen, J

Padovani, M., Brinch, C., Girart, J. M., Jørgensen, J. K., Frau, P. et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A16

2012
[55]

2014, A&A, 571, A33

Padovani, M., Galli, D., Hennebelle, P., Commerçon, B., & Joos, M. 2014, A&A, 571, A33

2014
[56]

V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A111

2018
[57]

2013, A&A, 560, A114

Padovani, M., Hennebelle, P., & Galli, D. 2013, A&A, 560, A114

2013
[58]

M., et al

Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Menten, K. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, L18

2014
[59]

M., Beltrán, M

Rivilla, V. M., Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Fontani, F., Codella, C., & Zhang, Q. 2017, A&A, 598, A59

2017
[60]

I., Myers, P

Savadoy, S. I., Myers, P. C., Stephens, I. W., Tobin, J. et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 165

2018
[61]

Schleuning, D. A. 1998, ApJ, 493, 811

1998
[62]

H., Allen, A., Shang, H., Ostriker, E., & Li, Z.-Y

Shu, F. H., Allen, A., Shang, H., Ostriker, E., & Li, Z.-Y. 1999, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, Eds. C. J. Lada & N. D. Kylaﬁs (Kluwer Academic Publishers), ASIC 540,193

1999
[63]

Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., Girart, J. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1399

2009
[64]

Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., Koch, P. M., & Rao, R. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1262

2010
[65]

Vaillancourt, J. E. 2006, PASP 118, 1340

2006
[66]

2016, MNRAS, 460, 2050

Zhao, B., Caselli, P., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2050

2016
[67]

M., et al

Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., Girart, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 116 Article number, page 13 of 13

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., Galli, D. et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A56

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

work page 2015

[3] [3]

2008, ApJ, 675, 420

Araya, E., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., Olmi, L., & Linz, H. 2008, ApJ, 675, 420

work page 2008

[4] [4]

M., Padovani, M., Podio, L

Bacciotti, F., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., Podio, L. et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, L12

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1994, ApJ, 432, 720 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Neri, R., Codella, C., Furuya, R. S.,

work page 1994

[6] [6]

2004, ApJ, 601, L190 Beltrán, M

Testi, L., & Olmi, O. 2004, ApJ, 601, L190 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Neri, R., Codella, C., Furuya, R. S.,

work page 2004

[7] [7]

2005, A&A, 435, 901 Beltrán, M

Testi, L., & Olmi, O. 2005, A&A, 435, 901 Beltrán, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Rivilla, V. M., Sánchez-Monge, Á. et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A141 (BEL18)

work page 2005

[8] [8]

& Hogerheijde, M

Brinch, C. & Hogerheijde, M. 2010, A&A, 523, 25

work page 2010