Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Diagnosing Cosmic Ray Modified Shocks with H {\alpha} Polarimetry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Edge-on H-alpha polarimetry of supernova remnant shocks can reveal whether a cosmic-ray precursor has decelerated the upstream plasma, because the polarization direction flips by 90 degrees when it has.

desk verdict A genuinely new diagnostic proposal with a physically plausible polarization flip; the main caveat is the assumed cold, single-velocity decelerated proton population, which the paper does not stress-test. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07216 v2 pith:W4JBVDBN submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.HE

Jiro Shimoda , J. Martin Laming This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-raymodifiedshockssupernovaremnantsH-alphapolarimetryLy-betascatteringresonantpolarizationchargeexchangeradiativetransferdiffusiveshockacceleration
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

This paper proposes that the linear polarization of the hydrogen Balmer-alpha line emitted just ahead of a supernova remnant shock can reveal whether the shock is modified by the back-reaction of accelerated cosmic rays. Upstream Balmer-alpha is produced mainly when hydrogen atoms scatter Lyman-beta photons coming from the hot downstream plasma, and scattering makes the re-emitted line polarized. Viewed edge-on, the model says the polarization direction is parallel to the shock surface for an ordinary shock, but flips to the direction of the shock velocity when a cosmic-ray precursor has decelerated the upstream protons by as little as five per cent of the shock speed. The predicted polarization is a few per cent, a level already reached in existing observations of one supernova remnant, so the diagnostic is within observational reach. If it works, it would give astronomers a direct measurement of the cosmic-ray pressure gradient that gamma-ray and X-ray spectral fitting cannot currently distinguish.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Ly$\beta$-to-H$\alpha$ conversion under resonant scattering: a hydrogen atom absorbs a Ly$\beta$ photon, is excited to the $3p$ state, and decays to $2s$, emitting H$\alpha$ whose linear polarization is fixed by angular-momentum conservation and by the scattering phase matrices for the $3p_{1/2}$ (unpolarized channel) and $3p_{3/2}$ (polarizing channel) sublevels. The sign of the Stokes $Q$ parameter is set by the angular anisotropy of the incident Ly$\beta$ radiation field after attenuation, $\exp(-\tau_\nu/|\mu|)$. In an unmodified shock the Ly$\beta$ beam from downstream is elongated along the shock normal, giving polarization parallel to the shock surface. In a modified shock, charge-exchange reactions with protons decelerated to $0.95V_{\rm sh}$ create a second hydrogen population whose Doppler-shifted Ly$\beta$ absorption preferentially removes photons travelling at $\mu \approx 0$, reversing the anisotropy and flipping the polarization to the shock-velocity direction. The full calculation combines this scattering with a collisional-radiative model of hydrogen level populations, ionization balance, and emissivities.

What would settle it

Take spatially resolved H$\alpha$ polarimetry across the limb of a supernova remnant shock with $V_{\rm sh} \simeq 4000\ {\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ and preshock density below about $30\ {\rm cm^{-3}}$, choosing a remnant with independent gamma-ray evidence for efficient cosmic-ray acceleration. The model predicts that if the shock is modified, the upstream polarization will sit along the shock velocity with a degree near five per cent and will rotate by $90^\circ$ relative to an unmodified shock; an observation that keeps the polarization parallel to the shock surface across the entire precursor, at a sensitivity below one per cent, would falsify the diagnostic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the polarization angle of upstream H$\alpha$ acts as a sign of cosmic-ray-modified shock. In the upstream region of a fast shock, H$\alpha$ is dominated by the Ly$\beta$-to-H$\alpha$ conversion: hydrogen atoms absorb Ly$\beta$ photons radiated by the downstream gas and re-emit H$\alpha$, and because this is a scattering process the H$\alpha$ is linearly polarized with a degree set by the anisotropy of the incident Ly$\beta$ beam. In an unmodified shock the beam is elongated along the shock normal, producing polarization parallel to the shock surface; in a modified shock, charge exchange with protons decelerated to $0.95V_{\rm sh}$ creates a second hydrogen population whose Doppler-shifted absorption removes the Ly$\beta$ photons travelling at small angles to the shock surface, reversing the anisotropy and producing polarization along the shock velocity. The paper computes the effect with a hydrogen level-population and radiative-transfer model, obtaining degrees of about two per cent for the unmodified shock, about one per cent for an electron-heating precursor with no deceleration, and about five per cent for the modified shock. It also shows that the upstream H$\alpha$ surface brightness is comparable to the downstream value, making the polarized precursor emission detectable in principle.

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic assumes that the cosmic-ray precursor decelerates the upstream protons by five per cent of the shock speed without heating them, so that every velocity distribution stays a shifted Maxwellian; if proton heating broadens the decelerated distribution, the direction-dependent Ly$\beta$ absorption asymmetry that produces the polarization flip could be smeared out and the signal lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An edge-on observation of an SNR limb can separate a cosmic-ray-modified shock from an unmodified one by the position angle of the H$\alpha$ polarization alone, even when the precursor itself is spatially unresolved.
  • The predicted few-per-cent polarization is observationally accessible; polarized H$\alpha$ at $2.0 \pm 0.4$ per cent has already been detected toward SN 1006.
  • Because the H$\beta$/H$\alpha$ ratio barely changes with the velocity modification, polarimetry supplies information that the Balmer decrement cannot.
  • The condition that the precursor length exceed the charge-exchange length translates to a lower bound on the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient, about $10^{25}\ {\rm cm^2\,s^{-1}}$, and to a lower bound near $33$ TeV on the energy of the cosmic rays driving the modification in a Bohm-like field.
  • The upstream H$\alpha$ surface brightness is comparable to the downstream brightness, so the polarized precursor emission should be detectable rather than lost against the shock itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to map the polarization position angle as a function of distance from the shock front; the spatial profile of the expected angle flip would trace the deceleration profile of the precursor and, with a model, the cosmic-ray pressure gradient.
  • The same Ly$\beta$-scattering mechanism should imprint a weaker polarization signal on H$\beta$ through Ly$\gamma$ conversion, so a combined H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ polarimetric measurement could separate resonant-scattering polarization from collisional-excitation emission.
  • Because the polarization flip relies on the decelerated protons retaining a narrow velocity distribution, kinetic or hybrid simulations that include neutral coupling could test whether precursor turbulence or proton heating washes out the signal.
  • Combining upstream H$\alpha$ polarimetry with downstream H$\alpha$ polarimetry, which is sensitive to the acceleration efficiency, could in principle measure both the cosmic-ray pressure and the injection efficiency in the same shock.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new observational diagnostic for cosmic-ray-modified shocks: linear polarimetry of upstream Hα produced by the Lyβ-to-Hα conversion. The authors set up a plane-parallel slab model of an SNR shock, use a published radiative-transfer and atomic-population model, and consider three upstream states: no precursor, an electron-heating precursor without velocity modification, and a precursor in which protons are decelerated by 5% of the shock velocity without being heated. They compute the hydrogen ionization structure, Hα emissivity, and Stokes Q/I as functions of upstream position for Vsh = 4000 km s−1, T0 = 6000 K, and preshock ionization degree 0.5. Their main finding is that the polarization direction flips between the unmodified case (polarization parallel to the shock surface at large Lyβ optical depth) and the modified case (polarization perpendicular to the shock surface), with a few-percent degree, and that a velocity modification of 200 km s−1 is sufficient to produce the flip. They also show that the upstream Hα surface brightness is comparable to the downstream value and that the Hβ/Hα ratio is insensitive to the velocity modification. The paper concludes that Hα polarimetry can be a unique diagnostic of the CR back-reaction in SNR shocks.

Significance. If the predicted sign flip is robust, this is a genuinely new, falsifiable probe of CR precursor physics; it goes beyond SED fitting and connects a direct observable to the bulk deceleration of the upstream plasma. The model is a forward calculation with no fitted data, it builds on published atomic data and prior models, and it makes concrete predictions for the sign, degree, and spatial profile of the polarization, as well as for the Hβ/Hα ratio. The connection to the existing polarized Hα detection in SN 1006 (Sparks et al. 2015) gives the proposal some observational plausibility. The main weakness is that the central prediction has not yet been shown to survive plausible variations in precursor thermodynamics, so the significance of the diagnostic is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (case iii), before Fig. 4; Eqs. (32)-(34)] The sign flip is produced by the assumption that the decelerated protons remain a cold, shifted Maxwellian with no heating, so that the 200 km s−1 shift places the charge-exchanged atoms outside the line core for μ≃±1 while they still absorb at μ≃0. If precursor proton heating broadens the decelerated distribution to a thermal width comparable to 200 km s−1, or if the deceleration occurs gradually so that charge-exchanged atoms are born over a continuum of bulk velocities, this direction-dependent absorption asymmetry is reduced and the predicted polarization flip can be washed out. The paper states the no-heating assumption but does not justify it or test its sensitivity; this is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 6] The statement that the unmodified shock has polarization parallel to the shock surface is not true at all positions in the model. In case (i), the polarization is positive, i.e. perpendicular to the shock surface, close to the shock front and becomes negative only at Lyβ optical depth of order unity. Since a real edge-on observation will integrate the Stokes parameters over a spatial resolution element along the shock-normal coordinate, the sign comparison in the abstract may not correspond to the quantity that is actually measured. The paper should specify the spatial region it refers to and give the polarization predicted for an observationally motivated integration.
  3. [Section 3, parameter set] The quantitative claims of a few-percent polarization and sensitivity to a 5% velocity modification are computed for a single parameter point: Vsh=4000 km s−1, T0=6000 K, χ0=0.5, and ΔVsh=200 km s−1. The charge-exchange rate, Lyβ optical depth, and the precursor length scale all depend strongly on these parameters, so without a parameter scan it is unclear whether the sign flip and the few-percent degree are generic features or specific to this one case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] In the discussion of the Hα FWHM, '30-50 km−1' should read '30-50 km s−1'.
  2. [Section 2, footnote 2] The estimate that multiply scattered Lyβ has negligible polarization is based on a dust-scattering calculation; a short estimate for resonantly trapped Lyβ in hydrogen would be more directly relevant, since the polarization budget of the trapped radiation is one of the stated simplifications.
  3. [Eq. (35)] The numerical factor in the diffusion-coefficient lower bound is stated without derivation; showing the prefactor explicitly would help readers reproduce the constraint on the CR diffusion coefficient.
  4. [Figs. 6-8] The vertical axis labels in Figures 6-8 would be clearer if the units (percent for polarization, specific units for surface brightness) appeared directly in the axis labels rather than only in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization flip is a forward-model prediction from an assumed velocity modification, with no fitted parameters or definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper computes Hα polarization from Lyβ scattering using a radiative transfer model previously published by the same authors (Shimoda & Laming 2019), but that model uses independent atomic physics inputs (oscillator strengths from Wiese & Fuhr 2009, charge-exchange rates from Janev et al. 1993/2003) and is not parameterized to reproduce the target polarization. The velocity modification (5% of Vsh, i.e. 200 km/s) is an explicit assumed input, not a fitted output; the polarization direction and degree are derived quantities computed from the assumed velocity structure and atomic processes. The central claim—that polarization direction flips between unmodified and modified shocks—is a forward-model output with no free parameters tuned to any observed polarization. The paper does not fit any parameter to the polarization data it predicts, nor does it define any quantity in terms of the target result. The self-citation to Shimoda & Laming (2019) is standard prior-model use and does not reduce to the paper's own conclusion; the cited model is independently constructed and the current calculation extends it with new precursor ionization equations. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on a chain of external inputs: Rayleigh-scattering phase matrices, atomic oscillator strengths, charge-exchange cross-sections, and a companion radiative transfer model by the same authors. No new particle or force is postulated and no data-fitting occurs; the numbers are explicitly chosen model inputs.

free parameters (8)
  • Shock velocity Vsh = 4000 km/s
    Fixed model input; central predictions may depend on Vsh through charge-exchange and ionization balances.
  • Far upstream temperature T0 = 6000 K
    Chosen preshock temperature in Section 3; affects ionization state and line profiles.
  • Preshock ionization degree chi0 = 0.5
    Chosen in Section 3; determines the supply of neutral hydrogen available for H-alpha emission.
  • Electron heating precursor temperature = 1e6 K
    Assumed CR-driven electron precursor temperature in cases (ii) and (iii).
  • Velocity modification DeltaVsh = 200 km/s (5 percent of Vsh)
    Ad hoc modification magnitude; the diagnostic claim is demonstrated for this value only.
  • Downstream electron temperature fraction = 10 percent of proton temperature, Te about 3 keV
    Fixed by the Rankine-Hugoniot relations plus an assumed Te/Tp ratio.
  • Precursor front location zpre = zpre = 3 (np/ntot,0) Vsh/CCX
    Chosen precursor length; affects whether decelerated neutrals survive long enough to emit.
  • Frequency integration window = Doppler velocity -25 to 25 km/s
    The polarization degree is computed only for this narrow spectral window near line center.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Rayleigh scattering phase matrices for 3p1/2 and 3p3/2 transitions describe Ly-beta to H-alpha conversion via conservation of angular momentum.
    Used in Section 2, Eqs 9-11, from Chandrasekhar (1960) and Hamilton (1947).
  • ad hoc to paper Incident Ly-beta is completely unpolarized, and any polarization built up during Ly-beta trapping is negligible.
    Eqs 16-17 and footnote 2; a few-percent observed signal could be contaminated if this fails.
  • domain assumption All particle velocity distributions are shifted Maxwellians in the shock rest frame.
    Section 3, immediately before Figure 4. No proton heating is included.
  • domain assumption Charge-exchange cross-sections and ionization rates from Janev et al. are accurate at the relevant velocities.
    Used in Eqs 32-34 and Figure 4.
  • domain assumption H-alpha emission is optically thin for the adopted upstream density, so H-alpha scattering does not alter the polarization.
    Section 2, citing Shimoda and Laming (2019), valid for n < 30 cm^-3.
  • domain assumption Bremsstrahlung, SNR ejecta emission, and external radiation sources are negligible.
    Section 3, description of the radiative transfer model.
  • domain assumption The shock is plane-parallel, axially symmetric, and observed exactly edge-on.
    Section 2 geometry; the line of sight is fixed along the y-axis with mu = 0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diagnosing Cosmic Ray Modified Shocks with H {\alpha} Polarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4JBVDBN

@misc{pith2026190807216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diagnosing Cosmic Ray Modified Shocks with H \alpha Polarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4JBVDBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07216}
}
abstract

A novel diagnostic of cosmic-ray modified shocks by polarimetry of H $\alpha$ emissions is suggested. In a cosmic-ray modified shock, the pressure of cosmic rays is sufficiently high compared to the upstream ram pressure to force the background plasma to decelerate (measured in the shock rest frame). Simultaneously, a fraction of the hydrogen atoms co-existing in the upstream plasma collide with the decelerated protons and undergo charge-exchange reactions. As a result, hydrogen atoms with the same bulk velocity of the decelerated protons are generated. We show that when the shock is observed from edge-on, the H $\alpha$ radiated by these upstream hydrogen atoms is linearly polarized with a sizable degree of a few per cent as a result of resonant scattering of Ly $\beta$. The polarization direction depends strongly on the velocity modification; the direction is parallel to the shock surface for the case of no modification, while the direction is parallel to the shock velocity for the case of a modified shock.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of an SNR shock. The shock is plane and parallel to the x-y plane. We observe the shock from the y direction. The two gray sheets represent the shock surface and the sky. The thick black arrows indicate the incident Ly β which propagates in the direction of n (i) = (sin θ cos ϕ, sin θ sin ϕ, cos θ). The fuzzy arrow indicates the scattered H α in the direction of n (s) = (0, 1, 0). n (i) makes an an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The polarization degree of scattered H α at the line centre. Note that we consider only the transition from 3p3/2 to 2s1/2 here. The solid line is the case of a uniform, isotropically emitting medium in which the intensity of Ly β is given by Eq. (20). The dots represent the case of an anisotropic radia￾tion field modeling the SNR shock. Here we set Iν,B = 10Sν in Eq. (29). It can be expressed as Q (s) ν I (s) ν = −… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The ionization structure of the hydrogen atoms. The blue, red and black lines indicate the cases of no precursor (i), only the electron heating precursor (ii), and the electron heating precursor with decelerated protons (iii), respectively. The solid lines are the number density of hydrogen atoms that have not experienced a charge-exchange reaction in the precursor region, n 0 H . The broken line is the number densi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radiative excitation rate for the transition from 1s to 3p (solid lines) and total collisional excitation rate for the transitions from 1s to 3s, 3p and 3d (dots). The blue, red and black lines indicate the cases of no precursor (i), only an electron heating precursor …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The polarization degree of H α. The blue, red and black lines indicate the cases of no precursor (i), only an electron heating precursor (ii), and the electron heating precursor with decelerated protons (iii), respectively. The vertical thin lines at ntot,0z ≃ −27×1015…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Balmer decrement (total intensity ratio of H β to H α). The blue, red and black lines indicate the cases of no precur￾sor (i), only the electron heating precursor (ii), and the electron heating precursor with decelerated protons (iii), respectively. The vertical th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Archambault S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...23A 836, 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/23 2017

  3. [3]

    Beck R., 2001, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SSRv...99..243B 99, 243

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    R., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

    Bell A. R., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

    doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  5. [5]

    R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x , http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2004MNRAS.353..550B 353, 550

    Bell A. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x , http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2004MNRAS.353..550B 353, 550

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    G., Ellison D

    Berezhko E. G., Ellison D. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307993 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..385B 526, 385

    doi:10.1086/307993 1999

  7. [7]

    Blandford R., Eichler D., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhR...154....1B 154, 1

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  8. [8]

    D., Ostriker J

    Blandford R. D., Ostriker J. P., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182658 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...221L..29B 221, L29

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Blasi P., Morlino G., Bandiera R., Amato E., Caprioli D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/121 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755..121B 755, 121

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1960, Radiative transfer

    1960

  3. [11]

    A., Kirshner R

    Chevalier R. A., Kirshner R. P., Raymond J. C., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157623 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...235..186C 235, 186

    1980 doi

  4. [12]

    O., Falle S

    Drury L. O., Falle S. A. E. G., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/223.2.353 , http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/1986MNRAS.223..353D 223, 353

    1986 doi

  5. [13]

    O., Voelk J

    Drury L. O., Voelk J. H., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...248..344D 248, 344

    1981 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Wright G

    Graham J. R., Wright G. S., Hester J. J., Longmore A. J., 1991a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....101..175G 101, 175

    doi

  7. [15]

    R., Wright G

    Graham J. R., Wright G. S., Geballe T. R., 1991b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...372L..21G/abstract 372, L21

    doi

  8. [16]

    R., 1947, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1947ApJ...106..457H 106, 457

    Hamilton D. R., 1947, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1947ApJ...106..457H 106, 457

    1947 doi

  9. [17]

    P., McCully C., Pandya V., Eriksen K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac94b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862..148H 862, 148

    Hovey L., Hughes J. P., McCully C., Pandya V., Eriksen K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac94b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862..148H 862, 148

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Inoue T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872...46I 872, 46

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Inoue T., Yamazaki R., Inutsuka S.-i., Fukui Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744...71I 744, 71

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Smith J

    Janev R. K., Smith J. J., 1993, Cross Sections for Collision Processes of Hydrogen Atoms with Electrons, Protons and Multiply Charged Ions

    1993

  13. [21]

    K., Reiter D., Samm U., 2003, C ollision processes in low-temperature hydrogen plasmas

    Janev R. K., Reiter D., Samm U., 2003, C ollision processes in low-temperature hydrogen plasmas. Berichte des Forschungszentrums J^^c3^^bclich Vol. 4105, Forschungszentrum, Zentralbibliothek, J^^c3^^bclich, http://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/38224

    2003

  14. [22]

    Katsuda S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819L..32K 819, L32

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Kne z evi \'c S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..167K 846, 167

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    O., Cesarsky C

    Lagage P. O., Cesarsky C. J., 1983a, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...118..223L 118, 223

  17. [25]

    O., Cesarsky C

    Lagage P. O., Cesarsky C. J., 1983b, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...125..249L 125, 249

  18. [26]

    M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...362..219L 362, 219

    Laming J. M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...362..219L 362, 219

    1990 doi

  19. [27]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..102L/abstract 805, 102

    Laming J. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..102L/abstract 805, 102

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Hwang U., Ghavamian P., Rakowski C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...11L 790, 11

    Laming J. M., Hwang U., Ghavamian P., Rakowski C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...11L 790, 11

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Lee J.-J., Koo B.-C., Raymond J., Ghavamian P., Pyo T.-S., Tajitsu A., Hayashi M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659L.133L 659, L133

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Raymond J

    Medina A. A., Raymond J. C., Edgar R. J., Caldwell N., Fesen R. A., Milisavljevic D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...30M 791, 30

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Morlino G., Bandiera R., Blasi P., Amato E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/137 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..137M 760, 137

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Morlino G., Blasi P., Bandiera R., Amato E., Caprioli D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..148M 768, 148

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    C., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156500 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...225..380M 225, 380

    Myers P. C., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156500 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...225..380M 225, 380

    1978 doi

  26. [34]

    Ohira Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/97 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...97O 758, 97

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Ohira Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/137 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..137O 817, 137

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Ohira Y., Takahara F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L..43O 721, L43

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132881 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PASP..103..781R 103, 781

    Raymond J. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132881 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PASP..103..781R 103, 781

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00591.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393L..26R 393, L26

    Roy N., Bharadwaj S., Dutta P., Chengalur J. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00591.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393L..26R 393, L26

    2009

  31. [39]

    M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5453S 485, 5453

    Shimoda J., Laming J. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5453S 485, 5453

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Katsuda S., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1394S 473, 1394

    Shimoda J., Ohira Y., Yamazaki R., Laming J. M., Katsuda S., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1394S 473, 1394

    doi

  33. [41]

    Shimoda J., Akahori T., Lazarian A., Inoue T., Fujita Y., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2200S 480, 2200

    doi

  34. [42]

    C., Raymond J

    Smith R. C., Raymond J. C., Laming J. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173558 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...420..286S 420, 286

    1994 doi

  35. [43]

    C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030839 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    Sollerman J., Ghavamian P., Lundqvist P., Smith R. C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030839 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Pringle J

    Sparks W. B., Pringle J. E., Carswell R. F., Long K. S., Cracraft M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815L...9S 815, L9

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Heng K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20787.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.2357T 422, 2357

    Tseliakhovich D., Hirata C. M., Heng K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20787.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.2357T 422, 2357

    2012

  38. [46]

    L., Fuhr J

    Wiese W. L., Fuhr J. R., 2009, @doi [Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data] 10.1063/1.3254213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JPCRD..38.1129W 38, 1129

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Girart J

    Yang H., Li Z.-Y., Looney L. W., Girart J. M., Stephens I. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..373Y 472, 373

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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