Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Tracing 3-D Magnetic Field Structure Using Dust Polarization and the Zeeman Effect

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining dust-polarization angle dispersion with the line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number estimated from Zeeman splitting lets observers classify molecular clouds as sub-, trans-, or super-Alfvénic and, in the ordered-field cases, recover…

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for combining Zeeman and dust polarization, but the flowchart's thresholds need out-of-sample validation before they can be trusted on real clouds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10286 v1 pith:FEK54RC7 submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Brandon Shane , Blakesley Burkhart , Laura Fissel , Susan E. Clark , Philip Mocz , Michael M. Foley This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfieldsmolecularcloudsdustpolarizationZeemaneffectAlfvénMachnumberangledispersionmagnetohydrodynamicsstarformation
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 argues that two observational probes of magnetic fields in molecular clouds, dust polarization and Zeeman splitting, which individually give only the plane-of-sky field orientation and the line-of-sight field strength, can be combined to recover the magnetic field's three-dimensional character. Using synthetic observations of four magnetohydrodynamic simulations with magnetic field strengths spanning super-Alfvénic to sub-Alfvénic regimes, the authors show that the dispersion of polarization angles, $S$, and the line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number estimated from Zeeman data, $M_{A,z}$, place clouds in distinct regions of a two-dimensional parameter space. From that placement, an observer can classify a cloud as sub-, trans-, or super-Alfvénic, and in the sub- or trans-Alfvénic cases can estimate the inclination angle of the mean magnetic field from the polarization fraction. This matters because the magnetic field's strength and orientation regulate turbulence and star formation, and current techniques recover only pieces of that information. The proposed Easy PZ Method is a decision tree that turns the two observables into a classification of cloud magnetization.

What carries the argument

Two synthetic observables carry the argument. The first is the polarization-angle dispersion $S$, the root-mean-square difference in polarization angle between pixels within a small distance, computed from Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps; a disordered or strongly inclined field yields large $S$. The second is the line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number $M_{A,z} = \sqrt{3}\,\Delta v_z / v_{A,z}$, built from the line-of-sight velocity dispersion and the Alfvén velocity formed from the density-weighted line-of-sight magnetic field and mean density, so it is what a Zeeman measurement alone can estimate under the assumption of isotropic velocity dispersion. The load-bearing object is the $M_{A,z}$--$S$ plane summarized in the paper's Figure 5 and turned into the Easy PZ flowchart in Figure 6, which converts positions in that plane into statements about the three-dimensional Alfvén Mach number and, in sub- and trans-Alfvénic cases, the inclination angle $\gamma$. The polarization fraction $p$ supplies the inclination estimate through the $\cos^2\gamma$ relation once the field is known to be ordered enough.

What would settle it

Measure the median $M_{A,z}$ and median $S$ in a sample of real molecular clouds that have both Zeeman detections and resolved dust-polarization maps; if any cloud with $M_{A,z}$ well above 1 shows median $S$ near $1^\circ$, or any cloud with $M_{A,z}$ below 1 shows median $S$ above $3^\circ$, the claimed separation of the $M_{A,z}$--$S$ plane fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sub-Alfvénic and super-Alfvénic clouds occupy different regions of the plane formed by the observable line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number $M_{A,z}$ and the polarization-angle dispersion $S$, so the pair of measurements suffices to classify a cloud's magnetization. In the four simulated clouds viewed at seven inclination angles, super-Alfvénic runs cluster at high $S$ and high $M_{A,z}$ with almost no dependence on viewing angle, while sub-Alfvénic runs have $M_{A,z}$ below one except when the mean field lies nearly in the plane of the sky, and both $M_{A,z}$ and $S$ vary systematically with inclination. For trans- and sub-Alfvénic clouds, the polarization fraction follows the predicted $\cos^2\gamma$ dependence on $\gamma$, the angle the mean magnetic field makes with the plane of the sky, allowing $\gamma$ to be estimated when the cloud is known to be trans- or sub-Alfvénic. The paper packages this into the Easy PZ Method, a flowchart in which an observer first measures $M_{A,z}$ from Zeeman data and then uses $S$ thresholds, approximately $1^\circ$ and $3^\circ$ in these simulations, to decide whether the cloud is super-, trans-, or sub-Alfvénic and whether the field inclination can be recovered.

Load-bearing premise

The classification thresholds assume that real Zeeman observations sample the same gas column as the dust polarization, that the turbulent velocity dispersion is isotropic so the line-of-sight $M_{A,z}$ stands in for the three-dimensional Alfvén Mach number, and that four idealized isothermal simulations with a single mean-field direction are representative of real molecular clouds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An observer with both Zeeman detections and dust-polarization maps can classify a cloud's magnetization without knowing the dust grain properties or the internal polarization coefficient.
  • For sub- and trans-Alfvénic clouds, the polarization fraction can be converted into the magnetic field inclination angle, which in turn corrects the line-of-sight Zeeman measurement toward an estimate of the total field strength.
  • The method turns sparse Zeeman sightlines into broader statements about cloud physics by pairing them with polarization maps that cover much of the cloud.
  • The thresholds near 1° and 3° in $S$ give concrete values to look for in existing and future polarization surveys.
  • Super-Alfvénic clouds are predicted to show little change of $S$ and $M_{A,z}$ with viewing angle, so a lack of inclination dependence in these observables is itself a signature of a weak mean field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication not developed in the paper is that the $S$ thresholds should be recalibrated for each survey's beam size and map resolution; the classification logic may survive, but the numerical cutoffs will move.
  • Extending the paper's suggestion that observers can probe many inclinations within one cloud, applying the same comparison to many sub-regions of a real cloud could map the three-dimensional field structure instead of giving a single classification.
  • A direct test is to apply the flowchart to a well-studied cloud with both Zeeman detections and high-resolution polarization maps; the prediction that low-$S$ clouds are sub-Alfvénic with near-plane-of-sky fields is checkable against independent three-dimensional field reconstructions.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes synthetic dust polarization and Zeeman observations from four AREPO MHD simulations with initial Alfvén Mach numbers 35, 3.5, 1.2, and 0.35, observed at seven inclination angles between 0° and 90°. The authors define a line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number MA,z from density-weighted line-of-sight magnetic field and velocity dispersion (Eq. 11), and compute the polarization angle dispersion S (Eq. 7). Comparing MA,z and S, they find that the four runs occupy different regions of this parameter space and propose a flowchart ('Easy PZ Method', Figure 6) to classify a cloud as sub-, trans-, or super-Alfvénic: MA,z < 1 directly implies sub-Alfvénic; for MA,z > 1, S ≲ 1° implies sub-Alfvénic with low inclination, S ≳ 3° implies super-Alfvénic, and intermediate S implies trans-Alfvénic. They further argue that in sub/trans-Alfvénic clouds the polarization fraction p vs γ follows Eq. 10, enabling inclination estimates. The conclusions are framed as an initial exploration, with limitations in Section 6.1.

Significance. If the Easy PZ Method is robust, it would offer a practical way to combine two existing observational tracers to infer the 3D orientation and strength of magnetic fields in molecular clouds, a longstanding challenge. The paper's strengths are its use of a well-defined simulation suite with a wide range of magnetization, synthetic observations at multiple viewing angles, and a clear, reproducible pipeline (SPH interpolation, Stokes parameter calculation, resolution studies). The authors are also explicit about the idealized nature of the Zeeman tracer and the missing physics (Section 6.1). However, the quantitative thresholds in Figure 6 are calibrated and validated on the same four runs, and the S thresholds depend on the smoothing scale δ; these issues currently limit the claim that the method can be applied to real observations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 6] The classification thresholds (S ≈ 1° and S ≈ 3°) are read directly from the same four AREPO runs used to develop the method, with no held-out simulations or observational test; this circularity means the flowchart is a description of these particular clusters rather than a tested classifier. For example, the trans-Alfvénic branch is inferred from run 3 alone, and the super-Alfvénic branch from runs 1 and 2, leaving no evidence that the S thresholds discriminate across other magnetizations (e.g., MA,0 ≈ 5 or 0.8). The authors should validate the method on an independent simulation suite or explicitly restrict the claims to the tested parameter range.
  2. [Equations 7 and Figure 6; Appendix A.2] The S thresholds are not invariant to the choice of δ in Equation 7. Appendix A.2 shows that changing δ from 2 to 6 pixels changes the absolute S values while only the qualitative trends remain unchanged. Since the flowchart's branch decisions use quantitative S boundaries (1° and 3°), an observer adopting a different angular or physical smoothing scale would obtain different classifications. The paper should either provide a recalibration of the thresholds as a function of δ, or demonstrate that the classification remains correct across the tested δ range.
  3. [Section 4, Section 6.1] The synthetic Zeeman tracer (Eqs. 11–14) is an idealized density-weighted full-column measurement, whereas real Zeeman observations trace only specific spectral lines (e.g., HI, OH, CN) that sample limited velocity/density components, often with pencil-beam geometries and many non-detections. Section 6.1 explicitly acknowledges that line-specific synthetic Zeeman observations have not been generated. Without such tests, the MA,z–S relation and the flowchart thresholds may shift when the Zeeman tracer weights different gas than the dust polarization column, so the method's transferability to real observations is not demonstrated.
  4. [Equation 11, Section 5.1.1] The claim that MA,z < 1 guarantees a sub-Alfvénic cloud relies on the isotropic velocity-dispersion assumption used to insert the √3 factor in Eq. 11. The paper itself notes that if the velocity dispersion is larger in the plane of the sky than along the line of sight, MA can exceed MA,z, breaking the safety of this branch. This assumption is not tested in the simulations (which contain full 3D velocity information) nor quantified for real molecular clouds. The authors should verify the isotropy assumption in the simulated snapshots and report the resulting uncertainty, or explicitly condition the MA,z < 1 branch on isotropy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The word 'solendial' should be 'solenoidal', and the accent in 'Alfvén' is inconsistent in a few places.
  2. [Section 5.1.3] The phrase 'if ¯S ≥ 1◦ and ≤ 3◦' should be written as 'if 1° ≤ ¯S ≤ 3°' for clarity.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The notation ρ_i for an interpolated quantity q is confusing; the quantity should be labeled q_i, not ρ_i.
  4. [Section 6.1] The caveat 'This analysis method should be tested on more realistic synthetic observations' is commendable, but it should also be stated in the abstract or conclusions so that casual readers do not overinterpret the flowchart as already validated.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The interquartile ranges are shown only for MA,z as vertical lines; displaying the full distribution of S would help assess how distinct the four clusters really are.
  6. [References] Harper et al. 2018a and 2018b appear to be the same paper (identical journal, volume, page, and DOI); please consolidate the duplicate reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Easy PZ thresholds are calibrated and demonstrated on the same four idealized AREPO runs, so the MA,z-S classification is an in-sample restatement rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1.3 (MA,z >> 1 branch) and Figure 6 flowchart; thresholds from Figure 5 right panel.]
    "From our synthetic observations we find that if S is low ( ¯S ⪅ 1◦) that implies that the magnetic field is mostly parallel to the plane-of-sky (low γ) and the cloud is actually sub-Alfvénic. If S is high ( ¯S ' 3◦), we find that the magnetic field is highly disordered in the POS which suggests that the cloud is super-Alfvénic. ... If S is moderate (in our simulations if ¯S≥ 1◦ and≤ 3◦), the cloud is likely trans-Alfvénic."

    The 1° and 3° S boundaries are not derived from an independent theory; they are the separations visible between the four AREPO runs in Figure 5's MA,z-S plane. Figure 6 then 'finds' that those same runs are classified by these boundaries: S≳3° corresponds to super-Alfvénic runs 1-2, 1°-3° to trans-Alfvénic run 3, and S≲1° at high MA,z to sub-Alfvénic run 4 at low γ. The 'prediction' that MA,z>1 with S≲1° means a sub-Alfvénic low-inclination cloud is therefore a restatement of run 4's cluster on the very plot used to set the threshold. Section 6.1 concedes the method 'should be tested on more realistic synthetic observations'; no held-out simulation or real cloud is used. The classification success is thus in-sample by construction, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central circularity is in-sample calibration. The Easy PZ Method's S thresholds (≈1° and ≈3°) are read off the four AREPO runs in Figure 5 and then used to classify those same four runs in Figure 6. The 'prediction' that MA,z>1 with S≲1° implies a sub-Alfvénic, low-γ cloud is simply the location of run 4 at low inclination; S≳3° is the cluster of runs 1 and 2; the 1-3° band is run 3. No independent simulation or observation is used to test these boundaries, and Section 6.1 concedes the method 'should be tested on more realistic synthetic observations.' This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the thresholds are chosen after seeing the data, so their success on the same data is not evidence. The MA,z<1 branch is less affected because it is a direct statement about the same snapshots and has some analytic support (if the LOS field dominates, MA,z≈MA), though the paper's own caveat about anisotropic velocity dispersion means even that branch is only empirically verified in these runs. Offsetting factors: the p vs γ relation is borrowed from Chen et al. (2019), the physical expectation that strong ordered fields produce small S is standard, and the paper is appropriately cautious in calling this an 'initial simulation exploration.' The simulation suite is public and not a self-citation theorem, so no separate self-citation circularity is present. The remaining concern is specifically that the quantitative classification claims are not out-of-sample-validated; that is a circularity of calibration, not of definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's predictive power rests on two hand-set S thresholds, a fixed p0, and several idealizations about velocity isotropy, grain alignment, Zeeman tracing, and simulation representativeness. No new physical entities are introduced; MA,z is a derived observable.

free parameters (4)
  • S_low_threshold = ~1 degree
    Boundary in the Easy PZ Method (Fig. 6) separating sub-Alfvénic/trans-Alfvénic from super-Alfvénic cases; read off the four simulation clusters in Figure 5, not derived independently.
  • S_high_threshold = ~3 degrees
    Boundary in the Easy PZ Method separating trans-Alfvénic from super-Alfvénic cases; calibrated on the same simulation suite used for validation.
  • p0_internal_polarization_coefficient = 0.1
    Assumed constant from Chen et al. (2019) for computing polarization fraction p; real dust properties vary along sight lines and between clouds.
  • delta_dispersion_kernel = 2 pixels = 0.02 pc
    Choice of angular scale for S in Eq. 7; changes absolute S values and therefore the thresholds, as shown in Appendix A.2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 3-D velocity dispersion is isotropic
    Invoked in Eq. 11 via the sqrt(3) factor relating MA,z to one-dimensional LOS velocity dispersion; if anisotropy is significant, the mapping between MA,z and MA shifts.
  • domain assumption Dust polarization and Zeeman observations sample the same gas volume
    The method compares S, which is an optically thin column-integrated dust signal, with an idealized density-weighted BLOS; real Zeeman measurements trace only line-emitting velocity components, as noted in Section 6.1.
  • domain assumption Four idealized AREPO runs are representative of molecular cloud diversity
    Calibration uses four isothermal, flux-frozen MHD runs with a single mean-field direction and no feedback; real clouds have more complex field geometry and additional physics (Section 6.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform grain alignment with constant p0
    Equation 8 assumes all polarization variation arises from field orientation; real grain alignment efficiency and temperature vary along the line of sight.
  • ad hoc to paper Idealized full-column Zeeman measurement
    Equation 12 and the synthetic maps assume a perfect spectral line tracing the entire column; real Zeeman observations are sparse and line-selective, a limitation acknowledged in Section 6.1.
invented entities (1)
  • Line-of-sight Alfvén Mach number MA,z independent evidence
    purpose: A composite diagnostic that converts Zeeman-measurable LOS field strength and velocity dispersion into an estimate of the Alfvén Mach number.
    MA,z is a defined combination of measurable quantities and can in principle be computed from real Zeeman observations, though its interpretation depends on the isotropy and density-estimation assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing 3-D Magnetic Field Structure Using Dust Polarization and the Zeeman Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEK54RC7

@misc{pith2026241110286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing 3-D Magnetic Field Structure Using Dust Polarization and the Zeeman Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEK54RC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10286}
}
abstract

The characterization of magnetic fields within molecular clouds is fundamental to understanding star formation processes. Accurately gauging the three-dimensional structure of these fields presents a challenge, as observational techniques such as dust polarization and the Zeeman effect each provide only partial information on the orientation and line-of-sight strength, respectively. By analyzing a suite of AREPO simulations, this paper investigates how observables can relate to underlying physical properties to derive a more comprehensive picture of the magnetic field's inclination angle and strength, specifically in regions where both dust polarization and Zeeman data are available. To demonstrate the method, we produce synthetic observations of the polarization angle dispersion and line-of-sight Alfv\'en Mach Number and explore the behavior of the inclination angle, $\gamma$, and strength of the magnetic field in regions where both Zeeman and dust polarization data are available. We find that dust polarization data can be used to determine the inclination angle if the cloud is known to be trans-Alfv\'enic or sub-Alfv\'enic. The strength of the magnetic field relative to turbulence can be estimated by comparing polarization observations to Zeeman observations. Comparing the dispersion of the polarization angle to the estimated line-of-sight Alfv\'en Mach Number provides clues about the strength of the magnetic field and, consequently, the orientation of the magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots of two different AREPO simulations from Mocz et al. (2017) from two different viewing orientations. The grey-scale maps in each plot show the column density (NH) while the red lines are streamlines of the magnetic field in the plane-of-sky integrated along the observer’s line-of-sight represented by each panel. The panels in the top row are viewed such that the mean magnetic field direction is parallel to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Adapted from Chen et al. (2019) The hypothetical observer sits in the plane on the right, facing the plane on the left. Their line-of-sight direction is denoted by the z coordinate. The mean magnetic field direction with inclination angle γ with respect to the plane-of-sky, ranging from 0° (B is parallel to the observer’s plane-of-sky) to 90° (B is parallel to the observers line-of-sight). The plane-of-sky magnetic … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel, median polarization fraction from the syn￾thetic polarization map (¯p) as a function of inclination angle (γ) of the magnetic field. Each ¯p is given relative to p0 which is the internal polarization coefficient in Equation 8. The vertical lines at each point show the interquartile range of p values in each map. The predicted p vs. γ relation, Equation 10, is shown with the black dashed line in the top pa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel M¯ A,z as a function of γ. The vertical spread indicates the interquartile range of MA,z. So that the interquartile ranges do not overlap, run 1 has had its x-position offset by −1.5 ◦, run 3 by 1.5 ◦, and run 4 by 3◦. Right panel M¯ A,z is plotted as a func…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flowchart outlining our suggested processes for comparing the Zeeman and dust polarization observations in order to infer whether a cloud is on average sub-, trans-. or super-Alfv´enic. The diamonds represent making a measurement, the rectangles represent drawing an in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: B¯LOS is calculated as a function of γ. Each point is the median for the map at that inclination. The vertical spread is given as the interquartile range of BLOS. To prevent the interquartile ranges from overlapping, run 1 has been given a horizontal offset…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The original snapshots and the simulations had an effective resolution of 2563 as discussed in Section 2. To accurately apply particle information we interpolated a new grid onto our simulations to properly do our synthetic observations (see 2.1). We can, in principle,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We recreate the polarization angle dispersion, S, observations with varying δ ranging from δ = 2 pixels in the left panel to δ = 6 pixels in the right panel. The position of the points are given by the median of the maps of S and MA,z to mimic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: , those for S can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Each row represents one of the seven inclinations studied in this work. Each column represents one of the four runs described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Each row represents one of the seven inclinations studied in this work. Each column represents one of the four runs described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J

    Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  2. [2]

    G., & Potter, S

    Andersson, B. G., & Potter, S. B. 2007, ApJ, 665, 369, doi: 10.1086/519755

    doi:10.1086/519755 2007

  3. [3]

    C., Ade, P

    Ashton, P. C., Ade, P. A. R., Angil` e, F. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3ca 2018

  4. [4]

    M., Burkhart, B., et al

    Barreto-Mota, L., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Burkhart, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab798

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab798 2021

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 2558, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21058.x

    Bauer, A., & Springel, V. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2558, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21058.x

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad002

    Burkhart, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad002

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad002 2018

  7. [7]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 130

    Burkhart, B., Lazarian, A., Le˜ ao, I., De Medeiros, J., & Esquivel, A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 130

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    M., Bialy, S., et al

    Burkhart, B., Appel, S. M., Bialy, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc484

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc484 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Burkhart, B. K. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2021

  2. [10]

    R., & Clemens, D

    Cashman, L. R., & Clemens, D. P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/126

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 113, doi: 10.1086/145731

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953, ApJ, 118, 113, doi: 10.1086/145731

    1953 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Li, Z.-Y., Fissel, L

    Chen, C.-Y., King, P. K., Li, Z.-Y., Fissel, L. M., & Mazzei, R. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz618

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Chen, C.-Y., Li, Z.-Y., Mazzei, R. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1417

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Kemball, A

    Crutcher, R. M., & Kemball, A. J. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 66, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00066

    2019

  8. [16]

    Troland, T. H. 2010, ApJ, 725, 466, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    Davis, Leverett, J., & Greenstein, J. L. 1951a, ApJ, 114, 206, doi: 10.1086/145464 —. 1951b, ApJ, 114, 206, doi: 10.1086/145464 Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D., Lazarian, A., & Kowal, G. 2008, ApJ, 679, 537, doi: 10.1086/587479

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Crutcher, R

    Falgarone, E., Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., & Paubert, G. 2008, A&A, 487, 247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809577

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv941

    Federrath, C. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv941

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 763, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/51

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M. M. 2010, A&A, 512, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath, C., Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 143, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/143

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Ade, P

    Fissel, L. M., Ade, P. A. R., Angil` e, F. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/134

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Friberg, P., Bastien, P., Berry, D., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  17. [25]

    9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed

    Series, Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas, 991403, doi: 10.1117/12.2231943

    doi

  18. [26]

    Girichidis, P., Offner, S. S. R., Kritsuk, A. G., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 68, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00693-8 G´ omez, G. C., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2018

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Hall, J. S. 1949, Science, 109, 166, doi: 10.1126/science.109.2825.166

    1949 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Runyan, M

    Harper, D. A., Runyan, M. C., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2018a, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 7, 1840008, doi: 10.1142/S2251171718400081 —. 2018b, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 7, 1840008, doi: 10.1142/S2251171718400081

    doi

  21. [29]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Haverkorn, M. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 407, Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media, ed. A. Lazarian, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli, 483, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6_17

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2012, Space Sci

    Heiles, C., & Haverkorn, M. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 166, 293, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9866-4

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2004, ApJS, 151, 271, doi: 10.1086/381753

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 773, doi: 10.1086/428896

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Mac Low, M.-M., Li, P., & Norman, M

    Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E. G., Mac Low, M.-M., Li, P., & Norman, M. L. 2001, ApJ, 561, 800, doi: 10.1086/323489

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    D., & Burkhart, B

    Heyer, M., Soler, J. D., & Burkhart, B. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1760

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1988, QJRAS, 29, 327

    1988

  29. [37]

    H., Davidson, J

    Hildebrand, R. H., Davidson, J. A., Dotson, J. L., et al. 2000, PASP, 112, 1215, doi: 10.1086/316613

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Dragovan, M., & Novak, G

    Hildebrand, R. H., Dragovan, M., & Novak, G. 1984, ApJL, 284, L51, doi: 10.1086/184351

    1984 doi

  31. [39]

    Vaillancourt, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 567, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/567

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2240

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2240

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Hildebrand, R

    Houde, M., Vaillancourt, J. E., Hildebrand, R. H., Chitsazzadeh, S., & Kirby, L. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1504, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Chen, C.-Y., Fissel, L

    King, P. K., Chen, C.-Y., Fissel, L. M., & Li, Z.-Y. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2628

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

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

    Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., & Ho, P. T. P. 2012, ApJ, 747, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/79

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2014, Physics Reports, 539, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250, doi: 10.1086/431734

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    Lazarian, A. 2007, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 106, 225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    G., & Hoang, T

    Lazarian, A., Andersson, B. G., & Hoang, T. 2015, in Polarimetry of Stars and Planetary Systems, 81, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1511.03696

    2015 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    C., Wilson, C

    Matthews, B. C., Wilson, C. D., & Fiege, J. D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 400, doi: 10.1086/323375

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., J. 1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    1956 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1976

    Mocz, P., & Burkhart, B. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1976

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    F., & Springel, V

    Mocz, P., Burkhart, B., Hernquist, L., McKee, C. F., & Springel, V. 2017, ApJ, 838, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6475

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2004

    Mocz, P., Pakmor, R., Springel, V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2004

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Mouschovias, T. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 169, doi: 10.1086/170035

    1991 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Dowell, C

    Novak, G., Dotson, J. L., Dowell, C. D., et al. 1997, ApJ, 487, 320, doi: 10.1086/304576

    1997 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179 Planck Collaborati...

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2016, A&A, 593, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424930

    Reissl, S., Wolf, S., & Brauer, R. 2016, A&A, 593, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424930

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    K., Portillo, S

    Saydjari, A. K., Portillo, S. K. N., Slepian, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe46d

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  52. [60]

    D., & Hennebelle, P

    Soler, J. D., & Hennebelle, P. 2017, A&A, 607, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731049

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/128

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —

    Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 16 Shane et al

    2005

  55. [63]

    H., Fissel, L

    Sullivan, C. H., Fissel, L. M., King, P. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5006, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab596

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    C., & Kainulainen, J

    Tahani, M., Plume, R., Brown, J. C., & Kainulainen, J. 2018, A&A, 614, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732219

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Soler, J

    Tahani, M., Plume, R., Brown, J. C., Soler, J. D., & Kainulainen, J. 2019, A&A, 632, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936280

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Peretto, N., et al

    Tang, Y.-W., Koch, P. M., Peretto, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1484

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Troland, T

    Thompson, K. L., Troland, T. H., & Heiles, C. 2019, ApJ, 884, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab364e

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    H., & Crutcher, R

    Troland, T. H., & Crutcher, R. M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 457, doi: 10.1086/587546

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    Whittet, D. C. B., Hough, J. H., Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2008, ApJ, 674, 304, doi: 10.1086/525040

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.