Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Turbulence in Primordial Dark Matter Halos and Its Impact on the First Star Formation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Supersonic turbulence, driven by infalling gas, fragments the first star-forming clouds into collapsing clumps.

desk verdict A plausible but unverified extension of the single-halo turbulence claim to 15 minihalos; the unresolved TNG initial conditions and missing convergence tests leave the central result shaky, yet the paper deserves peer review with demand for verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23768 v2 pith:24MKIYNY submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Meng-Yuan Ho , Ke-Jung Chen , Pei-Cheng Tung This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords CosmologyPopulationIIIstarsTurbulenceStarformationMetal-poorSupersonicminihalosprimordialgas
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

Using high-resolution zoom-in simulations of 15 minihalos at redshift $z\sim17$--$20$, this paper argues that supersonic turbulence is a common and natural product of minihalo assembly. Infalling gas does not settle into a smooth spherical cloud; anisotropic accretion streams collide and shear, generating characteristic Mach numbers between about 1.8 and 4.2 that grow with halo mass. The turbulence fragments the central primordial gas into clumpy filaments, and the densest bound clumps, with masses from 2.6 to 66.5 $M_\odot$, exceed their Jeans masses and are collapsing to form the first stars. If correct, the birth environment of Population III stars is a turbulent, multi-core cloud rather than a single collapsing disk, with direct consequences for the masses and initial mass function of the first stars.

What carries the argument

The driving mechanism is infall-driven turbulence: gas streams falling into a minihalo's dark matter potential well arrive anisotropically, collide, and convert gravitational binding energy into a supersonic velocity field. The numerical enabler is a particle-splitting refinement that multiplies the mass resolution of the parent cosmological initial conditions by a factor of $\sim10^5$, reaching gas particles of $\sim0.2\,M_\odot$ and dark matter particles of $\sim80\,M_\odot$, so that accretion streams and the resulting eddies are actually resolved. A clump finder that traces isodensity contours then isolates the dense, Jeans-unstable cores whose masses set the predicted star-formation sites.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 15 minihalos with the same mass resolution while keeping them embedded in the full cosmological environment, including external tidal fields and continued cosmic expansion, and compare the mass-weighted Mach numbers and the number of bound Jeans-unstable clumps; if supersonic turbulence at Mach $\sim2$--$4$ and the clumpy fragmentation do not appear, the claim that this is a common feature of minihalos fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the first star-forming gas clouds are shaped by supersonic turbulence that arises from gravitational infall, not by quiescent cooling flows. Across 15 minihalos with virial masses from $4.9\times10^5$ to $7.7\times10^6\,M_\odot$ at $z\sim17$--$20$, the characteristic Mach number of the halo gas is 1.8--4.2 and increases with halo mass; the kinetic energy spectra follow a Kolmogorov $k^{-5/3}$ cascade with energy injected at scales of roughly three to five virial radii. The turbulence breaks the central cloud into multiple dense clumps, and the most massive gravitationally bound clump in each halo has a mass of 2.6--66.5 $M_\odot$, always above its Jeans mass. The authors present this as evidence that earlier idealized simulations underestimated the role of turbulence because they lacked resolution on the 100--1000 pc scales where accretion flows develop.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on the assumption that the 10 comoving kiloparsec gas spheres cut from the parent cosmological run and re-evolved in isolation faithfully reproduce the real accretion streams; if the missing outside gravity and cosmic expansion change the inflow, the measured turbulence and fragmentation could be artifacts of the truncation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supersonic turbulence (Mach $\sim2$--$4$) is the rule, not the exception, in minihalos at $z\sim17$--$20$, with more massive halos driving stronger turbulence.
  • The central star-forming cloud fragments into multiple clumps instead of one disk, so a single minihalo can host several simultaneous or sequential Pop III stars.
  • Because the bound clump masses ($2.6$--$66.5\,M_\odot$) sit below the $40$--$500\,M_\odot$ range of classic one-star-per-halo models, the predicted characteristic mass of the first stars shifts downward.
  • Each halo still contains roughly $10^2$--$10^3\,M_\odot$ of gas above the $10^5\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ collapse threshold, so the total mass budget for the first stars is preserved even as it is split among several cores.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops when the first bound clump begins collapsing, so the mapping from clump mass to final stellar mass is not tested; follow-up runs with sink particles could reveal whether each clump yields one star or several, and whether later accretion pushes masses upward.
  • If infall-driven turbulence is as generic as claimed, the first-star initial mass function may be set by the turbulent fragmentation scale rather than by the thermal Jeans mass alone, which would change predicted supernova yields and the chemical fingerprints preserved in extremely metal-poor stars.
  • A testable extension is to embed the same extraction spheres in the full cosmological volume, with external tides and continuing expansion, and check whether the Mach numbers and clump statistics survive the change of boundary conditions.
  • The same refinement strategy could be applied to more massive, atomic-cooling halos to see whether infall-driven turbulence persists in environments thought to produce direct-collapse black holes.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents GIZMO meshless-finite-mass zoom-in simulations of 15 minihalos with virial masses ~4.9e5–7.7e6 Msun at z ~ 17–20, initialised by extracting ~10 ckpc comoving spheres from the TNG50-1 simulation and applying a particle-splitting technique that raises the nominal mass resolution to 0.19 Msun for gas and 80.9 Msun for dark matter. The simulations include non-equilibrium primordial chemistry and cooling via GRACKLE. The authors report that gas infall drives predominantly supersonic turbulence with characteristic Mach numbers 1.8–4.2, increasing with halo mass, that the kinetic energy spectra are broadly Kolmogorov-like, and that the turbulent clouds fragment into multiple Jeans-unstable clumps with masses 2.6–66.5 Msun, which they interpret as the seeds of Pop III star formation.

Significance. If the accretion flows are physical, the paper would make a valuable contribution by extending a single-halo study to a 15-halo sample and by proposing infall-driven turbulence as a generic mechanism that fragments primordial star-forming clouds and lowers the expected Pop III mass scale. The study uses a well-tested code and a detailed primordial cooling network, and it is honest about the fact that the runs are stopped before actual star formation. However, because the parent halos are at or below the mass resolution of TNG50-1 and because no resolution or boundary convergence tests are provided, the quantitative conclusions are not yet established. As it stands, the paper is a suggestive numerical exploration rather than a demonstrated generic result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Table 1] The TNG50-1 dark matter mass resolution is ~4.5e5 Msun, while halo A has a total virial mass of 4.90e5 Msun and a dark matter mass of 4.28e5 Msun, and halo B has a dark matter mass of 5.49e5 Msun. Halos A and B are therefore represented by at most one dark matter particle in the parent simulation. Splitting a single particle into many sub-particles cannot generate the anisotropic, filamentary accretion flows that the paper claims drive the turbulence; it only samples a smooth kernel with random offsets, and any small-scale structure that appears afterwards may be a numerical relaxation artifact. The authors should show, e.g., by re-simulating with a parent simulation that resolves the halos or by testing different splitting seeds and comparing against a proper zoom-in with full cosmological boundary conditions, that the infall pattern and the resulting Mach numbers are physical. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the headline numbers (M 1.8–4.2, clump masses 2.6–66.5 Msun) are produced by these initial conditions.
  2. [Section 2.2] The paper states only that "we extract a comoving spherical volume of radius ~10 ckpc from IllustrisTNG" and map it directly onto GIZMO as zoom-in initial conditions. It does not state how the outer boundary of this volume is treated, whether the tidal field from surrounding large-scale structure is retained, or whether cosmological expansion continues after extraction. Since the accretion streams that are claimed to drive the turbulence enter through this boundary, truncation could either suppress or artificially focus the infall. Please specify the boundary conditions and provide a test (e.g., varying the extraction radius or including the surrounding tidal field) showing that the accretion pattern and turbulence statistics are unchanged.
  3. [Section 2.3] No resolution convergence study is presented. The particle-splitting algorithm introduces random directions for the child-particle offsets, and the manuscript does not state the gravitational softening lengths used after splitting or whether the original TNG softening is retained. For a paper whose main results are quantitative (the Mach number–mass relation, the clump mass function, and the kinetic energy spectrum slope), the authors should demonstrate convergence with respect to particle mass, splitting seed, and softening. Without such tests, the numerical robustness of the reported values is unverified.
  4. [Section 3.5] The simulations stop when the timestep collapses, and the text acknowledges that "to follow the collapse further, higher resolution or the introduction of sink particles is necessary." The conclusion that the identified Jeans-unstable clumps will "collapse imminently to form stars" is therefore an extrapolation beyond what is simulated. Please either soften the claim to "candidate prestellar cores" or justify the extrapolation by showing that the clumps remain Jeans-unstable over several dynamical times and that the collapse is not a numerical artifact at the resolution limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains a duplicated word and a typo: "Gas accretion accretion onto minhalos" should be "Gas accretion onto minihalos."
  2. [Figure 6] The text says "The read line shows the best fit profile," which should be "red line," and the fit parameters should be reported in the text or caption.
  3. [Section 3.4] The text defines the characteristic Mach number as the peak of the mass fraction versus Mach number distribution, but Figure 6 appears to plot a mean Mach number; please clarify which quantity is used and how it is computed.
  4. [Table 2] The Jeans mass is said to follow "Equation 2 in Chen et al. (2024)", but no definition is given in this paper; include the expression for M_J so the table is self-contained.
  5. [References] There are two papers involving "Chen, K.-J." with 2024 and 2025, and the text cites both "Tung & Chen (2024)" and "Tang & Chen (2024)" in different places; please verify the names and avoid ambiguity (also note that the reference list contains duplicate Hirano et al. 2014 entries).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Simulation measurements are self-contained; self-citations are ancillary, not load-bearing.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step. The central claims are that (1) gas infall into the 15 resimulated TNG50-1 minihalos produces turbulence with characteristic Mach numbers 1.8–4.2 and (2) this turbulence fragments the central clouds into clumps of 2.6–66.5 M_sun exceeding their Jeans masses. Both quantities are simulation outputs: Mach numbers are computed from the velocity dispersion and local sound speed of the resimulated gas (Section 3.4), and clump masses are measured by isodensity-contour clump finding (Sections 2.4, 3.5), while Jeans masses use a standard formula from Chen et al. (2024). No equation equates a prediction with an input. The companion self-citations (Chen et al. 2025 for single-halo turbulence, Tang & Chen 2024 for clumpy clouds, Chen et al. 2024 for the Jeans-mass formula) provide motivation, comparison, and a formula, but the statistical content is produced by the new GIZMO runs, not imported from those citations. The main caveats are numerical rather than circular: the parent halos contain only tens to hundreds of TNG particles (several dark-matter halos are one-particle objects in TNG50-1), particle splitting cannot introduce new physical density/velocity structure, and no resolution-convergence test is presented; these are correctness risks for the infall-driven-turbulence interpretation, not a reduction of the output to the input. The paper therefore shows no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. The central claim rests on numerical choices (target masses, splitting parameters) and on the fidelity of the TNG50-1 initial conditions and the GIZMO/GRACKLE subgrid models. The most fragile assumptions are the boundary treatment and the absence of resolution convergence evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Target gas particle mass = 0.19 Msun
    Chosen resolution; central to resolving turbulence but not fitted to physical data.
  • Target dark matter particle mass = 80.88 Msun
    Chosen resolution; affects gravitational softening and clump structure.
  • Linear fit slope of mean Mach number versus virial mass = 1 per 2.8e6 Msun
    Best-fit line in Figure 6 summarizing the data, not a physically derived relation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TNG50-1 initial conditions accurately represent the large-scale environment of the selected minihalos.
    Used to initialize the zoom-in runs; if the parent simulation underresolves the halos, the accretion flows are wrong.
  • domain assumption The extracted spherical volume can be re-simulated in GIZMO without an external tidal field or continuing cosmological expansion without changing the infall pattern.
    The paper does not state any boundary treatment; turbulence is driven by infall, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Particle splitting preserves the physical state and does not introduce spurious small-scale structure or noise.
    The splitting algorithm adds random positional offsets, which could seed artificial fragmentation at small scales.
  • domain assumption GIZMO MFM resolves the turbulent cascade down to the scales used for clump identification.
    No convergence test is presented, so the resolved turbulent statistics are assumed converged.
  • domain assumption Jeans mass computed with the formula from Chen et al. (2024) is the correct threshold for identifying collapsing clumps.
    Used to classify clumps as star-forming; the formula comes from a companion paper by overlapping authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbulence in Primordial Dark Matter Halos and Its Impact on the First Star Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24MKIYNY

@misc{pith2026250523768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbulence in Primordial Dark Matter Halos and Its Impact on the First Star Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24MKIYNY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23768}
}
abstract

We present high-resolution simulations of the first star-forming clouds in 15 minihalos with masses ranging from $\sim 10^5$ to $10^7\ \text{M}_{\odot}$ at redshifts $z \sim 17-20$, using the GIZMO code. Our simulations incorporate detailed primordial gas physics and adopt initial conditions from the state-of-the-art TNG cosmological simulations. To achieve the required resolution, we apply a particle-splitting technique that increases the resolution of the original TNG data by a factor of $\sim 10^5$, reaching gas and dark matter particle masses of $0.2\ \text{M}_{\odot}$ and $80\ \text{M}_{\odot}$, respectively. This enables us to resolve gas accretion during the early assembly of minihalos and to capture the emergence of strong turbulent flows. We find that turbulence, driven by gas infall into the dark matter potential wells, is predominantly supersonic, with characteristic Mach numbers ranging from $1.8$ to $4.2$, increasing with halo mass. The supersonic turbulence effectively fragments the central gas cloud into multiple clumps. Some of dense clump masses range from $2.6~\text{M}_{\odot}$ to $66.5~\text{M}_{\odot}$ exceeding their corresponding Jeans masses and soon collapsing to form the first stars. Our results suggest that supersonic turbulence is a common feature in minihalos and plays a key role in generating clumpy star-forming clouds, with important implications for the initial mass function of the first stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23768 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gas density of A, H, and N halos at the end of the simulations. The bright color represents the high-dense region. The white dashed circles show the virial sphere of the halo which increase with the halo mass. Fragmental structure appears at the halo centers, implying the turbulence formation due to gas accretion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gas temperatures of A, H, and N halos at the end of the simulations. The white dashed circles indicates the virial sphere of the halo. Most of the cool gas accumulated at the halo centers to due to the effective molecular hydrogen cooling. The cool gas can cool to a temperature of several hundred K, corresponding to the high-dense region shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas temperature–density phase diagram at the end of the simulations. The gas spans a density range from 10−5 to 106 cm−3 , with corresponding temperatures from ∼ 10 to 104 K. In the low-density regime (10−5 < n < 10−2 cm−3 ), the gas temperature increases with density due to adiabatic compression. At higher densities (n > 10−2 cm−3 ), efficient radiative cooling by molecular hydrogen (H2) and deuterated hydrogen (HD… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas accretion accretion onto minhalos. Stream lines represent the flow pattern of accreting gas. These lines converge to dense clumps at the halo center and stir up the turbulence gas. We now examine the characteristic turbulent Mach number (M) in our simulations. The …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kinetic energy spectra of halo gas for Halo A, H, and N. The x-axis shows the wave number in units of [kpc−1 ], and the y-axis indicates the normalized kinetic energy of the gas. The red dashed lines mark the change of spectra slope. The black dashed lines represent th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relation between the mean M and its halo mass. The mean M ranges from 1.8 to 3.8, roughly increasing with the halo mass. The read line shows the best fit profile for the data points, which the average M increases by one as the halo mass increases by 2.8×106 M⊙ [PI…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gas mass fraction as a function of M. The distribution follows an approximately log-normal shape for M< 10, with an extended high-M tail reaching values of M∼ 10 − 35. As the halo mass increases, both the peak of the distribution and the extent of the high-M tail shift…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas mass fraction as a function of its number density. A vertical dot-dashed line marks n = 105 cm−3 , commonly considered the critical density for the gravitational collapse of the first star-forming gas. For densities below n ≲ 102 cm−3 , the mass fraction profiles a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Clumpy structures within the central regions of the minihalos. Red contours trace gas clumps that emerge from turbulent flows. While many of these clumps are not yet gravitationally bound, they may become bound over time through continued gas accretion. At the current …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3D gas density structure within 0.1Rvir of Halo K, highlighting two distinct clumps (visible as separate yellow-green nuggets). The detailed substructures within these clumps illustrate the influence of supersonic turbulence in the first star-forming region. Both clum…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Supersonic Turbulence in Primordial Halos: A Comparison With and Without The Stream Velocity

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stream velocity boosts turbulence in primordial halos below roughly one million solar masses and suppresses it above, with the crossover near the filtering mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Formation and Fragmentation of Primordial Molecular Clouds

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, The Formation and Fragmentation of Primordial Molecular Clouds, arXiv:astro-ph/9810215 [astro-ph] —. 2002, Science, 295, 93–98

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Bagla, J. S. 2002, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 23, 185

    2002

  3. [3]

    Bode, P., & Ostriker, J. P. 2003, ApJS, 145, 1

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    Bromm, V . 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    2013

  5. [5]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V ., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 23

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 13

    Chen, K.-J., Bromm, V ., Heger, A., Jeon, M., & Woosley, S. 2015, ApJ, 802, 13

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    2025, Formation of Supersonic Turbulence in the Primordial Star-forming Cloud, arXiv:2505.18964 [astro-ph.GA]

    Chen, K.-J., Ho, M.-Y ., & Tung, P.-C. 2025, Formation of Supersonic Turbulence in the Primordial Star-forming Cloud, arXiv:2505.18964 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Chen, K.-J., Tang, C.-Y ., Whalen, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 91

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 5199

    Chiaki, G., & Yoshida, N. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5199

    2022

  2. [10]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Smith, R. J., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1040

    2011

  3. [11]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Abel, T. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1627–1651

    2008

  4. [12]

    Y ., Semenov, V

    Gnedin, N. Y ., Semenov, V . A., & Kravtsov, A. V . 2018, Journal of Computational Physics, 359, 93

    2018

  5. [13]

    Greif, T. H. 2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 216

    2015

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5374

    He, C.-C., & Ricotti, M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5374

    2023

  7. [15]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 60

    2014

  8. [16]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    2014

  9. [17]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53–110

    2015

  10. [18]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 119

    Hosokawa, T., Hirano, S., Kuiper, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 119

    2016

  11. [19]

    N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K

    Ishigaki, M. N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 46

    2018

  12. [20]

    P., Curtis, S., Storm, N., et al

    Ji, A. P., Curtis, S., Storm, N., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L41

    2024

  13. [21]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, The first stars: formation, properties, and impact,arXiv:2303.12500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1991, Proceedings: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 434, 9 12 HO, CHEN,ANDTUNG

    1991

  15. [23]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  16. [24]

    S., & Federrath, C

    Mathew, S. S., & Federrath, C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2448

    2021

  17. [25]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    2018

  19. [27]

    Norman, M. L. 2008, AIP Conference Proceedings, 990, 3

    2008

  20. [28]

    2001, ApJ, 546, 635

    Omukai, K. 2001, ApJ, 546, 635

    2001

  21. [29]

    2001, ApJL, 561, L55

    Omukai, K., & Palla, F. 2001, ApJL, 561, L55

    2001

  22. [30]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 677 O’Shea, B

    Omukai, K., & Palla, F. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 677 O’Shea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 66

    2003

  23. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    2018

  24. [32]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

    Ramesh, R., & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

    2024

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 684, L16

    Ramesh, R., Nelson, D., Fielding, D., & Brüggen, M. 2024, A&A, 684, L16

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sharda, P., & Menon, S. H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18265

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2011, Introduction to Interstellar Turbulence Skúladóttir, Á., Vanni, I., Salvadori, S., & Lucchesi, R

    Shukurov, A. 2011, Introduction to Interstellar Turbulence Skúladóttir, Á., Vanni, I., Salvadori, S., & Lucchesi, R. 2024, A&A, 681, A44

    2011

  28. [36]

    Norman, M. L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 441

    2009

  29. [37]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217

    2017

  30. [38]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105 —

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105 —. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2005

  31. [39]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    2001

  32. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  33. [41]

    H., & Bromm, V

    Stacy, A., Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V . 2010, MNRAS, 403, 45

    2010

  34. [42]

    2009, From First Light to Reionization: The End of the Dark Ages (WILEY)

    Stiavelli, M. 2009, From First Light to Reionization: The End of the Dark Ages (WILEY)

    2009

  35. [43]

    2024, Clumpy Structures within the Turbulent Primordial Cloud,arXiv:2303.00751 [astro-ph.GA]

    Tang, C.-Y ., & Chen, K.-J. 2024, Clumpy Structures within the Turbulent Primordial Cloud,arXiv:2303.00751 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J., et al

    Tegmark, M., Silk, J., Rees, M. J., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 474, 1–12

    1997

  37. [45]

    K., Klein, R

    Truelove, J. K., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., et al. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 495, 821

    1998

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.16440

    Tung, P.-C., & Chen, K.-J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.16440

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J., Abel, T., & O’Shea, B

    Turk, M. J., Abel, T., & O’Shea, B. 2009, Science, 325, 601

    2009

  40. [48]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9

    2011

  41. [49]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, 427

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, 427

    2005

  42. [50]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291–3308

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291–3308

    2016

  43. [51]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 645–663

    Yoshida, N., Abel, T., Hernquist, L., & Sugiyama, N. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 645–663

    2003

  44. [52]

    H., Ho, K

    Yuen, K. H., Ho, K. W., Law, C. Y ., Chen, A., & Lazarian, A. 2022, Turbulent universal galactic Kolmogorov velocity cascade over 6 decades,arXiv:2204.13760 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.