Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 103 references

HST Observations within the Sphere of Influence of the Powerful Supermassive Black Hole in PKS0745-191

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gas inside PKS 0745-191's giant black-hole feeding zone is chaotic, not rotating, and the motion implies a black hole of roughly 15 billion solar masses.

desk verdict First sub-kpc kinematic map of gas in a powerful feedback BCG; the chaotic flow is solid, but the 1.5e10 Msun black hole mass is a rough virial estimate that should not be over-read. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03339 v1 pith:Y2WTFN6V submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo , Hyunseop Choi , Minghao Guo , Annabelle Richard-Laferrière , Carter Rhea , Marine Prunier , Helen Russell , Andy Fabian
show 13 more authors
Jonelle L. Walsh Marie-Joëlle Gingras Brian McNamara Steve Allen André-Nicolas Chené Alastair Edge Marie-Lou Gendron-Marsolais Michael McDonald Priyamvada Natarajan Jeremy Sanders James F. Steiner Benjamin Vigneron Anja von der Linden
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassiveblackholeAGNfeedbackbrightestclustergalaxyPKS0745-191ionizedgaskinematicssphereofinfluencechaoticcoldaccretionSTISspectroscopy
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 presents Hubble Space Telescope STIS spectroscopy of the brightest cluster galaxy PKS 0745-191, a system whose central supermassive black hole is driving some of the most powerful radio-mode feedback observed, with cavity power $P_{\rm cav}\sim5\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Using three closely-spaced slit positions, the authors produce the first spatially resolved map of ionized-gas kinematics inside the sphere of influence of such a black hole, the region within roughly 800 pc where the black hole's gravity dominates. They find that the gas does not rotate: velocities jump by hundreds of km s$^{-1}$ between neighboring 188-pc pixels, and the velocity dispersion rises sharply toward the nucleus to $\sigma \approx 595$ km s$^{-1}$. Reading that rise with the standard mass estimator $M \approx \sigma^2 R/G$ yields $M_{\rm BH}\sim1.5\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$, which would make PKS 0745-191 one of the most massive black holes known. The authors argue that this chaotic, angular-momentum-poor flow is what allows gas to keep reaching the black hole despite powerful jets, forming a self-regulating feedback loop.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the three-dithered-position STIS long-slit spectroscopy: three 0.1-arcsec-wide (about 188 pc) slits — one centered on the nucleus, two offset by 0.1 arcsec — cover a 0.3-arcsec by 52-arcsec region and deliver spectra of H$\alpha$ and the [N II] and [S II] doublets at about 45 km s$^{-1}$ resolution. The emission lines are fit jointly with common velocity and velocity dispersion, and the resulting two-dimensional kinematic map is converted to a black-hole mass by the virial estimator $M \approx \sigma^2 R/G$, with the slit width taken as the characteristic radius $R$ where the nuclear peak $\sigma \approx 595$ km s$^{-1}$ is measured. A second load-bearing element is the comparison with MHD simulations of chaotic cold accretion from a turbulent galactic-scale cooling medium, which reproduce the observed disordered, non-rotating flows, the rising velocity dispersion toward the black hole, and the flat density structure at the about-95-pc resolution of the observations.

What would settle it

Take a much deeper spectrum of the central arcsecond and test whether the ~1400 km s$^{-1}$ wide line is a single broad Gaussian or several narrower components, and obtain high-resolution stellar kinematics in the same region (for example with JWST/NIRSpec or adaptive-optics integral-field spectroscopy). If two or more distinct velocity components are present, or if the stellar velocity dispersion comes out far below the measured gas dispersion of ~595 km s$^{-1}$, the virial black-hole mass estimate fails. A second test is to map the same nucleus with an integral-field unit at comparable or better spatial resolution: if the apparent chaos resolves into ordered rotation or a bipolar outflow, the claim of chaotic, non-rotating accretion inside the sphere of influence would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ionized gas within the central ~600 pc of PKS 0745-191 — inside the sphere of influence of an ultramassive black hole — is highly chaotic and non-rotational on the scales probed, in contrast to the coherent rotating flows seen in weaker-feedback BCGs such as M84 and M87. The evidence is the kinematic map from three STIS slits: the velocity field shows no organized gradient, adjacent pixels differ by up to $\pm400$ km s$^{-1}$, and the velocity dispersion climbs from a few hundred km s$^{-1}$ at ~570 pc to a peak of $\sigma = 595 \pm 32$ km s$^{-1}$ at the nucleus. The authors interpret this dispersion peak with the virial relation $M\approx \sigma^2 R/G$ at $R=188$ pc (the slit width), obtaining an approximate black-hole mass of $1.5\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$, and they note explicitly that the estimate is preliminary because the chaotic conditions make the virial assumption uncertain. They also find a nearly flat ionized-gas density profile derived from the [S II] line ratio, similar to the flat X-ray gas density profiles around galaxies with resolved Bondi radii, and [N II]/H$\alpha$ ratios above unity indicating AGN- or shock-dominated ionization. The overall picture offered is that within the sphere of influence of a powerful radio-mode feedback system, the hot gas flow decouples from the large-scale medium, loses angular momentum, and may feed the black hole through chaotic accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The black-hole mass estimate rests on interpreting the very wide emission line at the nucleus (about 1400 km s$^{-1}$ wide) as the gravitational pull of a massive black hole on gas within ~190 pc; if that width comes from jet-driven turbulence, an outflow, or many overlapping clouds at different speeds, the derived $1.5\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$ mass would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sphere of influence of an ultramassive black hole undergoing powerful radio-mode feedback has been kinematically resolved, so feeding processes at about 100-pc scales can now be confronted with data rather than inferred from large-scale arguments.
  • The absence of rotation at sub-kpc scales, unlike in M84 and M87, implies that jet powers of $\sim10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ can disrupt ordered nuclear gas disks, a direct constraint on how much angular momentum feedback removes.
  • If the virial mass estimate holds, PKS 0745-191 joins a small group of $\gtrsim10^{10}\,M_\odot$ black holes, and the result supports the prediction that the most massive cool-core clusters host the most massive black holes.
  • The chaotic velocity field with pixel-to-pixel jumps of several hundred km s$^{-1}$ is consistent with chaotic cold accretion models, and it suggests a self-regulating loop in which jet-driven turbulence lowers angular momentum and thereby fuels the same black hole that drives the feedback.
  • The flat ionized-gas density profile parallels the flat X-ray profiles seen around resolved Bondi radii in systems like M84 and NGC 1600, suggesting a common density structure around accreting massive black holes regardless of gas phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if chaotic, non-rotating flows are typical inside the spheres of influence of powerful radio-mode systems, then single-sight-line absorption studies of cold infalling gas against the radio core may systematically miss the full three-dimensional complexity of the inflow; only spatially resolved maps like these can recover it.
  • A direct test the authors do not carry out: measuring the stellar velocity dispersion within the same roughly 200-pc region with JWST or adaptive-optics integral-field spectroscopy. If the stars show $\sigma \lesssim 300$ km s$^{-1}$ while the gas shows about 595 km s$^{-1}$, the gas is not tracing the gravitational potential and the black-hole mass estimate would need to be abandoned.
  • The absence of CO emission in the core, combined with the flat ionized-gas density, hints that the ionized gas is the inner extension of the cooling flow rather than a separate phase; future far-infrared or molecular-line mapping could test whether a hidden cooling flow terminates at these radii.
  • If the chaotic flow does represent a genuinely low-spin accretion state, the coexistence of a powerful jet hints either that spin is not the sole determinant of jet power or that the jet's energy is stored and released episodically; space-based very-long-baseline interferometry of the jet-launching region could discriminate between these.
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. The paper presents HST/STIS long-slit spectroscopy of the brightest cluster galaxy PKS 0745-191, mapping ionized gas kinematics and densities in the central ~0.3 arcsec (~570 pc). The authors find that the emission-line flux peaks at the AGN, the velocity field is chaotic and non-rotational on sub-kpc scales, velocity jumps between adjacent pixels reach hundreds of km/s, and the velocity dispersion rises sharply to ~595 km/s at the nucleus. From a virial estimate they derive MBH ~ 1.5e10 Msun and argue that the black hole's sphere of influence is resolved. The paper also compares the flat ionized-gas density profile with X-ray profiles in Bondi-radius-resolved systems, interprets the [N II]/Halpha ratios as AGN-dominated ionization, and compares the kinematics with MHD simulations of chaotic cold accretion. The central claim is that this is the first resolved map of gas dynamics inside the sphere of influence of an ultramassive black hole undergoing powerful radio-mode feedback.

Significance. If the SMBH mass estimate were robust, this would be a landmark observation: resolved sub-kpc kinematics inside the sphere of influence of an ultramassive black hole in a strong cool-core cluster, contrasting with the rotating nuclear disks seen in weaker-feedback BCGs. The paper has genuine strengths: the STIS reduction, the MCMC spectral fitting with convergence checks, the explicit alternative-model tests, and the availability of public data and analysis code all support the basic kinematic measurements. The chaotic, non-rotational gas flow with large pixel-to-pixel velocity shifts that exceed the quoted uncertainties is well supported and is itself an important result. However, the quantitative black-hole mass, the resolved-sphere-of-influence claim, the Bondi radius, and the simulation comparison are not independent of a single uncalibrated virial estimate, and that estimate contains an internal inconsistency that affects the headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] There is a numerical inconsistency in the sphere-of-influence calculation. The authors define MBH ~ sigma^2 R/G with sigma = 595 km/s and R = 0.1 arcsec = 188 pc. Using these same values, the definition r_inf = G MBH / sigma^2 gives r_inf = R = 188 pc = 0.1 arcsec, not the quoted r_inf ~ 0.4 arcsec (800 pc). The quoted 800 pc must be using a different, presumably stellar, sigma ~ 300 km/s. This matters because the abstract and conclusions claim that the sphere of influence is resolved and 'covers roughly a dozen STIS pixels'; at 188 pc the STIS slit width is comparable to r_inf, and the sphere of influence is only marginally resolved, if at all. The authors should recompute r_inf consistently and discuss how the resolved-SOI claim changes.
  2. [§5.1] The virial mass estimate MBH ~ sigma^2 R / G neglects the stellar mass within the slit and assumes virialization in a flow that the authors themselves describe as chaotic and possibly not virialized ('it remains unclear whether the virial theorem provides a reliable mass estimate in this context'). The BCG has a stellar velocity dispersion of roughly 300 km/s (Gingras et al. 2024), implying a stellar enclosed mass within 188 pc of order several x 10^9 Msun, which is not negligible relative to 1.5e10 Msun. The estimate also uses no projection factor or dimensionless virial coefficient. The paper should provide a systematic uncertainty budget that includes a range of virial coefficients, an estimate of the stellar contribution from the F814W surface brightness profile, and a test of non-gravitational broadening mechanisms (turbulence, outflows, unresolved multiple components), for example using line-profile asymmetry or the weaker two-component fits already mentioned in §3. Without such a budget, the abstract's statement that the kinematics are 'consistent with a very massive MBH ~ 1.5e10 Msun SMBH' is too strong.
  3. [§5.3, §5.6, Eq. (1)] The Bondi radius, the sphere of influence, and the MHD simulation comparison all use the same MBH derived in §5.1, so they cannot provide independent corroboration. Specifically, Eq. (1) is evaluated with MBH = 1.5e10 Msun from this paper, and §5.6 states that the simulations 'use a larger black hole mass of 1.5e10 Msun, based on the rough estimate in this work', before being compared with the observed density and kinematics. This is circular for the purpose of supporting the mass estimate. The authors should either adopt an independent MBH range from the literature or clearly label these comparisons as predictions contingent on the assumed mass.
  4. [Abstract and §5.1] The phrase 'within the sphere of influence' is used as an established fact throughout the paper, but the sphere of influence depends on the uncertain MBH estimate. Given the issues above, the abstract and conclusions overstate the certainty of the measurement. A measured, resolved sphere of influence would normally require a dynamical model in which the BH mass and the enclosed stellar mass are fitted simultaneously to the kinematic data, rather than a single virial estimate. The paper should reframe the central claim as evidence for chaotic sub-kpc kinematics and a velocity-dispersion peak that is plausibly associated with a very massive BH, with the mass estimate presented as preliminary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.7] There is a typo: 'expsoure' should be 'exposure'; also, 'spexels' in Fig. 8 and the surrounding text should be 'spaxels'.
  2. [§4.2] The choice of systemic redshift is important for the 'highly redshifted' interpretation; the paper notes that adopting z = 0.1028 would lower velocities by ~120 km/s. This caveat should be stated at the first use of the velocity scale and repeated in the conclusions, since the absolute velocity offsets are a central part of the kinematics discussion.
  3. [Fig. 4] The overplotted 'sphere of influence for a 1.5e10 Msun SMBH' is based on this paper's own virial estimate; the figure should label this as an assumed value and, ideally, show a range corresponding to the uncertainty in MBH.
  4. [§3 and Table 1] No dust-extinction correction is described for the emission-line fluxes and ratios; if none is applied, the authors should state so explicitly, as line ratios such as [N II]/Halpha and [S II] are sensitive to reddening.
  5. [§5.2] The sentence about Bustamante & Springel (2019) says 'This allows the author to trace' but should be plural; the repeated citation of McNamara et al. (2009a, 2009b) should also be consolidated in the reference list.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The chaotic kinematic maps are independent, but the sphere-of-influence, Bondi-radius, and MHD-simulation comparisons all reuse the same virial M_BH estimate and therefore do not independently corroborate the black-hole mass.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (black hole mass estimate and sphere of influence)]
    "The sphere of influence for a SMBH is given by rinf = GMBH/σ2. For an SMBH mass of ∼ 1.5 × 1010M⊙, the sphere of influence is estimated to be rinf ∼ 0.4′′ (or 800 pc) for our target. This suggests that the sphere of influence is resolved and covers roughly a dozen STIS pixels."

    By construction, M_BH is obtained from σ²R/G with R equal to the slit width. Substituting this expression into r_inf = G M_BH/σ² yields r_inf = R whenever the same σ is used, so the claim that the sphere of influence is resolved reduces to the chosen slit width rather than being an independent detection. The quoted 800 pc silently requires using a different, smaller σ than the 595 km/s used for M_BH. The sphere-of-influence framing therefore inherits, rather than tests, the virial mass estimate.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, Eq. (1) (Bondi radius)]
    "To obtain a rough estimate of the Bondi radius, we used the innermost bin of the temperature profile from Sanders et al. (2014), where kBT ∼ 2.5 keV within the inner 10 kpc. Additionally, we adopted the SMBH mass determined in Section 5.1 as 1.5 × 1010M⊙. This yields a Bondi radius of approximately rB ∼ 180 pc"

    The Bondi radius is not measured from the X-ray data; it is computed from Eq. (1) using the M_BH value derived in Section 5.1 from the central velocity dispersion. The subsequent interpretive statement that the flat STIS density profile 'parallel[s]' profiles in systems with resolved Bondi radii is thus not an independent confirmation of the mass. It is a propagation of the same preliminary virial estimate into a new length scale.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.6 (comparison with MHD simulations)]
    "The simulations deployed here are similar to those of Guo et al. (2024), but use a larger black hole mass of 1.5×10^10 M⊙, based on the rough estimate in this work. ... These results suggest that cooling flows from large-scale hot gas, combined with magnetic fields and large-scale turbulence, can spontaneously generate small-scale chaotic cold flows and density structures similar to those seen in observations."

    The simulation is initialized with the paper's own virial M_BH value (1.5 × 10^10 M⊙) and then compared to the same STIS observations as if it were a forward prediction. Because the adopted mass is an input, agreement in normalization or inflow structure cannot independently confirm that mass; it only demonstrates that chaotic flows develop for that assumed value. The qualitative morphological similarity may be generic, but the quantitative comparison is partly circular by construction.

full rationale

The STIS spectral fitting and the resulting velocity and velocity-dispersion maps (Table 1, Figs. 9–10) are self-contained observational products; the conclusion that the ionized gas is chaotic and non-rotational does not depend on the black-hole mass. The virial estimate M_BH ~ σ²R/G in Section 5.1 is presented by the authors as approximate and uncertain, and they explicitly caution that 'it remains unclear whether the virial theorem provides a reliable mass estimate in this context.' The circularity is therefore not in the mass estimate itself but in the subsequent use of that single fitted number: the sphere of influence r_inf, the Bondi radius r_B, and the MHD simulations in Section 5.6 all adopt M_BH = 1.5 × 10^10 M⊙ and are then used to frame or corroborate the observations. These steps reduce by construction to the same input and do not provide independent support. The paper also cites the authors' own 2012 fundamental-plane prediction as corroboration, but that is auxiliary and externally falsifiable, so it does not by itself drive the score. Since the primary kinematic result stands on its own, the overall circularity is moderate and partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard cosmology, a systemic redshift from prior stellar-population modeling, and the assumption that a single Gaussian component describes the ionized gas kinematics. The black-hole mass estimate additionally assumes the virial theorem with an implicit coefficient of unity, which is flagged as uncertain in Section 5.1. The sphere of influence and Bondi radius are computed using this same mass estimate, creating a mild circular element, and the MHD simulations adopt the same mass before being compared with the data.

free parameters (3)
  • Virial coefficient k in MBH = k * sigma^2 * R / G = k = 1 (implicit)
    Section 5.1 uses M = sigma^2 R/G with R = 188 pc (the slit width) and sigma ~ 595 km/s, yielding 1.5e10 Msun; no uncertainty or virial coefficient is discussed, so the mass could change by a factor of a few.
  • Simulation black hole mass = 1.5e10 Msun
    Section 5.6 states the simulations use a larger black hole mass of 1.5e10 Msun based on the rough estimate in this work, so the agreement is not an independent test of the mass.
  • Mass cooling rate in hidden cooling flow model = 332(+88,-80) Msun/yr
    Section 5.7 fits archival XMM-Newton RGS data with an intrinsic absorption model; this is an auxiliary result, not needed for the main kinematic claims.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.3, and Omega_Lambda = 0.7
    Stated in the introduction; used to convert 1 arcsec to 1.884 kpc and to derive physical scales.
  • domain assumption Systemic redshift of PKS 0745-191 is z = 0.102428, from stellar population modeling by Gingras et al. (2024)
    Sections 2 and 4.2 use this as the zero point for all gas velocities; using z = 0.1028 would shift velocities by about 120 km/s.
  • domain assumption The [N II], H-alpha, and [S II] lines trace the same 10^4 K gas and share the same bulk velocity and velocity dispersion
    Section 3 ties the kinematics across lines in the Gaussian fit; tests allowing separate kinematics did not significantly improve the fit.
  • ad hoc to paper Virial theorem applies to the chaotic ionized gas, so MBH ~ sigma^2 R/G
    Section 5.1 explicitly states this is uncertain given the chaotic conditions and that it remains unclear whether the virial theorem provides a reliable mass estimate.
  • domain assumption [S II] doublet ratio maps uniquely to gas density at T = 10^4 K under photoionization equilibrium
    Section 4.3 uses Cloudy models at T = 10^4 K to convert the 6716/6731 ratio to density; changes in temperature or ionization would alter the derived density.
  • ad hoc to paper Bondi radius estimate uses kT ~ 2.5 keV from Sanders et al. (2014) and MBH = 1.5e10 Msun from this paper
    Section 5.3 computes r_B ~ 180 pc using the paper's own mass estimate, making the claim that the Bondi radius is unresolved at X-ray wavelengths partly dependent on that estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HST Observations within the Sphere of Influence of the Powerful Supermassive Black Hole in PKS0745-191." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2WTFN6V

@misc{pith2026250103339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HST Observations within the Sphere of Influence of the Powerful Supermassive Black Hole in PKS0745-191},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2WTFN6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03339}
}
abstract

We present Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph observations from the Hubble Space Telescope of the supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the center of PKS0745-191, a brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) undergoing powerful radio-mode AGN feedback ($P_{\rm cav}\sim5\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$). These high-resolution data offer the first spatially resolved map of gas dynamics within a SMBHs sphere of influence under such powerful feedback. Our results reveal the presence of highly chaotic, non-rotational ionized gas flows on sub-kpc scales, in contrast to the more coherent flows observed on larger scales. While radio-mode feedback effectively thermalizes hot gas in galaxy clusters on kiloparsec scales, within the core, the hot gas flow may decouple, leading to a reduction in angular momentum and supplying ionized gas through cooling, which could enhance accretion onto the SMBH. This process could, in turn, lead to a self-regulating feedback loop. Compared to other BCGs with weaker radio-mode feedback, where rotation is more stable, intense feedback may lead to more chaotic flows, indicating a stronger coupling between jet activity and gas dynamics. Additionally, we observe a sharp increase in velocity dispersion near the nucleus, consistent with a very massive $M_{\rm BH}\sim1.5\times10^{10} M_\odot$ SMBH. The density profile of the ionized gas is also notably flat, paralleling the profiles observed in X-ray gas around galaxies where the Bondi radius is resolved. These results provide valuable insights into the complex mechanisms driving galaxy evolution, highlighting the intricate relationship between SMBH fueling and AGN feedback within the host galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image of the central 150 kpc × 150 kpc region in the massive cluster of galaxies PKS 0745-191 (same field of view in all panels). North is up and East is left. Left: HST F850LP image, with location of the central AGN in the BCG highlighted. The red box illustrates the region shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 2D continuum subtracted images extracted from STIS G750M long-slit observations at three slit positions centered around PKS 0745-191. The locations of the slit are reported in the panels, each offset by 0.1′′from the central Position 1. The line complexes seen are from [N ii]λ6548, [N ii]λ6584, Hαλ6563, [S ii]λ6716 and [S ii]λ6731 emission. tion 4, we show the results, and in Section 5, we discuss their implicat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HST images of the BCG in PKS 0745-191. Left: WFPC2 F814W filter tracing the older stellar population, including prominent dust lanes. Middle-left: ACS FR716N narrow-band image that spans the wavelength range covering the Hα/[N II] emission lines. Contours start at 3σ and increase by factors of two. We highlight the location of the X-ray cavities as seen on the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Zoom-in onto the BCG in PKS 0745-191 in a 4′′by 4 ′′box. Left: ALMA CO(3-2) flux map showing a lack of emission in the central region. Right: ACS FR716N narrow-band image that covers Hα/[N II] emission lines. We highlight the location of the three STIS slits, each with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fitting models for the continuum-subtracted spectra extracted from the pixels with emission line detection at three slit locations (Positions 2, 1, and 3 from the leftmost column). The full model that contains Hα, [N II], and [S II] emission lines are plotted in r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The corner plot showing the posterior distribu￾tions of the fit parameters used in the spectral model for the centre slit (Position 1) central pixel spectrum. We report the median values and 68% (1σ) confidence intervals for uncer￾tainties, unless noted otherwise. A fa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The flux measured from Hαλ6563, [N ii]λ6584, [S ii]λ6716, and [S ii]λ6731 emission lines as a function of location along the three slit positions. The vertical error bars represent the 1σ measurement uncertainties, and the widths of the pixels from which the spectra we…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two-dimensional flux maps for the emission lines detected in HST/STIS observation of PKS 0745-191. The highest emission line fluxes are observed at the central spex￾els and generally decrease away from the center. The N-E coordinate directions are represented in the fi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The velocity and velocity dispersion measured from the emission lines as a function of pixel location along the three slit positions. We note that our spectral model required the kinematic parameters for all the detected emission lines to be the same. The highest veloc…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: [N II]λ6584/Hα emission line intensity ratio as a function of location along the three slit positions. The ratio remains above unity across the pixels, which indicates that the ISM responsible for producing the observed emission lines is illuminated with hard SED, lik…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: [S II]λλ6716, 6731 doublet line ratio and the corresponding ISM density as a function of location along the three slit positions. The line ratios and corresponding densities show near-flat distributions within the errors with a slight enhancement in density towards po…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-dimensional maps of [N II]λ6584/Hα and [S II]λλ6716, 6731 doublet line ratios, and ISM density esti￾mated from the [S II] line ratios. We find a modest indication for higher [N II]/Hα ratios along the north-south direction across the central BCG and for density in…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of velocity shifts between neighboring STIS pixels as a function of velocity. The chaotic nature of ionized gas kinematics is highlighted with velocity shifts reaching up to ±400 km s−1 between adjacent pixels. Position 1, which encompasses the nucleus, s…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Density estimated from the ratio of the [S ii] emission lines (black) for the ionized gas along the slit Po￾sition 1, as well as from the ICM electrons from projected Chandra X-ray observations (red). The northeast offset (ra￾dius) for STIS observations is plotted by …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Velocity along the line of sight (top), and ve￾locity dispersion (bottom) measured from MHD simulations with full resolution (left) and coarse-grained resolution sim￾ilar to the observations (right). The turbulent structure of the accretion flow is illustrated. The si…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The mass cooling rate (Mdot) and intrinsic col￾umn density (NH), expressed in units of 1022 cm−2 , were derived from a Hidden Cooling Flow model fit to the XMM RGS spectrum of PKS 0745-191. This analysis reveals that the XMM RGS data support the presence of substantia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, doi: 10.1086/589652

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  2. [2]

    J., & Natarajan, P

    Armitage, P. J., & Natarajan, P. 2002, ApJL, 567, L9, doi: 10.1086/339770

    doi:10.1086/339770 2002

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, M., Pointecouteau, E., & Pratt, G. W. 2005, A&A, 441, 893, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052856

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052856 2005

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f5c

    Bae, H.-J., Woo, J.-H., Karouzos, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f5c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f5c 2017

  5. [5]

    K., Maeda, Y., Morris, M., et al

    Baganoff, F. K., Maeda, Y., Morris, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891, doi: 10.1086/375145

    doi:10.1086/375145 2003

  6. [6]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  7. [7]

    J., Russell, H

    Bambic, C. J., Russell, H. R., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad824

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad824 2023

  8. [8]

    A., & O ’Dea, C

    Baum, S. A., & O ’Dea, C. P. 1991, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 250, 737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/250.4.737

    doi:10.1093/mnras/250.4.737 1991

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Cioffi, D

    Begelman, M. C., & Cioffi, D. F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L21, doi: 10.1086/185542

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 822, doi: 10.1086/590379

    Berti, E., & Volonteri, M. 2008, ApJ, 684, 822, doi: 10.1086/590379

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    1952 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2836

    Bustamante, S., & Springel, V. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2836

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Russell, H

    Calzadilla, M. S., Russell, H. R., McDonald, M. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f6

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Narayan, R., et al

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Narayan, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13887

    Natarajan, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13887

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 Dalla Bont` a, E., Ferrarese, L., Corsini, E

    Cui, Y., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 Dalla Bont` a, E., Ferrarese, L., Corsini, E. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 537, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/537

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Lim, J., Forman, W., et al

    David, L. P., Lim, J., Forman, W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/94

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    Donahue, M., Mack, J., Voit, G. M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 670, doi: 10.1086/317836

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Wilman, R

    Edge, A. C., Wilman, R. J., Johnstone, R. M., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 49, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05790.x

    2002

  13. [21]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Ferland, G

    Fabian, A. C., Ferland, G. J., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2003

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 521, 1794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad507 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 524, 716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1870 —. 2023c, MNRAS, 524, 716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1870

    doi

  16. [25]

    C., Arnaud, K

    Fabian, A. C., Arnaud, K. A., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 1985, MNRAS, 216, 923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/216.4.923

    1985 doi

  17. [27]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  18. [28]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freeman, P., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh, 76–87, doi: 10.1117/12.447161

    2001 doi

  20. [30]

    C., Riffel, R

    Freitas, I. C., Riffel, R. A., Storchi-Bergmann, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty303

    2018 doi

  21. [31]

    S., et al., & et al

    Fruchter, A. S., et al., & et al. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibration Workshop, 382–387 Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Usero, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423843

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt692

    2013 doi

  23. [33]

    L., et al

    Gaspari, M., McDonald, M., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa1b

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  25. [35]

    L., McNamara, B

    Gingras, M.-J., Coil, A. L., McNamara, B. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02212, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02212

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [36]

    2011, Post-SM4 ACS/WFC Bias Striping: Characterization and Mitigation, Instrument Science Report ACS 2011-05, 25 pages HST Observations of PKS 0745-191 23

    Loose, M. 2011, Post-SM4 ACS/WFC Bias Striping: Characterization and Mitigation, Instrument Science Report ACS 2011-05, 25 pages HST Observations of PKS 0745-191 23

    2011

  27. [37]

    M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81e

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    L., Edge, A

    Hamer, S. L., Edge, A. C., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1054

    2016 doi

  30. [41]

    Heckman, T. M. 1980, A&A, 87, 152

    1980

  31. [42]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 21, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010021

    2023 doi

  32. [43]

    K., & Mushotzky, R

    Hicks, A. K., & Mushotzky, R. 2005, ApJL, 635, L9, doi: 10.1086/499123

    2005 doi

  33. [44]

    C., Edge, A

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt283

    2013 doi

  34. [46]

    T., Edge, A

    Hogan, M. T., Edge, A. C., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, 1201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1517

    doi

  35. [47]

    T., Edge, A

    Hogan, M. T., Edge, A. C., Geach, J. E., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 1223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1518

    doi

  36. [49]

    W., Murdoch, H

    Hunstead, R. W., Murdoch, H. S., & Shobbrook, R. R. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/185.1.149

    1978 doi

  37. [50]

    D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1...

    2024 doi

  38. [51]

    M., Fabian, A

    Johnstone, R. M., Fabian, A. C., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/224.1.75

    1987 doi

  39. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01877

    Jacquemin-Ide, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01877

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [53]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    2006

  41. [54]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  42. [55]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  43. [56]

    R., Faber, S

    Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Richstone, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 808, doi: 10.1086/518223

    2007 doi

  44. [57]

    G., Marscher, A

    Lico, R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 17, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010017

    2023 doi

  45. [58]

    Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A

    2009

  46. [59]

    Durand, & P

    Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler, 251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0902.2850

    doi arXiv

  47. [60]

    J., Ma, C.-P., Murphy, J

    McConnell, N. J., Ma, C.-P., Murphy, J. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/179

    2012 doi

  48. [61]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  49. [62]

    R., Kazemzadeh, F., Rafferty, D

    McNamara, B. R., Kazemzadeh, F., Rafferty, D. A., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 698, 594, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/594 —. 2009b, ApJ, 698, 594, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/594

    doi

  50. [63]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  51. [64]

    R., & O’Connell, R

    McNamara, B. R., & O’Connell, R. W. 1989, AJ, 98, 2018, doi: 10.1086/115275

    1989 doi

  52. [65]

    R., Rohanizadegan, M., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Rohanizadegan, M., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2011, ApJ, 727, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/39

    2011 doi

  53. [66]

    R., Russell, H

    McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/79

    2016 doi

  54. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5856

    Mehrgan, K., Thomas, J., Saglia, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5856

    2019 doi

  55. [68]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    2003

  56. [69]

    T., & Combes, F

    Mittal, R., Whelan, J. T., & Combes, F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv754

    2015 doi

  57. [70]

    Narayan, R., & Fabian, A. C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18987.x

    2011

  58. [71]

    T., Gualandris, A., Read, J

    Nasim, I. T., Gualandris, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab435

    2021 doi

  59. [72]

    2009, MNRAS, 393, 838, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13864.x

    Natarajan, P., & Treister, E. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 838, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13864.x

    2009

  60. [73]

    W., Smith, R

    Nightingale, J. W., Smith, R. J., He, Q., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad587

    2023 doi

  61. [74]

    2019, A&A, 631, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935350

    Olivares, V., Salome, P., Combes, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935350

    2019 doi

  62. [75]

    2023, A&A, 679, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346549

    Osorno, J., Nagar, N., Richtler, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346549

    2023 doi

  63. [76]

    2005, ApJ, 632, 821, doi: 10.1086/444344

    Pizzolato, F., & Soker, N. 2005, ApJ, 632, 821, doi: 10.1086/444344

    2005 doi

  64. [77]

    A., Nixon, C

    Pounds, K. A., Nixon, C. J., Lobban, A., & King, A. R. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2359

    2018 doi

  65. [78]

    Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216, doi: 10.1086/507672

    2006 doi

  66. [79]

    M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1146 24 Hlavacek-Larrondo et al

    2018 doi

  67. [80]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9532

    2020 doi

  68. [81]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab107

    2018 doi

  69. [82]

    M., Rafelski, M., et al

    Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., Rafelski, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f3d

    2022 doi

  70. [83]

    L., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., & Prasow- ´Emond, M

    Rhea, C. L., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., & Prasow- ´Emond, M. 2020, X-tra Astronomy Tools, v1.1, OSF, doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VWCKS

    2020 doi

  71. [84]

    Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., Narayan, R., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07477, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07477

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [85]

    C., Combes, F., et al

    Rose, T., Edge, A. C., Combes, F., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 485, 229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz406 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 489, 349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2138

    doi

  73. [86]

    Runge, J., & Walker, S. A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab444

    2021 doi

  74. [87]

    P., Thomas, J., Saglia, R

    Rusli, S. P., Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/3/45

    2013 doi

  75. [88]

    Broderick, A. E. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv954

    2015 doi

  76. [89]

    R., Fabian, A

    Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., McNamara, B. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty835

    2018 doi

  77. [90]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt490

    2013 doi

  78. [91]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw409

    2016 doi

  79. [92]

    2024, A&A, 685, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348925 Salom´ e, P., & Combes, F

    Sala, L., Valentini, M., Biffi, V., & Dolag, K. 2024, A&A, 685, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348925 Salom´ e, P., & Combes, F. 2003, A&A, 412, 657, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031438 S´ anchez Almeida, J., Terlevich, R., Terlevich, E., Cid

    2024 doi

  80. [93]

    Fernandes, R., & Morales-Luis, A. B. 2012, ApJ, 756, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/163

    2012 doi

  81. [94]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1543

    2014 doi

  82. [95]

    2013, A&A, 558, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322062

    Singh, R., van de Ven, G., Jahnke, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322062

    2013 doi

  83. [96]

    A., Gavrilovi´ c, N., Moiseev, A

    Smirnova, A. A., Gavrilovi´ c, N., Moiseev, A. V., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 480, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11635.x

    2007

  84. [98]

    D., McNamara, B

    Tamhane, P. D., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2168

    2022 doi

  85. [99]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50 The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02986, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02986

    2010 doi arXiv

  86. [100]

    J., et al

    Thomas, J., Ma, C.-P., McConnell, N. J., et al. 2016, Nature, 532, 340, doi: 10.1038/nature17197

    2016 doi

  87. [101]

    R., O’Dea, C

    Tremblay, G. R., O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1151

    2015 doi

  88. [102]

    R., Oonk, J

    Tremblay, G. R., Oonk, J. B. R., Combes, F., et al. 2016, Nature, 534, 218, doi: 10.1038/nature17969 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420, doi: 10.1086/323894

    2016 doi

  89. [103]

    M., Donahue, M., Bryan, G

    Voit, G. M., Donahue, M., Bryan, G. L., & McDonald, M. 2015, Nature, 519, 203, doi: 10.1038/nature14167

    2015 doi

  90. [104]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., & George, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1826, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21282.x

    2012

  91. [105]

    L., Barth, A

    Walsh, J. L., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Sarzi, M. 2013, ApJ, 770, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/86

    2013 doi

  92. [106]

    L., Barth, A

    Walsh, J. L., Barth, A. J., & Sarzi, M. 2010, ApJ, 721, 762, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/762

    2010 doi

  93. [107]

    J., Edge, A

    Wilman, R. J., Edge, A. C., & Swinbank, A. M. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1355, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14674.x

    2009

  94. [108]

    A., Shcherbakov, R

    Wong, K.-W., Irwin, J. A., Shcherbakov, R. V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/9

    2014 doi

  95. [109]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace892

    Xu, W. 2023, ApJ, 954, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace892

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.