Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Modeling Cosmic Ray Electron Spectra and Synchrotron Emission in the Multiphase ISM

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic-ray electrons steepen as they cross multiphase galactic gas, and radio observations recover that steepening.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new spectrally-resolved CRE transport model with self-consistent scattering; the unquantified independent-bin approximation is the main soft spot, but it likely does not overturn the central claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00142 v1 pith:IVETD4MW submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Nora B. Linzer , Lucia Armillotta , Eve C. Ostriker , Eliot Quataert This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic-rayelectronssynchrotronemissionmultiphaseinterstellarmediumtransportself-confinementAlfvénwavedampingradiospectralindexsteepening
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 argues that the 1-100 GeV cosmic-ray electron spectrum is shaped as much by how electrons travel through the multiphase interstellar medium as by where they are born. It models a kpc-scale patch of the solar neighborhood with a two-moment transport scheme in which electrons and protons scatter off Alfvén waves they themselves drive, and includes ionization, bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, and inverse-Compton losses. Starting from an injected slope of -2.3, the evolved spectrum steepens to an energy-dependent slope between -2.7 and -3.3, matching direct local measurements after a normalization adjustment and agreeing with empirically fitted models. The paper also uses the simulated electrons to generate synthetic synchrotron maps, and shows that the underlying electron slope can be recovered from pairs of radio observations at 1.5-45 GHz. If correct, this ties local direct detection of cosmic-ray electrons to the radio-based probes used for other galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a spectrally resolved, two-moment cosmic-ray transport scheme in which the diffusion coefficient is not prescribed but computed from the local balance between wave growth and wave damping. Electrons and protons occupy five shared momentum bins between about 2 and 101 GeV/c, chosen so that both species resonate with the same Alfvén waves. The scattering rate is set by equating the streaming-instability growth of Alfvén waves with nonlinear Landau damping in hot ionized gas and ion-neutral collisional damping in cold neutral gas. Losses from ionization, bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, and inverse Compton are applied within each bin, and a comparison of loss, transport, and diffusion timescales locates where the spectral steepening develops.

What would settle it

Run the same transport problem with a conservative scheme that tracks electrons cooling from higher-energy bins into lower-energy bins, and check whether the predicted 2-5 GeV slope and the 1.5-10 GHz synchrotron spectral index stay within the ranges claimed here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the self-confinement picture of cosmic-ray transport, the steady-state cosmic-ray electron spectrum in the solar-neighborhood interstellar medium is set by the competition between energy-dependent transport and energy-dependent losses, and that the resulting steepening does not depend on the assumed injection spectrum. Concretely, the evolved spectrum steepens from the injected slope -2.3 to between -2.7 and -3.3 over 2-100 GeV, reproduces direct observations after a factor-of-two normalization correction, and matches empirical fits from other studies. The paper further claims that the slope recovered from pairs of synchrotron frequencies in mock observations matches the slope that would be measured directly, even when the magnetic field used to convert frequency to electron energy is estimated through the equipartition assumption. This makes radio spectral indices a faithful tracer of the electron population near the disk midplane.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats each momentum slice of the electron population as if it never exchanges particles with neighboring slices, so electrons that lose energy are removed from one bin without being added to the next.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The evolved midplane electron spectrum, once renormalized by a factor of two, matches direct satellite measurements in the four highest momentum bins; the lowest bin's excess is attributable to solar modulation.
  • The steepening is independent of the injected spectral slope between -2.2 and -2.4, implying that the observed slope picks out an injection slope near -2.3 once transport and losses are accounted for.
  • Multi-frequency radio observations at 1.5-45 GHz recover the underlying electron spectral slope to within the simulation's scatter, even when the magnetic field is estimated by the equipartition assumption.
  • The spatial patchiness of synchrotron maps is set by magnetic field structure, whereas the frequency dependence is set by the electron spectrum, so the two observables are complementary probes.
  • Energy-dependent diffusion alone would steepen the spectrum even without losses; losses become comparable to transport for the highest-energy bins near the midplane.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if down-scattered electrons repopulate the lowest bins, the low-energy spectrum could be slightly shallower than quoted; the paper's steep-spectrum argument suggests the effect is small, but a conservation check would settle it.
  • Editorial extension: in regions where scattering is dominated by extrinsic turbulence rather than self-excited waves, the diffusion coefficient is flatter in energy, so the predicted steepening would shift; the radio-recovery test could be rerun under that transport model.
  • Editorial extension: the face-on, midplane geometry is a favorable case for slope recovery; edge-on sightlines add vertical spectral gradients and thermal free-free emission, so extending the mock-observation test to those geometries would stress the method.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Armillotta et al. (2021) two-moment cosmic-ray (CR) transport scheme to spectrally resolved CR protons and electrons in a TIGRESS simulation of a solar-neighborhood galactic disk patch. Five proton and five electron momentum bins between 2 and 101 GeV/c are evolved independently, with a scattering coefficient computed from the balance between streaming-instability wave growth and ion-neutral/nonlinear-Landau damping, and with ionization, bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, and inverse-Compton losses. The main results are that the 1-100 GeV electron spectrum steepens from an injected slope s = -2.3 to an energy-dependent slope between -2.7 and -3.3; that this steepening is approximately independent of the injection slope; and that mock multi-frequency radio observations at 1.5-45 GHz recover the underlying CRE slope. The paper also presents vertical profiles, loss timescales, and synthetic synchrotron maps.

Significance. The paper is a technically ambitious and mostly clearly presented extension of CR post-processing to spectrally resolved electrons in a realistic multiphase ISM. Its strengths include the explicit treatment of four loss processes, the comparison of loss, transport, and diffusion timescales in Section 3.3, the explicit test of injection-slope robustness in Figure 9, and the production of synthetic synchrotron observations at 8 pc resolution. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the result that self-confinement transport plus losses yields the observed steepening would be an important step beyond constant-diffusion models. However, the central spectral predictions currently rest on an unquantified no-cooling-cascade approximation and on a post-hoc normalization and injection-slope calibration, so the significance is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2 and 2.7, Eq. (31)] The independent-momentum-bin approximation is load-bearing for the claimed spectral slopes, but it is asserted rather than quantified. Equation (31) removes energy from each bin without depositing it into lower bins, and the text states that the transferred population is 'not significant' because the injected spectrum is steep. This should be checked with the cooling flux b(E)f(E) crossing bin boundaries. Within your own Figure 6, the loss timescale at 36 and 101 GeV is a few Myr, comparable to the transport time, so a sizable fraction of high-energy electrons do cool. For a spectrum with je ~ E^{-s}, s ~ 3, and b ~ E^2, the cooling flux is ~ E^{-1}, and an order-of-magnitude estimate near 2 GeV gives a down-scattered contribution that is not obviously negligible relative to direct injection unless escape is very fast. If this contribution is non-negligible, the low-energy slopes in Figures 7-9 and the radio-recovery slopes in Figure 11 would flatten. Please provide a quantitative conservation check (for example, compare the bin-boundary cooling flux to the injection rate into each bin, or implement the conservative coupling of Girichidis et al. 2020), and if the effect is non-negligible, revise the affected claims.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 7] The comparison to AMS-02 uses a post-hoc normalization: the Figure 7 caption states that the simulated spectra are reduced by a factor of two to match the observed values, and Section 3.4 then interprets this as an SFR or injection-efficiency offset. In addition, the fiducial injection slope s_inj = -2.3 is selected in part to match the observed spectrum ('we conclude that an injection slope of s = -2.3 is needed for a good match'). These choices do not invalidate the shape comparison, but they weaken the abstract's claim that 'evolved CRE spectra are consistent with direct observations.' Please state explicitly which aspects are predicted (the energy-dependent Δs) and which are calibrated (absolute normalization and injection slope), and provide a two-parameter fit perspective or an independent calibration of the electron-to-proton injection efficiency.
  3. [Sec. 3.5, Fig. 11] The claim that 'the CRE spectral slope can be accurately recovered from pairs of radio observations' is stronger than what the test demonstrates. The mock observations are generated from the same simulated electron spectra whose slope is the target of the recovery, so Figure 11 is a self-consistency check, not a validation of the method against independent data. In addition, the synthetic observations neglect free-free emission (noted in Section 3.5) and rely on the equipartition assumption to estimate B_perp (Eq. 49); errors in B_perp propagate into the energy assignment via Eq. (48) and hence into the recovered slope. Please soften the wording to 'the standard estimator works within this model' or add a test in which the magnetic field or electron spectrum is perturbed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The five momentum bins (centers 2, 5, 13, 36, and 101 GeV/c) provide only four independent estimates of the local slope in Figures 8 and 9; the 'energy-dependent' shape is therefore coarse, and the reader should be told how the broken-power-law interpolation in Section 2.8 affects the inferred steepening.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 7] The factor-of-two renormalization is stated only in the caption; it should be described in the main text as a calibration, and the error budget of the SFR/injection-efficiency explanation should be quantified.
  3. [Sec. 2.5] The resonant particle density n1,j assumes a fixed observed proton slope gamma_obs = 4.7 (Eqs. 18-19); because the scattering coefficient inherits this slope, the 'self-consistent' transport model is partially calibrated to observations, and this should be listed as a model assumption.
  4. [Sec. 2.8] The synchrotron emissivity is computed by extrapolating the simulated electron spectrum to 1-10^3 GeV with a constant power law; since the central claim is about energy-dependent steepening, the sensitivity of the radio-derived slopes in Figure 11 to this extrapolation should be tested.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] There is a typo in Section 2.2 ('When comparing to to direct observations'), and the statement about the steep injected spectrum appears in both Section 2.2 and Section 2.7; the repeated unsupported claim should be replaced by the quantitative check requested in Major Comment 1.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 2.3] The abstract and text refer to 1-100 GeV CREs, while the lowest simulated bin is centered at p = 2 GeV/c; clarify that 1 GeV is the assumed injection cutoff p_min, not the lowest simulated bin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral steepening is computed from the transport/loss equations and is robust to the injection slope; post-hoc normalization and mock-radio closure tests are not the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derived quantity is the momentum-dependent steepening of the CRE spectrum, obtained by solving the two-moment CR transport equations with a scattering coefficient set by the local wave-growth/damping balance and by energy losses. The injection slope s=-2.3 is taken from independent SNR acceleration estimates (Caprioli 2023), and Figure 9 explicitly varies it and finds the resulting change in slope is unchanged, so the steepening is not a fit to the target spectrum. The absolute normalization is rescaled by a factor of two after the simulation, and the paper states that an injection slope of -2.3 is 'needed' to match observations, but these choices affect the overall level, not the shape or the steepening that is the paper's main result. The mock synchrotron recovery in Section 3.5 is a closure test: it uses the same synchrotron power-law relation to generate and to invert mock observations, so it is a self-consistency check rather than an independent external prediction, but it does not enter the derivation of the steepening. The independent-momentum-bin approximation is acknowledged as a limitation and is supported by a physical steep-spectrum argument plus a companion self-citation (Armillotta et al. 2025, accepted); the citation is not the only support and is not a definitional coupling of input to output. No equation in the paper reduces another to its own input by construction.

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

The model rests on the standard two-moment CR transport framework, the self-confinement wave-growth/damping picture, and a set of adopted inputs: injection slope, electron-to-proton ratio, radiation field normalization, and a post-hoc rescaling of the electron spectrum. No new physical entities are introduced. The independent-bin approximation is an acknowledged simplification that has not been quantified with a conservation check.

free parameters (6)
  • Injection spectral index gamma_inj (CRE slope s_inj) = -2.3 (gamma=4.3), varied -2.2 to -2.4
    Adopted from supernova remnant acceleration estimates, but Section 3.4 states that s=-2.3 is 'needed for a good match' to the observed spectrum, so the comparison is partly self-calibrating.
  • Post-hoc CRE normalization rescale = 0.5x (reduction by factor 2)
    Figure 7 rescales simulated CRE spectra by a factor of two to match AMS-02; this affects the amplitude comparison but not the spectral slope.
  • Electron-to-proton injection efficiency = 0.002
    Adopted in Section 2.4 to set the absolute electron normalization relative to protons, consistent with prior observational estimates.
  • Perpendicular scattering coefficient prescription = sigma_perp=10 sigma_par or sigma_perp >> sigma_par
    Section 3.2 tests two ad hoc choices; the midplane spectrum is insensitive to this choice, but the high-energy spatial distribution differs significantly.
  • IR radiation field normalization A = Normalized to observed midplane w_IR/w_UV+opt
    Appendix C.2 normalizes the Milky Way IR luminosity profile to match the observed midplane radiation energy density ratio, setting the amplitude of inverse Compton losses that dominate high-energy electron losses.
  • Fixed proton spectral slope used in scattering normalization = gamma_obs=4.7
    Equations 18-19 evaluate the resonant particle density n1,j using a fixed observed proton slope; the authors note this would be gamma_j-2 for the local slope and is an approximation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The self-confinement scenario: 1-100 GeV CRs scatter primarily off self-excited Alfven waves, with extrinsic turbulence negligible.
    Sections 1, 2.3, and 2.5 adopt this picture and derive the scattering coefficient from balancing streaming-instability growth against ion-neutral and nonlinear Landau damping.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosmic-ray momentum bins evolve independently, with no spectral energy transfer due to losses or adiabatic processes.
    Stated explicitly in Sections 2.2 and 2.7. The authors argue a steep injection spectrum makes the transfer negligible, but no conservation check is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The resonant particle density n1,j can be evaluated using a fixed observed proton spectral slope gamma_obs=4.7.
    Section 2.5, Equations 18-19; the factor 2.7 in Equation 19 would be gamma_j-2 for a local power-law slope, and the approximation is justified only by the final slopes being close to observed values.
  • domain assumption CR pressure is isotropic and the adiabatic index is 4/3 for all electron bins.
    Section 2.2 assumes a relativistic fluid with P_c=(gamma-1)e_c; this is appropriate for electrons in the modeled energy range.
  • domain assumption The TIGRESS R8 model represents solar-neighborhood conditions, including the star formation history and radiation field used for IC losses.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix C.2 use the R8 snapshot suite; the paper notes the SFR is at the upper end of the inferred solar-neighborhood range.
  • standard math Standard loss functions for ionization, Coulomb, bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, and inverse Compton losses apply.
    Appendix B and C adopt loss rates from Padovani et al., Schlickeiser, and related references; these are standard physics inputs rather than new derivations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Cosmic Ray Electron Spectra and Synchrotron Emission in the Multiphase ISM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVETD4MW

@misc{pith2026250700142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Cosmic Ray Electron Spectra and Synchrotron Emission in the Multiphase ISM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVETD4MW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00142}
}
read the original abstract

We model the transport and spectral evolution of 1-100 GeV cosmic ray (CR) electrons (CREs) in TIGRESS MHD simulations of the magnetized, multiphase interstellar medium. We post-process a kpc-sized galactic disk patch representative of the solar neighborhood using a two-moment method for CR transport that includes advection, streaming, and diffusion. The diffusion coefficient is set by balancing wave growth via the CR streaming instability against wave damping (nonlinear Landau and ion-neutral collisions), depending on local gas and CR properties. Implemented energy loss mechanisms include synchrotron, inverse Compton, ionization, and bremsstrahlung. We evaluate CRE losses by different mechanisms as a function of energy and distance from the midplane, and compare loss timescales to transport and diffusion timescales. This comparison shows that CRE spectral steepening above p = 1 GeV/c is due to a combination of energy-dependent transport and losses. Our evolved CRE spectra are consistent with direct observations in the solar neighborhood, with a spectral index that steepens from an injected value of -2.3 to an energy dependent value between -2.7 and -3.3. We also show that the steepening is independent of the injection spectrum. Finally, we present potential applications of our models, including to the production of synthetic synchrotron emission. Our simulations demonstrate that the CRE spectral slope can be accurately recovered from pairs of radio observations in the range 1.5-45 GHz.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vertical (through y = 0) and horizontal (through z = 0) slices of MHD and CR variables from the snapshot at t = 214 Myr. From left to right, the first five slices show number density of hydrogen (nH), temperature (T), magnitude of the gas velocity (|v|), magnitude of the ion Alfv´en velocity (|vA,i|), and magnitude of the magnetic field (|B|). The final three slices show energy density (ec), flux magnitude (|Fc|), a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CR mean free path, ℓ = 1/(cσ∥) and σ∥ as a function of gas temperature, T. The lines represent the median value across all snapshots, while the shaded regions represent the 16th-84th percentiles. Each panel represents a different CR momentum bin, pc = 2, 13, and 101 GeV. In each bin, we include the distribution of ℓ and σ∥ for both σ⊥ = 10 × σ∥ (gray, solid lines) and σ⊥ ≫ σ∥ (orange, dashed lines). tion near the mi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Vertical slices (through y = 0) of the CRE energy spectrum (E 2 je) in the bins centered at pc = 2, 13, and 101 GeV taken from the snapshot at t = 214 Myr. For each bin, we include the results for both σ⊥ = 10 × σ∥ (left three panels) and σ⊥ ≫ σ∥ (right three panels). where ⟨|Fdiff,z,j |⟩ is the horizontal average of the diffusive flux in the vertical direction, i.e. | ↔ σj −1 ·z∂P ˆ c/∂z|. This is the time it would… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Horizontally and temporally averaged vertical profiles of the CRE spectrum, je, in each momentum bin. The shaded area covers the 16th and 84th percentiles from temporal variations while the central line represents the me￾dian value. The solid lines with a gray color sc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Horizontally and temporally averaged vertical profiles of CRE energy loss rates dE/dt. Different col￾ors represent different loss mechanisms: ionization (black), bremsstrahlung (purple), synchrotron (magenta), and IC (light orange). Each panel shows results for CREs wi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatially and temporally averaged CRE spec￾trum in the warm gas (T < 3×104 K) within the disk region (|z| < 300 pc). The points represent the median value across space and time, while the error bars show the 16th-84th per￾centiles. The black points represent the input …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Horizontally and temporally averaged vertical profiles of the timescale for energy loss (magenta) in com￾parison to transport (black) and diffusion (blue). These timescales are defined in Equation 43, Equation 44, and Equation 45, respectively. Each panel presents resu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power-law slope of the CRE spectrum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power-law slope of the CRE spectrum (Equa￾tion 46) as a function of momentum for three choices of the injection spectrum. The points represent the median value across all cells with |z| < 300 pc and T < 3×104 K. The lower panel shows the change in slope from the inject…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The upper panels represent slices at z = 0 of quantities relevant to synchrotron emission from the snapshot at t = 214 Myr. From left to right, these are je, B 2 , and synchrotron emissivity ϵν. The lower panels represent these same quantities integrated vertically th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the simulated CR power law slope to the value estimated from the mock synchrotron observations for four TIGRESS snapshots. The black bars represent the median power law slope of the simulated CR spectrum, evaluated over all cells within z < |300| pc and …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparisons of the CRE vertical profile and spectrum before and after live MHD relaxation. The left panel is analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]

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. Dynamically Controlled Transport of GeV Cosmic Rays in Diverse Galactic Environments

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the extraplanar regions of star-forming galaxies, GeV cosmic-ray transport is controlled by advection and streaming rather than diffusion, enabling a simple predictive relation between cosmic-ray pressure and star ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    2013, Physical Review Letters, 110, 141102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

    Aguilar, M., Alberti, G., Alpat, B., et al. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 110, 141102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.141102 2013

  5. [5]

    2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 121102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.121102

    Aguilar, M., Aisa, D., Alvino, A., et al. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 121102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.121102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.121102 2014

  6. [6]

    C., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1db2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1db2 2021

  7. [7]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa9

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa9 2022

  8. [8]

    C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2024, Cosmic- Ray Acceleration of Galactic Outflows in Multiphase Gas , arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04169

    arXiv 2024

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J

    Bai, X.-N., Ostriker, E. C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1648

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 578, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    Beck, R. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 578, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414, 10.1002/asna.200510366

    Beck, R., & Krause, M. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414, 10.1002/asna.200510366

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 70, 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    Blasi, P. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 70, 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Blasi, P., Amato, E., & Serpico, P. D. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 109, 061101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.061101

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Steinwandel , U

    B \"o ss , L. M., Steinwandel , U. P., Dolag , K., & Lesch , H. 2023, , 519, 548, 10.1093/mnras/stac3584

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, A new analytical model of the cosmic-ray energy flux for Galactic diffuse radio emission, arXiv

    Bracco, A., Padovani, M., & Galli, D. 2024, A new analytical model of the cosmic-ray energy flux for Galactic diffuse radio emission, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19367

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A., Keane , E., & Wagg , J

    Braun , R., Bourke , T., Green , J. A., Keane , E., & Wagg , J. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 174

    2015

  12. [20]

    Bustard , C., & Zweibel , E. G. 2021, , 913, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf64c

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Fielding , D

    Butsky , I. S., Fielding , D. B., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2020, , 903, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, Particle Acceleration at Shocks : An Introduction , arXiv

    Caprioli, D. 2023, Particle Acceleration at Shocks : An Introduction , arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00284

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K., Kere s , D., Hopkins , P

    Chan , T. K., Kere s , D., Hopkins , P. F., et al. 2019, , 488, 3716, 10.1093/mnras/stz1895

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Chandran, B. D. G. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 529, 513, 10.1086/308232

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Chiu , H. H. S., Ruszkowski , M., Thomas , T., Werhahn , M., & Pfrommer , C. 2024, , 976, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84e9

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Cox , D. P. 2005, , 43, 337, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150615

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M., Krumholz , M

    Crocker , R. M., Krumholz , M. R., & Thompson , T. A. 2021, , 502, 1312, 10.1093/mnras/stab148

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    E., & Lopez-Rodriguez, E

    Dacunha, T., Martin-Alvarez, S., Clark, S. E., & Lopez-Rodriguez, E. 2024, The overestimation of equipartition magnetic field strengths from synchrotron emission using synthetically observed galaxies, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08437

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the interstellar and intergalactic medium, Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton (N.J.): Princeton university press)

    2011

  22. [30]

    G., & Scalo , J

    Elmegreen , B. G., & Scalo , J. 2004, , 42, 211, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2020 a , Physical Review Letters, 125, 051101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051101

    Evoli, C., Blasi, P., Amato, E., & Aloisio, R. 2020 a , Physical Review Letters, 125, 051101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051101

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 021102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    Evoli, C., Blasi, P., Morlino, G., & Aloisio, R. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 021102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2008, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2008, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/10/018

    Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., Grasso, D., & Maccione, L. 2008, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2008, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/10/018

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017, 015, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/015

    Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., Vittino, A., et al. 2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017, 015, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/015

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2020 b , Physical Review D, 101, 023013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023013

    Evoli, C., Morlino, G., Blasi, P., & Aloisio, R. 2020 b , Physical Review D, 101, 023013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023013

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Ferri \`e re , K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031, 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 4, 10.1007/s00159-022-00141-2

    Gabici, S. 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 4, 10.1007/s00159-022-00141-2

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, , 491, 993, 10.1093/mnras/stz2961

    Girichidis , P., Pfrommer , C., Hanasz , M., & Naab , T. 2020, , 491, 993, 10.1093/mnras/stz2961

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 3917, 10.1093/mnras/stab3462

    Girichidis , P., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 3917, 10.1093/mnras/stab3462

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, , 527, 10897, 10.1093/mnras/stad3628

    Girichidis , P., Werhahn , M., Pfrommer , C., Pakmor , R., & Springel , V. 2024, , 527, 10897, 10.1093/mnras/stad3628

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Kim , C.-G

    Gong , M., Ostriker , E. C., & Kim , C.-G. 2018, , 858, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9af

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    1972, Physica, 58, 379

    Gould, R. 1972, Physica, 58, 379

    1972

  35. [43]

    A., Black, J

    Grenier, I. A., Black, J. H., & Strong, A. W. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 199, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122457

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    W., & Girichidis, P

    Hanasz, M., Strong, A. W., & Girichidis, P. 2021, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 7, 2, 10.1007/s41115-021-00011-1

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245223

    Heesen, V., De Gasperin, F., Schulz, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245223

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    F., Butsky, I

    Hopkins, P. F., Butsky, I. S., Panopoulou, G. V., et al. 2022 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 3470, 10.1093/mnras/stac1791

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    F., Squire, J., Butsky, I

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Butsky, I. S., & Ji, S. 2022 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5413, 10.1093/mnras/stac2909

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    F., Chan , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Chan , T. K., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al. 2020, , 492, 3465, 10.1093/mnras/stz3321

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, 10.5334/jors.148

    Hoyer, S., & Hamman, J. 2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, 10.5334/jors.148

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Oka, T., & McCall, B

    Indriolo, N., Geballe, T. R., Oka, T., & McCall, B. J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1736, 10.1086/523036

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Oh, S. P. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Kim , C.-G

    Kado-Fong , E., Kim , J.-G., Ostriker , E. C., & Kim , C.-G. 2020, , 897, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9abd

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3a

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Somerville, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 264, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9b1d

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2014, Astroparticle Physics, 55, 37, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.02.002

    Kissmann , R. 2014, Astroparticle Physics, 55, 37, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.02.002

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    W., Leroy , A

    Koch , E. W., Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11792. 2506.11792

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/114

    Krakau, S., & Schlickeiser, R. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/114

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731991

    Krause, M., Irwin, J., Wiegert, T., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731991

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Crocker, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Crocker, R. M., & Sampson, M. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1355, 10.1093/mnras/stac2712

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 445, 10.1086/149981

    1969 doi

  57. [65]

    Kulsrud, R. M. 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics, Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press)

    2005

  58. [66]

    D., et al

    Leitherer , C., Schaerer , D., Goldader , J. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 3, 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  59. [67]

    2011, DRAGON: Galactic Cosmic Ray Diffusion Code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1106.011

    Maccione , L., Evoli , C., Gaggero , D., & Grasso , D. 2011, DRAGON: Galactic Cosmic Ray Diffusion Code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1106.011

    2011

  60. [68]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 555, 585, 10.1086/321496

    Maurin, D., Donato, F., Taillet, R., & Salati, P. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 555, 585, 10.1086/321496

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    McKinnon , M., Beasley , A., Murphy , E., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 81

    2019

  62. [70]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, 233, 10.1086/323434

    Miniati, F., Jones, T., Kang, H., & Ryu, D. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, 233, 10.1086/323434

    2001 doi

  63. [71]

    V., & Strong, A

    Moskalenko, I. V., & Strong, A. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 493, 694, 10.1086/305152

    1998 doi

  64. [72]

    D., Fletcher, A., Beck, R., Mitra, D., & Scaife, A

    Mulcahy, D. D., Fletcher, A., Beck, R., Mitra, D., & Scaife, A. M. M. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 592, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628446

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Horneffer, A., Beck, R., et al

    Mulcahy, D. D., Horneffer, A., Beck, R., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832837

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    Neronov , A., Malyshev , D., & Semikoz , D. V. 2017, , 606, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731149

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Hanasz, M., & Wóltański, D

    Ogrodnik, M. A., Hanasz, M., & Wóltański, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd16f

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2724, 10.1093/mnras/stx3280

    Orlando, E. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2724, 10.1093/mnras/stx3280

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    C., & Kim , C.-G

    Ostriker , E. C., & Kim , C.-G. 2022, , 936, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140799

    Padovani, M., Bracco, A., Jelić, V., Galli, D., & Bellomi, E. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140799

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

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

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 614, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732202

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    V., Galli, D., et al

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 29, 10.1007/s11214-020-00654-1

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    M., & Springel , V

    Pfrommer , C., Pakmor , R., Schaal , K., Simpson , C. M., & Springel , V. 2017, , 465, 4500, 10.1093/mnras/stw2941

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    B., Panopoulou, G

    Ponnada, S. B., Panopoulou, G. V., Butsky, I. S., et al. 2023, Synchrotron Emission on FIRE : Equipartition Estimators of Magnetic Fields in Simulated Galaxies with Spectrally - Resolved Cosmic Rays , arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.04526

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 516, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014010

    Putze, A., Derome, L., & Maurin, D. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 516, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014010

    2010 doi

  76. [84]

    2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2030006, 10.1142/S0218271820300062

    Recchia, S. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2030006, 10.1142/S0218271820300062

    2020 doi

  77. [85]

    Redfield, S., & Linsky, J. L. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 1004, 10.1086/423311

    2004 doi

  78. [86]

    Ruszkowski, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2023, Cosmic ray feedback in galaxies and galaxy clusters -- A pedagogical introduction and a topical review of the acceleration, transport, observables, and dynamical impact of cosmic rays, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03141

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    L., Beattie , J

    Sampson , M. L., Beattie , J. R., Krumholz , M. R., et al. 2023, , 519, 1503, 10.1093/mnras/stac3207

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6

    Schlickeiser, R. 2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6 . http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6

    2002 doi

  81. [89]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834995

    Schmidt, P., Krause, M., Heesen, V., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834995

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 45, 10.3390/galaxies7020045

    Seta, A., & Beck, R. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 45, 10.3390/galaxies7020045

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    Shu , F. H. 1991, The Physics of Astrophysics Volume I: Radiation (University Science Books)

    1991

  84. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06988, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06988

    Sike , B., Thomas , T., Ruszkowski , M., Pfrommer , C., & Weber , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06988, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06988

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243906

    Stein, M., Heesen, V., Dettmar, R.-J., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243906

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 2201, 10.1093/mnras/stt2044

    Stepanov, R., Shukurov, A., Fletcher, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 2201, 10.1093/mnras/stt2044

    2014 doi

  87. [95]

    C., Cummings, A

    Stone, E. C., Cummings, A. C., Heikkila, B. C., & Lal, N. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1013, 10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    M., & Gardiner , T

    Stone , J. M., & Gardiner , T. 2009, , 14, 139, 10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.003

    2009 doi

  89. [97]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 189, 142, 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/142

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    M., Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., Gardiner, T. A., Teuben, P., Hawley, J. F., & Simon, J. B. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 137, 10.1086/588755

    2008 doi

  91. [99]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    W., & Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., & Moskalenko, I. V. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 509, 212, 10.1086/306470

    1998 doi

  93. [101]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 88, 253, 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13121, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13121

    Thomas , T., Pfrommer , C., & Pakmor , R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13121, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13121

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    Torres, D. F. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617, 966, 10.1086/425415

    2004 doi

  96. [104]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd17

    Vaidya, B., Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Rossi, P., & Massaglia, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd17

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  98. [106]

    Wentzel, D. G. 1974, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 71, 10.1146/annurev.aa.12.090174.000443

    1974

  99. [107]

    2021 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 4072, 10.1093/mnras/stab2535

    Werhahn, M., Pfrommer, C., & Girichidis, P. 2021 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 4072, 10.1093/mnras/stab2535

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

    2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3273, 10.1093/mnras/stab1324

    Werhahn, M., Pfrommer, C., Girichidis, P., Puchwein, E., & Pakmor, R. 2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3273, 10.1093/mnras/stab1324

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stz1792

    Winner, G., Pfrommer, C., Girichidis, P., & Pakmor, R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stz1792

    2019 doi

  102. [110]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2785, 10.1093/mnras/staa2989

    Winner, G., Pfrommer, C., Girichidis, P., Werhahn, M., & Pais, M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2785, 10.1093/mnras/staa2989

    2020 doi

  103. [111]

    2002, Physical Review Letters, 89, 281102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.281102

    Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2002, Physical Review Letters, 89, 281102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.281102

    2002 doi

  104. [112]

    Yang , H. Y. K., & Ruszkowski , M. 2017, , 850, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9434

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244194

    Zari, E., Frankel, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244194

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    Zweibel, E. G. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055501, 10.1063/1.4807033

    2013 doi

  107. [115]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 055402, 10.1063/1.4984017

    ---. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 055402, 10.1063/1.4984017

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.