pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.19508 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Simulated Rotation Measure Sky from Primordial Magnetic Fields

Salome Mtchedlidze , Franco Vazza , Xiaolong Du , Ettore Carretti , Chiara Stuardi , Shane Patrick O'Sullivan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 06:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords primordial magnetic fieldsrotation measureintergalactic mediumcosmological simulationsangular correlationsLOFAR surveyearly universe physics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Primordial magnetic field models produce distinct angular correlations in intergalactic rotation measures.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses cosmological simulations combined with light-cone analysis to investigate the effects of primordial magnetic fields on the rotation measure in the intergalactic medium. A new method generates full-sky RM distributions, allowing analysis of autocorrelation on small and large angular scales. Results show that large-scale uniform PMFs maintain correlations up to 90 degrees, whereas small-scale stochastic models exhibit sharp drops in correlation by a factor of 100 at angular scales around 0.1 to 0.17 degrees. This distinction matters for interpreting data from current and future radio surveys like LOFAR, as it could help isolate PMF signals from other contributions and refine limits on their strength.

Core claim

PMF structures show distinct signatures in the mean RM_IGM from the IGM. The large-scale uniform model leads to correlations up to 90 degrees, while correlations for small-scale stochastic PMF models drop by factor of 100 at 0.17, 0.13 and 0.11 degrees angular scales, corresponding to 5.24, 4.03 and 3.52 Mpc scales at z=2 for magnetic fields with comoving 3.49, 1.81, 1.00 Mpc/h coherence scales. The correlation amplitude of the PMF model with comoving ~19 Mpc/h coherence scale drops only by factor of 10 at 1 degree. Comparison with LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey redshift dependence agrees with previous upper limits on PMF strength.

What carries the argument

The autocorrelation function of the simulated full-sky RM_IGM distributions generated from different PMF models with specified coherence scales.

If this is right

  • Distinct signatures allow differentiation between uniform large-scale and stochastic small-scale PMF models using angular scale correlations.
  • Improvements in modeling Galactic RM are required to detect signatures of large-scale correlated PMFs.
  • The redshift dependence of average RM_IGM matches previous upper limit estimates from RM-rms analysis.
  • Correlations persist to larger scales for models with greater coherence lengths, such as ~19 Mpc/h.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the distinct patterns hold, future all-sky surveys could map the coherence scale of PMFs across the sky.
  • These simulation methods could be adapted to include additional IGM processes like density fluctuations affecting RM.
  • The approach might help resolve contributions from PMFs versus astrophysical sources in RM observations.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological simulations and light-cone analysis accurately capture the structure and evolution of PMFs in the IGM without dominant contamination from other astrophysical sources or numerical artifacts.

What would settle it

Detection of RM correlations that remain high at sub-degree scales for small-scale PMF models or fail to extend to 90 degrees for uniform models would contradict the predicted distinct signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19508 by Chiara Stuardi, Ettore Carretti, Franco Vazza, Salome Mtchedlidze, Shane Patrick O'Sullivan, Xiaolong Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of light cone (direction indicated with dashed lines) realisations within stacked comoving boxes. Blue and green vectors in￾dicate the magnetic field and the eˆ unit vectors (Equation 1), respec￾tively. Nevertheless, Vazza et al. (2025), presenting a new suite of cos￾mological MHD simulations tailored to reproduce the observed star formation history in galaxies, has shown that magnetisation of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average of RMIGM autocorrelation functions obtained from 104 light cone realisations for each model at z = 2 redshift depth; coherence scales of the PMF models are also indicated in the legend. we further multiply the generated RM realisations by the rotation matrix, R (randomly varying for each generated realisation), so that our final RM realisation is calculated using the equation,4 RMfinal = eˆ · (R RM… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Constructed RMIGM maps [rad/m2 ] for three PMF models studied in this work at z = 2 redshift depth. The left part of the figure depicts mean ⟨RMIGM⟩ distribution in Galactic coordinates with 10000 and ∼ 3300 light cone realisations in the uniform, and km1 and k25 cases, respectively (in the latter cases smaller number of realisations are chosen for a better visualisation). The right part shows example 2D l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Angular autocorrelation of full-sky mean RMIGM ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean RMIGM trends of PMFs and mean RRM from LoTSS data (grey lines); error for the latter is calculated with bootstrapping, while for the simulated RMs standard deviations are shown (lower-opacity filled colour lines). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Primordial Magnetic Fields (PMFs) -- magnetic fields originating in the early Universe and permeating the cosmological scales today -- can explain the observed microGauss-level magnetisation of galaxies and their clusters. In light of current and upcoming all-sky radio surveys, PMFs have drawn attention not only as major candidates for explaining the large-scale magnetisation of the Universe, but also as potential probes of early-Universe physics. In this paper, using cosmological simulations coupled with light-cone analysis, we study for the first time the imprints of the PMF structure on the mean rotation measure (RM) originating in the intergalactic medium (IGM), $\langle \mathrm{RM_{IGM}}\rangle$. We introduce a new method for producing full-sky $\mathrm{RM_{IGM}}$ distributions and analyse the autocorrelation of $\mathrm{RM_{IGM}}$ on small and large angular scales; we find that PMF structures indeed show distinct signatures. The large-scale uniform model (characterised by an initially unlimited coherence scale) leads to correlations up to 90 degrees, while correlations for small-scale stochastic PMF models drop by factor of $100$ at $ 0.17, 0.13$ and 0.11 degrees angular scales, corresponding to $5.24, 4.03$ and $3.52$ Mpc scales (at $z=2$ redshift) for magnetic fields with comoving $3.49, 1.81, 1.00 $ Mpc/h coherence scales, respectively; the correlation amplitude of the PMF model with comoving $\sim 19$ Mpc/h coherence scale drops only by factor of $10$ at 1 degree (30.6 Mpc). These results suggests that improvements in the modelling of Galactic RM will be necessary to investigate the signature of large-scale correlated PMFs. A comparison of $\langle \mathrm{RM_{IGM}}\rangle$ redshift dependence obtained from our simulations with that from the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey shows agreement with our previous upper limits' estimates on the PMF strength derived from RM-rms analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper uses cosmological MHD simulations of primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) with varying comoving coherence scales (3.49, 1.81, 1.00, and ~19 Mpc/h) coupled to light-cone integration to generate full-sky maps of the intergalactic medium rotation measure (RM_IGM). It computes the autocorrelation of these RM maps and reports distinct signatures: large-scale uniform PMFs maintain correlations out to 90 degrees, while small-scale stochastic models show a factor-of-100 drop at angular scales 0.17, 0.13, and 0.11 degrees (corresponding to 5.24, 4.03, and 3.52 Mpc at z=2). The redshift evolution of mean RM_IGM is compared to LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey data and found consistent with prior upper limits on PMF strength.

Significance. If the numerical mapping from input coherence lengths to observed angular correlation scales holds, the work supplies a new observable diagnostic for PMF structure that could be applied to upcoming wide-field RM surveys. The reported scale-dependent correlation drops offer a concrete, falsifiable prediction that distinguishes uniform versus stochastic PMF models and extends existing RM-rms constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / simulation and light-cone section] Simulation setup and light-cone construction: the central claim that the factor-of-100 correlation drop at 0.11 degrees directly traces the 1.00 Mpc/h input coherence scale assumes the MHD run plus line-of-sight integration preserves the input power spectrum down to the grid scale. No resolution-convergence tests or power-spectrum comparisons between the injected PMF and the final RM_IGM field are presented; if grid spacing is comparable to 1 Mpc/h, the reported angular scale could contain numerical dissipation or projection-mixing artifacts rather than a pure physical signature.
  2. [Results / autocorrelation analysis] Results on autocorrelation (around the quoted 0.17–0.11 degree scales): the mapping to comoving lengths at z=2 (5.24–3.52 Mpc) is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript provides no explicit validation of the light-cone weighting against an analytic projection or against a higher-resolution run. Without such a check, it remains possible that redshift mixing dilutes small-scale power and shifts the observed drop scales away from the input coherence lengths.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Table of simulation parameters (PMF strength, coherence scale, grid size, box size) is missing; adding it would allow readers to assess whether the smallest coherence length is adequately resolved.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the autocorrelation plots should explicitly state the angular binning and the precise definition of the correlation function used.
  3. [Introduction / Discussion] The abstract states agreement with 'our previous upper limits' from RM-rms analysis; the corresponding reference should be added in the introduction or discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments on the simulation methodology and light-cone analysis are well taken, and we address each major point below. We will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / simulation and light-cone section] Simulation setup and light-cone construction: the central claim that the factor-of-100 correlation drop at 0.11 degrees directly traces the 1.00 Mpc/h input coherence scale assumes the MHD run plus line-of-sight integration preserves the input power spectrum down to the grid scale. No resolution-convergence tests or power-spectrum comparisons between the injected PMF and the final RM_IGM field are presented; if grid spacing is comparable to 1 Mpc/h, the reported angular scale could contain numerical dissipation or projection-mixing artifacts rather than a pure physical signature.

    Authors: We agree that explicit checks would improve the manuscript. The simulations used a grid resolution finer than the smallest coherence scale considered (1 Mpc/h), and the light-cone integration was constructed to maintain the injected PMF power spectrum on the relevant scales. However, these verifications were not shown in the original submission. In the revised version we will add a short subsection in the Methods section that presents power-spectrum comparisons between the initial PMF and the final RM_IGM field, together with a brief discussion of why numerical dissipation is not expected to shift the reported angular scales. This addition will directly address the concern about possible artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / autocorrelation analysis] Results on autocorrelation (around the quoted 0.17–0.11 degree scales): the mapping to comoving lengths at z=2 (5.24–3.52 Mpc) is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript provides no explicit validation of the light-cone weighting against an analytic projection or against a higher-resolution run. Without such a check, it remains possible that redshift mixing dilutes small-scale power and shifts the observed drop scales away from the input coherence lengths.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The quoted comoving-to-angular mapping follows from the standard angular-diameter distance at the mean redshift of the light cone (z=2). To make this explicit, we will add a short paragraph in the Results section that compares the numerically measured angular drop scales with the analytic expectation obtained from the angular-diameter distance formula. A full higher-resolution run is computationally prohibitive at present; however, we will include a concise discussion of the expected influence of redshift mixing based on the light-cone construction and the coherence scales involved, showing that any dilution remains small for the scales reported. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation outputs are independent numerical results

full rationale

The paper runs cosmological MHD simulations initialized with PMF models of specified comoving coherence lengths (3.49, 1.81, 1.00 Mpc/h), constructs light-cone RM_IGM maps, and directly computes the autocorrelation function on the resulting synthetic sky. The reported correlation drops (factor of 100 at 0.17–0.11 deg, mapping to 5.24–3.52 Mpc at z=2) are outputs of this numerical pipeline, not quantities fitted to data or redefined from the inputs. The large-scale uniform model result (correlations to 90 deg) follows similarly from the simulation geometry. External comparison to LOFAR redshift dependence is an independent check and does not close any loop. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the central derivation chain; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard cosmological simulation assumptions and specific choices for PMF initial conditions; no new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • PMF comoving coherence scales
    Input values (3.49, 1.81, 1.00, ~19 Mpc/h) chosen to represent different PMF scenarios and directly determine the reported correlation drop scales.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations plus light-cone integration faithfully reproduce the IGM magnetization and RM contribution from PMFs
    Invoked throughout the simulation setup and analysis sections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1396 out tokens · 30400 ms · 2026-05-17T06:22:49.752099+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Agudo, I., Aniello, T., et al

    Acciari, V . A., Agudo, I., Aniello, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A145

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 32

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 32

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Adi, T., Cruz, H. A. G., & Kamionkowski, M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 023521

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    2023, ApJ, 950, L16

    Aharonian, F., Aschersleben, J., Backes, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, L16

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A., Coppi, P

    Aharonian, F. A., Coppi, P. S., & V oelk, H. J. 1994, ApJ, 423, L5

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    & Ryu, D

    Akahori, T. & Ryu, D. 2010, ApJ, 723, 476

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    & Ryu, D

    Akahori, T. & Ryu, D. 2011, ApJ, 738, 134

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Akahori, T., Ryu, D., Kim, J., & Gaensler, B. M. 2013, ApJ, 767, 150

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    & Pohl, M

    Alawashra, M. & Pohl, M. 2022, ApJ, 929, 67

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 95

    Alawashra, M., V ovk, I., & Pohl, M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 95

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    S., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Anderson, C. S., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Rudnick, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4068

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 288

    Archambault, S., Archer, A., Benbow, W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 288

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    D., Miniati, F., Bilbao, P

    Arrowsmith, C. D., Miniati, F., Bilbao, P. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09040

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 2346

    Attia, O., Teyssier, R., Katz, H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2346

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    & Jedamzik, K

    Banerjee, R. & Jedamzik, K. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 123003

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    Blasi, P., Burles, S., & Olinto, A. V . 1999, Astrophys. J. Lett., 514, L79

    work page 1999

  17. [17]

    W., Bonafede, A., et al

    Botteon, A., Shimwell, T. W., Bonafede, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 885

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L11

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    2017, Phys

    Brandenburg, A., Kahniashvili, T., Mandal, S., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123528

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    E., Chang, P., & Pfrommer, C

    Broderick, A. E., Chang, P., & Pfrommer, C. 2012, ApJ, 752, 22

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    E., Tiede, P., Chang, P., et al

    Broderick, A. E., Tiede, P., Chang, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 87

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    P., Vacca, V ., et al

    Carretti, E., O’Sullivan, S. P., Vacca, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2273

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    P., et al

    Carretti, E., Vacca, V ., O’Sullivan, S. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 945

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    & Vazza, F

    Carretti, E. & Vazza, F. 2025, Universe, 11, 164

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    P., et al

    Carretti, E., Vazza, F., O’Sullivan, S. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A208

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Cruz, H. A. G., Adi, T., Flitter, J., Kamionkowski, M., & Kovetz, E. D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 023518

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kröner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    & Neronov, A

    Durrer, R. & Neronov, A. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 62

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Durrive, J. B. & Langer, M. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 345

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    1971, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 49, 181

    Fujimoto, M., Kawabata, K., & Sofue, Y . 1971, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 49, 181

    work page 1971

  32. [32]

    Furlanetto, S. R. & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 619

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5726

    Garaldi, E., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5726

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    & Vazza, F

    Gheller, C. & Vazza, F. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5603

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    2019, Science, 364, 981

    Govoni, F., Orrù, E., Bonafede, A., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 981

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Hosking, D. N. & Schekochihin, A. A. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 7523

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.01709

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Jedamzik, K., Abel, T., & Ali-Haïmoud, Y . 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 012

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Kahniashvili, T., Maravin, Y ., Natarajan, A., Battaglia, N., & Tevzadze, A. G. 2013, ApJ, 770, 47

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.11624

    Katz, H., Martin-Alvarez, S., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.11624

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    1969, PASJ, 21, 293

    Kawabata, K., Fujimoto, M., Sofue, Y ., & Fukui, M. 1969, PASJ, 21, 293

    work page 1969

  42. [42]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 564

    Kolatt, T. 1998, ApJ, 495, 564

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

    Kronberg, P. P. 1977, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 74, Radio Astronomy and Cos- mology, ed. D. L. Jauncey, 367

    work page 1977

  44. [44]

    P., Reinhardt, M., & Simard-Normandin, M

    Kronberg, P. P., Reinhardt, M., & Simard-Normandin, M. 1977, A&A, 61, 771

    work page 1977

  45. [45]

    Kronberg, P. P. & Simard-Normandin, M. 1976, Nature, 263, 653

    work page 1976

  46. [46]

    2022, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 929, 127

    Mtchedlidze, S., Domínguez-Fernández, P., Du, X., et al. 2022, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 929, 127

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 128

    Mtchedlidze, S., Domínguez-Fernández, P., Du, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 128

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    2016, Phys

    Mukohyama, S. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 121302

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    & Narayan, R

    Naoz, S. & Narayan, R. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 051303

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    2010, in 25th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, ed

    Neronov, A. 2010, in 25th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, ed. F. M. Rieger, C. van Eldik, & W. Hofmann, 221

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Neronov, A., Vazza, F., Mtchedlidze, S., & Carretti, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14825 O’Sullivan, S. P., Brüggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2607 O’Sullivan, S. P., Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5723 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Jour- nal of Open Source Soft...

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    V ., Bonafede, A., Bernardi, G., et al

    Pignataro, G. V ., Bonafede, A., Bernardi, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A99 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A19 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    S., Tinyakov, P

    Pshirkov, M. S., Tinyakov, P. G., & Urban, F. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 191302

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Ralegankar, P., Garaldi, E., & Viel, M. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 011

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14079

    Ralegankar, P., Pavi ˇcevi´c, M., & Viel, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14079

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    E., & Jablonka, P

    Sanati, M., Revaz, Y ., Schober, J., Kunze, K. E., & Jablonka, P. 2020, A&A, 643, A54

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    & Venumadhav, T

    Schiff, J. & Venumadhav, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16517

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    2022, yt_astro_analysis version 1.1.2

    Smith, B., Turk, M., ZuHone, J., et al. 2022, yt_astro_analysis version 1.1.2

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    1968, PASJ, 20, 388

    Sofue, Y ., Fujimoto, M., & Kawabata, K. 1968, PASJ, 20, 388

    work page 1968

  61. [61]

    P., Bonafede, A., et al

    Stuardi, C., O’Sullivan, S. P., Bonafede, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A48

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 076901

    Subramanian, K. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 076901

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, L70

    Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, L70

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 135

    Tjemsland, J., Meyer, M., & Vazza, F. 2024, ApJ, 963, 135

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3401

    Trivedi, P., Reppin, J., Chluba, J., & Banerjee, R. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3401

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    J., Smith, B

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

    work page 2011

  67. [67]

    2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 074901

    Vachaspati, T. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 074901

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    J., Pohl, M., & Bohdan, A

    Vafin, S., Deka, P. J., Pohl, M., & Bohdan, A. 2019, ApJ, 873, 10

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Vallee, J. P. 1975, Nature, 254, 23

    work page 1975

  70. [70]

    Vallee, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 360, 1 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 16

    work page 1990

  71. [71]

    2025, A&A, 696, A58

    Vazza, F., Gheller, C., Zanetti, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A58

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 109

    Vazza, F., Locatelli, N., Rajpurohit, K., et al. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 109

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    M., Rudnick, L., & Andernach, H

    Vernstrom, T., Gaensler, B. M., Rudnick, L., & Andernach, H. 2019, ApJ, 878, 92

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4178

    Vernstrom, T., Heald, G., Vazza, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4178

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    Vernstrom, T., West, J., Vazza, F., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 Article number, page 8 of 9 Mtchedlidze et al.: Rotation measure sky from primordial magnetic fields Appendix A: PMF Initial conditions Fig. A.1.Initial power spectrum of the PMF models studied in this work. Adopted from Mtchedlidze et al. (2024). In Figure A.1 we show initia...

    work page 2020