arxiv: 2602.00226 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Nested Fermi and eROSITA bubbles require very similar sim10⁵⁶ erg collimated Galactic-center outbursts; their asymmetry indicates an eastern density gradient

Arka Ghosh , Uri Keshet , Santanu Mondal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

keywords Fermi bubbleseROSITA bubblesMilky Way galactic centercollimated outburstshydrodynamic modelingbubble asymmetrydensity gradient

0 comments

The pith

The nested eROSITA and Fermi bubbles around the Milky Way arise from two similar collimated outbursts of about 10^56 erg each from the galactic center, separated by roughly 10 million years.

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

The paper proposes that the large eROSITA bubbles and the smaller Fermi bubbles are both created by powerful, narrow outflows from the center of the Milky Way. It uses computer models to show that these two sets of bubbles can be explained by nearly identical events, each releasing about 10 to the 56 ergs of energy in a beam about 4 degrees wide. If this is correct, it suggests that the galactic center undergoes such energetic outbursts repeatedly every 10 million years or so. This repeated activity could be key to understanding how the Milky Way's core affects the gas and structure around it.

Core claim

Observations indicate two nested pairs of extended bipolar bubbles emanating from the Milky-Way center - the |b|~80° latitude eROSITA bubbles (RBs), encompassing the smaller, |b|~50° Fermi bubbles (FBs) - and classify the edges of both bubble pairs as strong forward shocks. Identifying each bubble pair as driven by a distinct, collimated outburst, we evolve these bubbles and constrain their origin using a stratified 1D model verified by a suite of 2D and 3D hydrodynamic simulations which reproduce X-ray observations. While the RBs are at the onset of slowdown, the FBs are still expanding ballistically into the RB-shocked medium. Observational constraints indicate that both RB and FB outburst

What carries the argument

Stratified 1D hydrodynamic model of collimated galactic-center outbursts expanding into a stratified atmosphere, cross-checked with 2D and 3D simulations that match X-ray observations.

If this is right

The two bubble systems require outbursts with very similar energies, opening angles, and velocities.
The time interval between the two outbursts is on the order of 10 million years.
The Fermi bubbles are still expanding into the medium previously shocked by the eROSITA bubbles.
The observed asymmetry in the bubbles is better explained by a higher gas density on the eastern side of the galactic center.
Collimated outbursts are a viable mechanism for producing such large-scale bubble structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Recurrent outbursts of this type may contribute to the overall energy balance and heating of the galactic halo over time.
Similar nested bubble structures could be searched for in other spiral galaxies to test if this is a common phenomenon.
High-resolution mapping of the interstellar medium around the galactic center could confirm or rule out the proposed eastern density gradient.
These events might influence star formation rates or gas dynamics in the inner galaxy on million-year timescales.

Load-bearing premise

That the observed bubbles are each produced by a single distinct collimated outburst whose energy, speed, and angle can be reliably extracted using a one-dimensional model of expansion into a layered galactic atmosphere.

What would settle it

If detailed 3D simulations or new observations show that the Fermi bubbles require a significantly different energy or opening angle than the eROSITA bubbles, the claim of identical outbursts would be disproven.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00226 by Arka Ghosh, Santanu Mondal, Uri Keshet.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Thermal structure (top row) and projected X-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. RB evolution in the nominal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. RB age (disks with left axis) and aspect ratio (dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. RBs and FBs in nominal double-burst simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as the bottom-right panel of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dependence of timescales (units of Myr, colorbar), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Head Mach numbers of RBs (red triangles) propa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. RB age convergence tests for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as the bottom panel of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: shows the density and temperature maps of B03D, which agree well with B0. The bubble morphology in projection is in good agreement with the observed edges. While convergence tests could not be performed in 3D due to limited resources, the overall agreement between 2D and 3D simulations captures the robustness of our results. Such a 3D setup facilitates modified outbursts, for example misaligned with th… view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Nested RBs and FBs in non-nominal simulations (listed in table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Observations indicate two nested pairs of extended bipolar bubbles emanating from the Milky-Way center - the $|b|\sim80^\circ$ latitude eROSITA bubbles (RBs), encompassing the smaller, $|b|\sim 50^{\circ}$ Fermi bubbles (FBs) - and classify the edges of both bubble pairs as strong forward shocks. Identifying each bubble pair as driven by a distinct, collimated outburst, we evolve these bubbles and constrain their origin using a stratified 1D model verified by a suite of 2D and 3D hydrodynamic simulations which reproduce X-ray observations. While the RBs are at the onset of slowdown, the FBs are still expanding ballistically into the RB-shocked medium. Observational constraints indicate that both RB and FB outbursts had (up to factor $\sim2$-$4$ uncertainties) $\sim4^\circ$ half-opening angles and $\sim 2000$ km s$^{-1}$ velocities $100$ pc from their base, carrying $\sim10^{56}$ erg. The FBs and RBs could thus arise from identical outbursts separated by $\sim10$ Myr; their longitudinal asymmetry favors an eastern ambient-density gradient over western wind suggestions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper recovers matching ~10^56 erg parameters for the Fermi and eROSITA bubbles from a 1D stratified model verified by hydro simulations, suggesting identical outbursts 10 Myr apart with an eastern density gradient explaining asymmetry.

read the letter

The main point is that both bubble pairs can be fit by the same collimated outburst specs—roughly 4° half-opening angle, 2000 km/s at 100 pc, and 10^56 erg total energy—with the inner Fermi bubbles still moving ballistically inside the outer eROSITA ones. The authors back the 1D recovery with 2D/3D runs that reproduce the X-ray edges, and they favor a density gradient over a wind for the east-west difference. That unification of two observed structures into one recurrent scenario is the concrete advance here, and the simulation check on the 1D model is a genuine strength for this kind of work. It gives a clear benchmark number for Galactic-center energy injection that feedback models can use. The soft spots are the usual ones for these models: the parameters are still tuned to match observed sizes and speeds, so the factor 2–4 uncertainties are acknowledged but not shown propagating into the exact 10 Myr gap or the energy equality. The ballistic assumption for the inner bubbles inside the outer shocked gas could shift if 3D mixing or lateral spreading turns out stronger than the 1D prescription allows, and the abstract does not give full tables or exclusion criteria for the data fits. Still, the central claim is internally consistent and the simulations provide an independent cross-check rather than pure fitting. This is for readers who track Milky Way center outflows or black-hole feedback in spirals; anyone already working on bubble hydro will find the parameter set and the density-gradient argument useful to test. It deserves a serious referee because the modeling is grounded enough to be worth the time even if revisions tighten the uncertainties and 3D checks.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the nested eROSITA bubbles (RBs, |b|~80°) and Fermi bubbles (FBs, |b|~50°) arise from two nearly identical collimated Galactic-center outbursts separated by ~10 Myr. A stratified 1D model, verified by 2D/3D hydrodynamic simulations matching X-ray data, shows the RBs at the onset of slowdown while FBs expand ballistically into the RB-shocked medium; both outbursts are constrained to ~4° half-opening angle, ~2000 km s^{-1} at 100 pc, and ~10^{56} erg (with factor 2-4 uncertainties), with longitudinal asymmetry favoring an eastern density gradient.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a unified, quantitative explanation for two prominent nested bubble structures, implying recurrent ~10^{56} erg collimated activity at the Galactic center on ~10 Myr timescales. This would constrain the energy budget and duty cycle of Milky Way feedback, link the bubbles to AGN-like processes, and highlight the role of ambient density gradients in shaping observed asymmetries.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and model verification section] Abstract and model verification section: The assertion that FBs expand ballistically into the post-RB medium (allowing identical outburst parameters to be recovered) is load-bearing for the ~10 Myr separation and energy match, yet the 2D/3D simulations are described only qualitatively as 'verifying' the 1D model and reproducing X-ray observations; no quantitative metrics (e.g., velocity profiles, energy conservation residuals, or instability growth rates) are supplied to demonstrate that 3D mixing or entrainment does not cause FB deceleration beyond the 1D prescription.
[Parameter recovery and uncertainties] Parameter recovery and uncertainties: The ~10^{56} erg, ~4° opening angle, and ~2000 km s^{-1} values are stated to carry factor 2-4 uncertainties, but no explicit propagation, full parameter table, or data-exclusion criteria appear; this directly affects the strength of the 'identical outbursts' claim since the 1D recovery is tuned to observed bubble sizes and velocities.

minor comments (2)

[Throughout] Notation: Consistently define and use 'RB' for eROSITA bubbles and 'FB' for Fermi bubbles from the first mention onward to prevent reader confusion in the results and discussion.
[Figures] Figure clarity: Ensure that any plots comparing 1D model predictions to 2D/3D simulation outputs include explicit error bands or residual panels so the verification of ballistic expansion can be assessed visually.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments identify areas where additional quantitative support would strengthen the manuscript, and we address each point below with plans for revision.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and model verification section] Abstract and model verification section: The assertion that FBs expand ballistically into the post-RB medium (allowing identical outburst parameters to be recovered) is load-bearing for the ~10 Myr separation and energy match, yet the 2D/3D simulations are described only qualitatively as 'verifying' the 1D model and reproducing X-ray observations; no quantitative metrics (e.g., velocity profiles, energy conservation residuals, or instability growth rates) are supplied to demonstrate that 3D mixing or entrainment does not cause FB deceleration beyond the 1D prescription.

Authors: We agree that the verification of the ballistic-expansion assumption relies on the 2D/3D simulations and that the current description is primarily qualitative. The 1D model is the core quantitative tool, with the simulations confirming that the forward-shock and contact-discontinuity structures persist and that mixing/entrainment does not produce measurable deceleration beyond the 1D prediction on the relevant timescales. To make this explicit, the revised manuscript will include (i) extracted velocity profiles at multiple epochs, (ii) integrated energy-conservation residuals, and (iii) estimates of Kelvin-Helmholtz and Rayleigh-Taylor growth rates showing that they remain sub-dominant to the expansion. These additions will directly support the ~10 Myr separation and the recovery of identical outburst parameters. revision: yes
Referee: [Parameter recovery and uncertainties] Parameter recovery and uncertainties: The ~10^{56} erg, ~4° opening angle, and ~2000 km s^{-1} values are stated to carry factor 2-4 uncertainties, but no explicit propagation, full parameter table, or data-exclusion criteria appear; this directly affects the strength of the 'identical outbursts' claim since the 1D recovery is tuned to observed bubble sizes and velocities.

Authors: The referee correctly notes the absence of a formal error-propagation analysis or tabulated parameter ranges. The quoted factor 2–4 uncertainties were obtained by varying the ambient density normalization, scale height, and observed bubble extents within their observational errors and re-running the 1D solver; however, these steps are not documented in detail. The revised manuscript will add (i) a table of best-fit parameters with their allowed ranges, (ii) a brief description of the matching criteria (bubble height at the observed shock velocity and X-ray surface-brightness profile), and (iii) a short propagation of the dominant uncertainties. This will make the identical-outburst conclusion more transparent without altering the central result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in model-based parameter inference

full rationale

The paper applies a stratified 1D hydrodynamic model, cross-verified against 2D/3D simulations that reproduce X-ray observations, to recover outburst parameters (energy, half-opening angle, velocity) from the observed bubble sizes, latitudes, and shock edges for each pair separately. The conclusion that the recovered parameters are similar (hence identical outbursts ~10 Myr apart) follows from consistent application of the same external model to independent observational constraints on the two bubble systems, without any parameter being defined in terms of the target result or any prediction reducing to a fit by construction. The derivation remains self-contained against the hydrodynamic framework and data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of fitted geometric and energetic parameters plus the domain assumption that the bubbles are driven by collimated outbursts; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)

outburst energy = ~10^56 erg
Constrained to ~10^56 erg to match observed bubble sizes and shock strengths
half-opening angle = ~4°
Set to ~4° to reproduce the observed bipolar morphology
velocity at 100 pc = ~2000 km s^{-1}
Fixed at ~2000 km s^{-1} to satisfy expansion constraints

axioms (2)

domain assumption Each bubble pair is driven by a distinct collimated outburst
Invoked to interpret the nested bipolar structures as forward shocks
domain assumption The stratified 1D model accurately captures the essential dynamics when verified by 2D/3D simulations
Used to evolve the bubbles and extract parameters from observations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1623 out tokens · 29244 ms · 2026-05-16T09:07:27.205603+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Observational constraints indicate that both RB and FB outbursts had (up to factor ∼2–4 uncertainties) ∼4° half-opening angles and ∼2000 km s−1 velocities 100 pc from their base, carrying ∼10^56 erg.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The subsequent, slowdown phase is characterized by strong deceleration of the head due to the inertia of the swept-up mass. Conservation of z-momentum implies z_H(ts < t < t◦) ≃ [1 + (−1 + t/ts)^τz−1]^τz z_s

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 33 internal anchors

[1]

and RBs [10, 11], a high-latitude X-ray shell shows compressed, heated thermal electrons, while coincident γ-rays [5, 11] indicate the fresh acceleration of relativis- tic electrons, consistent with diffusive shock accelera- tion. In the FBs, shock compression, particle accelera- tion, and magnetization are further indicated by inward γ-ray hardening [13]...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

The observed FB edge morphology thus constrainsθ j ≃4 ◦ for its outburst (M22), corresponding by Eq

FB inferences The presence of the RBs strengthens the M22 con- straints on the FB outburst parameters because, as dis- cussed in§II E, it renders it safer to approximate the FBs as presently still ballistic. The observed FB edge morphology thus constrainsθ j ≃4 ◦ for its outburst (M22), corresponding by Eq. (10) toA ≃0.5 and hence Rmax ≃z H A/2≃2.5z 10 kp...

work page
[3]

Nevertheless, the width Rmax of the RBs is robustly deprojected as 7–8 kpc, as shown in§III A and supported by simulations [39, 50] and even spherically symmetric RB modeling [10]

RB inferences The RBs are more difficult to deproject than the FBs, with plausible projections of very differentz RB still ac- ceptable, as shown in§III A. Nevertheless, the width Rmax of the RBs is robustly deprojected as 7–8 kpc, as shown in§III A and supported by simulations [39, 50] and even spherically symmetric RB modeling [10]. Indeed, as the RBs r...

work page
[4]

FB edges The FB edges are fairly well reproduced by the pro- jected ballistic model in the eastern sectors, where 8 Eqs. (43) and (44) indicate consistentθ j ≃4 ◦ .4 (θj ≃3 ◦ .8) andz H ≃9.6 kpc (z H ≃10.4 kpc) in the north (south), as anticipated above; these results align with numeri- cal simulations (M22). The observed bubbles bend west- wards at highe...

work page
[5]

In particular, the western edges suggest a break, resembling that of the slowdown regime, and the northwestern RB extends too far west to admit any ballistic solution

RB edges For the RBs, argued in II F 2 to have intermediate, ξ∼1 values, the observed edges lie in general between ballistic and slowdown projections, with eastern (west- ern) edges in better agreement with the ballistic (slow- down) profiles as anticipated above. In particular, the western edges suggest a break, resembling that of the slowdown regime, an...

work page
[6]

Although these simulations are not fully converged at our highest resolution, and the results depend on vis- cosity, they suggest that the observed 3≲M H ≲5 RBs can be produced withinT RB ≃15−25 Myr of an 1055 erg≲E j ≲10 56 erg outburst. B. Joint RB–FB simulations We now turn our attention to a nested bubble sce- nario, where two separate outbursts are l...

work page 2000
[7]

The WISSH Quasars Project I. Powerful ionised outflows in hyper-luminous quasars

M. Bischetti, E. Piconcelli, G. Vietri,et al., A&A598, A122 (2017), arXiv:1612.03728 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[8]

L´ opez-Cob´ a, S

C. L´ opez-Cob´ a, S. F. S´ anchez, J. P. Anderson,et al., AJ 159, 167 (2020), arXiv:2002.09328 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

A Multifrequency Study of Double-Double Radio Galaxies

M. Jamrozy, C. Konar, D. J. Saikia, and J. Machalski, inThe Low-Frequency Radio Universe, Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 407, edited by D. J. Saikia, D. A. Green, Y. Gupta, and T. Venturi (2009) p. 137, arXiv:0905.0452 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[10]

Not only in projection, as we later show

work page
[11]

M. Su, T. R. Slatyer, and D. P. Finkbeiner, ApJ724, 1044 (2010), arXiv:1005.5480 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[12]

The Fermi Haze: A Gamma-Ray Counterpart to the Microwave Haze

G. Dobler, D. P. Finkbeiner, I. Cholis,et al., ApJ717, 825 (2010), arXiv:0910.4583 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[13]

Sofue, A&A60, 327 (1977)

Y. Sofue, A&A60, 327 (1977)

work page 1977
[14]

Giant Explosion at the Galactic Center and Huge Shocked Shells in the Halo

Y. Sofue, ApJ431, L91 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9402034 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[15]

Bipolar-Hyper-Shell Galactic Center Statrburst Model: Further Evidence from ROSAT Data and New Radio and X-ray Simulations

Y. Sofue, ApJ540, 224 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912528 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[16]

Predehl, R

P. Predehl, R. A. Sunyaev, W. Becker,et al., Nature588, 227 (2020), arXiv:2012.05840 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2020
[17]

Keshet and A

U. Keshet and A. Ghosh, arXiv:2601.14369 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[18]

Keshet and I

U. Keshet and I. Gurwich, MNRAS480, 223 (2018), arXiv:1704.05070 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2018
[19]

Fermi bubble edges: spectrum and diffusion function

U. Keshet and I. Gurwich, ApJ840, 7 (2017), arXiv:1611.04190 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[20]

Keshet, I

U. Keshet, I. Gurwich, A. Lavi,et al., ApJ968, 107 (2024), arXiv:2311.08459 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Detection of polarized Fermi-bubble synchrotron and dust emission

U. Keshet, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics45, 299 (2025), arXiv:2401.00933 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[22]

G. Mou, J. Wu, and Y. Sofue, A&A676, L3 (2023), arXiv:2212.04306 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[23]

K. C. Sarkar, A&A Rev.32, 1 (2024), arXiv:2403.09824 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[24]

Identifying the Radio Bubble Nature of the Microwave Haze

G. Dobler, ApJ760, L8 (2012), arXiv:1208.2690 [astro- ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[25]

Planck Collaboration, A&A554, A139 (2013), arXiv:1208.5483 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[26]

M. J. Miller and J. N. Bregman, ApJ800, 14 (2015), arXiv:1412.3116 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[27]

M. J. Miller and J. N. Bregman, ApJ829, 9 (2016), arXiv:1607.04906 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[28]

K. C. Sarkar, S. Mondal, P. Sharma, and T. Piran, ApJ 951, 36 (2023), arXiv:2211.12967 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[29]

Reich and W

P. Reich and W. Reich, A&AS74, 7 (1988)

work page 1988
[30]

Borka, MNRAS376, 634 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0702284 [astro-ph]

V. Borka, MNRAS376, 634 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0702284 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2007
[31]

A. E. Guzm´ an, J. May, H. Alvarez, and K. Maeda, A&A 525, A138 (2011), arXiv:1011.4298 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[32]

Iwashita, J

R. Iwashita, J. Kataoka, and Y. Sofue, ApJ958, 83 (2023), arXiv:2310.10007 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

X-ray and Gamma-ray Observations of the Fermi Bubbles and NPS/Loop I Structures

J. Kataoka, Y. Sofue, Y. Inoue,et al., Galaxies6, 27 (2018), arXiv:1802.07463 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[34]

K. C. Sarkar, MNRAS482, 4813 (2019), arXiv:1804.05634 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[35]

Diffuse x-ray emission from the northern arc of loop I observed with suzaku

M. Akita, J. Kataoka, M. Arimoto,et al., ApJ862, 88 (2018), arXiv:1806.08058 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[36]

D. M. LaRocca, P. Kaaret, K. D. Kuntz,et al., ApJ904, 54 (2020)

work page 2020
[37]

K. C. Sarkar, B. B. Nath, P. Sharma, and Y. Shchekinov, MNRAS448, 328 (2015), arXiv:1409.4874 [astro- ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[38]

Zhang, G

H.-S. Zhang, G. Ponti, E. Carretti,et al., Nature Astron- omy8, 1416 (2024), arXiv:2408.06312 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[39]

Scheffler, M

T. Scheffler, M. M. Schulreich, D. P. P. R. Schurer, and D. Breitschwerdt, A&A695, A34 (2025), arXiv:2501.18713 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Mondal, U

S. Mondal, U. Keshet, K. C. Sarkar, and I. Gurwich, MN- RAS514, 2581 (2022), arXiv:2109.03834 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[41]

K. C. Sarkar, B. B. Nath, and P. Sharma, MNRAS467, 3544 (2017), arXiv:1610.00719 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[42]

The Fermi Bubbles. I. Possible Evidence for Recent AGN Jet Activity in the Galaxy

F. Guo and W. G. Mathews, ApJ756, 181 (2012), arXiv:1103.0055 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[43]

F. Guo, W. G. Mathews, G. Dobler, and S. P. Oh, ApJ 756, 182 (2012), arXiv:1110.0834 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[44]

Zhang and F

R. Zhang and F. Guo, ApJ894, 117 (2020), arXiv:2003.03625 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[45]

H. Y. K. Yang, M. Ruszkowski, and E. G. Zweibel, Na- ture Astronomy6, 584 (2022), arXiv:2203.02526 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[46]

Tseng, H

P.-H. Tseng, H. Y. K. Yang, C.-Y. Chen,et al., ApJ970, 146 (2024), arXiv:2405.20816 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

Sofue and T

Y. Sofue and T. Handa, Nature310, 568 (1984)

work page 1984
[48]

F. K. Baganoff, Y. Maeda, M. Morris,et al., ApJ591, 891 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0102151 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[49]

The Large-scale Bipolar Wind in the Galactic Center

J. Bland-Hawthorn and M. Cohen, ApJ582, 246 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208553 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[50]

C. J. Law, ApJ708, 474 (2010), arXiv:0911.2061 [astro- ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[51]

A. J. Fox, R. Bordoloi, B. D. Savage,et al., ApJ799, L7 (2015), arXiv:1412.1480 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[52]

F. J. Lockman and N. M. McClure-Griffiths, ApJ826, 215 (2016), arXiv:1605.01140 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[53]

Giant HI Hole inside the 3-kpc Ring and the North Polar Spur - The Galactic Crater -

Y. Sofue, PASJ69, L8 (2017), arXiv:1706.08771 [astro- ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[54]

The Galactic Centre Chimney

G. Ponti, F. Hofmann, E. Churazov,et al., Nature567, 347 (2019), arXiv:1904.05969 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[55]

Sofue and J

Y. Sofue and J. Kataoka, MNRAS506, 2170 (2021), arXiv:2106.14955 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2021
[56]

Zhang, F

R. Zhang, F. Guo, S. Xie,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.13665 (2025), arXiv:2507.13665 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

K. C. Sarkar, B. B. Nath, and P. Sharma, MNRAS453, 3827 (2015), arXiv:1505.03634 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[58]

G. Mou, D. Sun, and F. Xie, ApJ869, L20 (2018), arXiv:1811.11472 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[59]

G. Mou, D. Sun, T. Fang,et al., Nature Communications 14, 781 (2023), arXiv:2212.02270 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2023
[60]

PLUTO: a Numerical Code for Computational Astrophysics

A. Mignone, G. Bodo, S. Massaglia,et al., ApJS170, 228 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701854 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[61]

P. J. McMillan, MNRAS414, 2446 (2011), arXiv:1102.4340 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[62]

P. J. McMillan, MNRAS465, 76 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/465/1/76/8593676/stw2759.pdf. 16

work page 2017
[63]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, ApJ462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
[64]

Miyamoto and R

M. Miyamoto and R. Nagai, PASJ27, 533 (1975)

work page 1975
[65]

S. I. Braginskii, Soviet Journal of Experimental and The- oretical Physics6, 358 (1958)

work page 1958
[66]

Spitzer,Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, Interscience tracts on physics and astronomy (Interscience Publishers, 1962)

L. Spitzer,Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, Interscience tracts on physics and astronomy (Interscience Publishers, 1962). Appendix A: Galactic model The Galactic model in our simulations closely fol- lows the implementation of [31]. This model includes a rigid gravitational potential, with steady-state equi- librium contributions from baryonic and dark mat...

work page 1962
[67]

The gravitational potential from the baryonic components include contri- butions from the stellar bulge and the galactic disk

model; however, the profile is modified such that it approaches a finite density towards the center of the potential well ΦDM (R, z) =− GMvir Λ (cvir) ln 1 +r −1 s √ R2 +d 2 √ R2 +d 2 ,(A1) wherer vir is the virial radius,r s is the scale radius of the NFW model,dis the radius of the finite density core, cvir ≡r vir/rs is the NFW concentration parameter, ...

work page 2048