pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04044 · v1 · pith:EYFFAKR5new · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· physics.pop-ph

The Cosmological Hart-Tipler Conjecture

David Kipping This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAphysics.pop-ph
keywords Hart-Tipler conjecturevon Neumann probescosmological expansionextraterrestrial intelligenceFermi paradoxself-reproducing automatauniverse colonizationtechnosignatures
0
0 comments X

The pith

A minimal cosmological model shows self-propagating probes would infect most of the universe unless spawn rates are below one per million galaxies.

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

The paper builds a three-parameter model of generic artificial infections to extend the Hart-Tipler argument to the expanding universe while keeping assumptions to a minimum. It finds that a constant spawn rate above once per million galaxies combined with 0.1c propagation starting 4.5 Gyr after the Big Bang fills half the universe by the present epoch. Near-c speeds push the threshold to once per billion galaxies, and rates of one per 100,000 galaxies produce over 99.9 percent coverage. This supplies a sharp lower bound on how rare aggressive self-reproducing technology must be to match the observed emptiness of space. The result is presented as a bare-bones constraint rather than a detailed simulation of behavior or emergence times.

Core claim

Accounting for cosmological expansion, half the Universe is infected by today for u=0.1c propagation starting 4.5 Gyr after the Big Bang if the spawn rate exceeds approximately once per million galaxies. For near-c propagation, this becomes a billion galaxies. Over 99.9% of cosmological volumes are filled with 0.1c if even 1-in-100,000 galaxies have ever spawned an infection. The cosmological Hart-Tipler problem therefore offers a remarkably sharp minimal-model constraint on the prevalence of aggressive, self-propagating technological behavior.

What carries the argument

The three-parameter bare-bones model of spontaneous spawn rate, propagation speed u, and start time, which tracks the fraction of cosmological volume reached by infections in an expanding universe.

Load-bearing premise

Spontaneous spawn events occur at a constant average rate across galaxies with propagation at fixed speed u and no interactions or termination.

What would settle it

A survey finding that the fraction of galaxies at moderate redshift showing technological activity is far below the model's predicted infected volume for spawn rates above one per million would directly test the claimed threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04044 by David Kipping.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A grid of solutions that produce a cosmos precisely half-filled by an infection that has some spontaneous spawn rate within galaxies and then emanates an infection wavefront propagating at a speed given by the y-axis. The x-axis varies the earliest time for which we allow infection seeds to spawn. The contours denote the solved spawn rate to produce half-filling, framed in terms of the mean number of galax… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Self-reproducing automata, so-called von Neumann machines, have been repeatedly estimated to be capable of traversing the Galaxy many times given its age. Our mere existence thus seems to exclude an aggressive variant of such a probe having ever been launched in the Milky Way. The Hart-Tipler conjecture considers this to represent contra-positive evidence to the hypothesis that other extra-terrestrial technological entities have emerged in our galaxy. Recently, several authors have extended interstellar colonization calculations to cosmological volumes, but these models are loaded with specific assumptions about behavior and emergence times. Here, we present a bare-bones model of generic artificial infections (such as but not limited to von Neumann probes) at cosmological scale in order to maximize interpretability, an approach closer to the original spirit of the Hart-Tipler calculations. Our model has just three parameters, a spontaneous spawn rate, a propagation speed (u) and a start time for the calculation. Accounting for cosmological expansion, we find that half the Universe is infected by today for u=0.1c propagation starting 4.5 Gyr after the Big Bang if the spawn rate exceeds approximately once per million galaxies. For near-c propagation, this becomes a billion galaxies. Over 99.9% of cosmological volumes are filled with 0.1c if even 1-in-100,000 galaxies have ever spawned an infection. The "cosmological Hart-Tipler" problem therefore offers a remarkably sharp minimal-model constraint on the prevalence of aggressive, self-propagating technological behavior. We explore its implications, such as how anthropic reasoning implies such infections occur and its fine-tuning nature.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a minimal three-parameter model (spontaneous spawn rate, propagation speed u, start time) for the cosmological spread of self-reproducing automata, accounting for expansion. It reports that for u=0.1c and a start time 4.5 Gyr after the Big Bang, spawn rates exceeding ~1 per million galaxies infect half the Universe by today, with near-c speeds tightening this to ~1 per billion galaxies; over 99.9% infection occurs at 1-in-100,000 for u=0.1c. The central claim is that this yields a sharp minimal-model constraint on aggressive self-propagating technological behavior, with discussion of anthropic and fine-tuning implications.

Significance. If the volume integrals and expansion accounting are correctly implemented, the work supplies an interpretable baseline for bounding the emergence rate of von Neumann probes using observable cosmological volumes rather than Galaxy-specific assumptions. Credit is due for the deliberate choice of a bare-bones parametrization that isolates the effect of expansion and for stating the three free parameters explicitly.

major comments (2)
  1. [model description / results] Model description (implicit in abstract and results): the quoted thresholds (one per million galaxies, one per billion, etc.) are obtained by direct substitution of chosen values for the three free parameters into the infection-fraction calculation; the resulting 'constraint' therefore restates the input assumptions rather than deriving an independent bound from cosmological observables or data.
  2. [implications] Implications section: the assertion that 'anthropic reasoning implies such infections occur' is not derived from the three-parameter model and requires additional premises (e.g., observer selection effects across infected vs. uninfected volumes) that are not formalized or tested within the presented framework.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states results for specific numerical choices (4.5 Gyr, u=0.1c, 0.999c) without indicating how sensitive the infection fractions are to modest variations in start time or u; a brief sensitivity table would improve clarity.
  2. [model] Notation for the propagation speed u and the precise definition of 'infected comoving volume' should be introduced once in the model section and used consistently.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed report and the positive assessment of the model's minimal parametrization. We address the two major comments point by point below, agreeing where the critique is accurate and indicating revisions to improve clarity without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [model description / results] Model description (implicit in abstract and results): the quoted thresholds (one per million galaxies, one per billion, etc.) are obtained by direct substitution of chosen values for the three free parameters into the infection-fraction calculation; the resulting 'constraint' therefore restates the input assumptions rather than deriving an independent bound from cosmological observables or data.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted thresholds arise from direct evaluation of the infection-fraction integral at specific parameter values rather than from fitting to observational data. The manuscript frames these as outcomes of a minimal three-parameter model that isolates the effects of expansion and propagation speed, intended as an illustrative baseline rather than an empirical upper limit. We will revise the abstract, results, and discussion to explicitly state that the numbers are model-derived illustrations under the stated assumptions and do not constitute data-driven bounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [implications] Implications section: the assertion that 'anthropic reasoning implies such infections occur' is not derived from the three-parameter model and requires additional premises (e.g., observer selection effects across infected vs. uninfected volumes) that are not formalized or tested within the presented framework.

    Authors: The anthropic discussion is presented as an interpretive extension in the final section rather than a formal consequence of the three-parameter calculation. The model itself demonstrates the rapidity of infection for modest spawn rates; linking this to observer selection requires external premises about the distribution of observers across infected and uninfected regions. We will revise the implications section to clarify that this connection is exploratory, to list the additional assumptions explicitly, and to avoid any implication that the model alone derives the anthropic conclusion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper introduces a three-parameter minimal model (spawn rate, propagation speed u, start time) and directly computes resulting infection fractions under cosmological expansion. The reported thresholds (e.g., once per million galaxies for 50% infection at u=0.1c) are explicit outputs of this parametric calculation for selected input values, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions or self-definitional relations. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked in the provided text to justify load-bearing steps. The derivation is self-contained as a bare-bones theoretical exploration whose results follow from the stated assumptions and volume integrals by construction, without reducing any central claim to an unverified input or prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three free parameters whose values are varied to produce the quoted infection fractions; the model further assumes standard cosmological expansion and constant-speed propagation without additional entities or fitted constants beyond the three parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • spontaneous spawn rate
    Rate at which new infections appear; thresholds such as once per million galaxies are obtained by varying this parameter.
  • propagation speed u = 0.1c
    Travel speed of the infection front; results shown for 0.1c and near-c.
  • start time = 4.5 Gyr after Big Bang
    Epoch at which the calculation begins; set to 4.5 Gyr after the Big Bang in the reported cases.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cosmological expansion must be included when computing propagation distances
    Explicitly stated as accounted for in the model.
  • domain assumption Infections propagate outward at constant speed u from each spawn site
    Core modeling choice for the bare-bones calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5816 in / 1440 out tokens · 34682 ms · 2026-06-28T09:06:43.018722+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

65 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1994, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 11, L73, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/11/5/001

    Alcubierre, M. 1994, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 11, L73, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/11/5/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/11/5/001 1994

  2. [2]

    2013, Acta Astronautica, 89, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.04.002

    Armstrong, S., & Sandberg, A. 2013, Acta Astronautica, 89, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.04.002 2013

  3. [3]

    2014, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 67, 224

    Ashworth, S. 2014, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 67, 224

    2014

  4. [4]

    Ball, J. A. 1973, Icarus, 19, 347, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(73)90111-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90111-5 1973

  5. [5]

    M., Borucki, W

    Batalha, N. M., Borucki, W. J., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/27 Bjørk, R. 2007, International Journal of Astrobiology, 6, 89, doi: 10.1017/S1473550407003709

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/27 2011

  6. [6]

    M., Christiansen, J

    Boley, K. M., Christiansen, J. L., Zink, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6570

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6570 2024

  7. [7]

    Borgue, O., & Hein, A. M. 2021, Acta Astronautica, 187, 546, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.03.004 2021

  8. [8]

    2013, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (New York: Routledge)

    Bostrom, N. 2013, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (New York: Routledge)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Box, G. E. P. 1976, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791

    1976

  10. [10]

    Bracewell, R. N. 1960, Nature, 186, 670, doi: 10.1038/186670a0

    work page doi:10.1038/186670a0 1960

  11. [11]

    Brin, G. D. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 283

    1983

  12. [12]

    A., & Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., & Latham, D. W. 2015, ApJ, 808, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/187

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/187 2015

  13. [13]

    2019, A&A, 630, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936126

    Buldgen, G., Farnir, M., Pezzotti, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936126

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936126 2019

  14. [14]

    L., Barclay, T., Swift, J

    Campante, T. L., Barclay, T., Swift, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/170

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/170 2015

  15. [15]

    J., & Rees, M

    Carr, B. J., & Rees, M. J. 1979, Nature, 278, 605, doi: 10.1038/278605a0

    work page doi:10.1038/278605a0 1979

  16. [16]

    2019, AJ, 158, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31a3

    Carroll-Nellenback, J., Frank, A., Wright, J., & Scharf, C. 2019, AJ, 158, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab31a3 2019

  17. [17]

    1974, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Carter, B. 1974, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 63, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M. S. Longair, 291–298

    1974

  18. [18]

    2008, International Journal of Astrobiology, 7, 177, doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004023

    Carter, B. 2008, International Journal of Astrobiology, 7, 177, doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004023

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550408004023 2008

  19. [19]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  20. [20]

    1999, Life on Mars: The Complete Story (London: Blandford)

    Chambers, P. 1999, Life on Mars: The Complete Story (London: Blandford)

    1999

  21. [21]

    Cirkovic, M. M. 2001, arXiv e-prints, gr, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.gr-qc/0110002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0110002 2001

  22. [22]

    A Computational Analysis of Galactic Exploration with Space Probes: Implications for the Fermi Paradox

    Cotta, C., & Morales, A. 2009, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 62, 82, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0907.0345

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0907.0345 2009

  23. [23]

    1973, Icarus, 19, 341, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019- 1035(73)90110-3

    Crick, F., & Orgel, L. 1973, Icarus, 19, 341, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019- 1035(73)90110-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019- 1973

  24. [24]

    Dalrymple, G. B. 2001, Geological Society of London Special Publications, 190, 205, doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14 26

    work page doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2001.190.01.14 2001

  25. [25]

    2000, Analysis, 60, 143, doi: 10.1111/1467-8284.00215

    Elga, A. 2000, Analysis, 60, 143, doi: 10.1111/1467-8284.00215

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00215 2000

  26. [26]

    2016, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 53, 317, doi: 10.2514/1.A33409

    Ellery, A. 2016, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 53, 317, doi: 10.2514/1.A33409

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a33409 2016

  27. [27]

    2022, International Journal of Astrobiology, 21, 212, doi: 10.1017/S1473550422000234

    Ellery, A. 2022, International Journal of Astrobiology, 21, 212, doi: 10.1017/S1473550422000234

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550422000234 2022

  28. [28]

    doi:10.1086/428383 , journal =

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102, doi: 10.1086/428383

    work page doi:10.1086/428383 2005

  29. [29]

    Forgan, D. H. 2009, International Journal of Astrobiology, 8, 121, doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004321

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550408004321 2009

  30. [30]

    Forgan, D. H. 2017, International Journal of Astrobiology, 16, 349, doi: 10.1017/S1473550416000392

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550416000392 2017

  31. [31]

    Forgan, D. H. 2019, International Journal of Astrobiology, 18, 552, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000053

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550419000053 2019

  32. [32]

    Freitas, Jr., R. A. 1980, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 33, 251

    1980

  33. [33]

    Gallazzi, A., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., & White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12632.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12632.x 2008

  34. [34]

    Expanding advanced civilizations in the universe

    Gros, C. 2005, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 58, 108, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0501119

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0501119 2005

  35. [35]

    W., & Hedman, A

    Hair, T. W., & Hedman, A. D. 2013, International Journal of Astrobiology, 12, 45, doi: 10.1017/S1473550412000420

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550412000420 2013

  36. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369

    Paulson, J. 2021, ApJ, 922, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369 2021

  37. [37]

    Hart, M. H. 1975, QJRAS, 16, 128

    1975

  38. [38]

    2010 , bdsk-url-1 =

    Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905, doi: 10.1086/655775

    work page doi:10.1086/655775 2010

  39. [39]

    L., & Li, H

    Johnson, J. L., & Li, H. 2012, ApJ, 751, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/81 2012

  40. [40]

    Jones, E. M. 1976, Icarus, 28, 421, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90156-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(76)90156-1 1976

  41. [41]

    24 Technosignatures with the SKA Tremblay et al

    Kipping, D., & Lewis, G. 2025, International Journal of Astrobiology, 24, e5, doi: 10.1017/S1473550424000235

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550424000235 2025

  42. [42]

    , eprint =

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  43. [43]

    Landis, G. A. 1998, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 51, 163

    1998

  44. [44]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x 2009

  45. [45]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811- 125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811- 125615

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811- 2014

  46. [46]

    R., & Weinberg, S

    Martel, H., Shapiro, P. R., & Weinberg, S. 1998, ApJ, 492, 29, doi: 10.1086/305016

    work page doi:10.1086/305016 1998

  47. [47]

    Wright, J. T. 2025, Science Advances, 11, 5698, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ads5698

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ads5698 2025

  48. [48]

    L., Aird, J., et al

    Moustakas, J., Coil, A. L., Aird, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/50 2013

  49. [49]

    Olson, S. J. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 215025, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/215025

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/215025 2015

  50. [50]

    Parkin, K. L. G. 2018, Acta Astronautica, 152, 370, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.08.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.08.035 2018

  51. [51]

    Sagan, C., & Newman, W. I. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 113

    1983

  52. [52]

    To Explain or to Predict?

    Shmueli, G. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1101.0891, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1101.0891

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1101.0891 2011

  53. [53]

    Stull, M. A. 1979, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 32, 221

    1979

  54. [54]

    C., Agrawal, A., Ackermann, R., et al

    Tarter, J. C., Agrawal, A., Ackermann, R., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7819, Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology XIII, ed. R. B. Hoover, G. V. Levin, A. Y. Rozanov, & P. C. W. Davies, 781902, doi: 10.1117/12.863128

    work page doi:10.1117/12.863128 2010

  55. [55]

    and Fortney, Jonathan J

    Murray-Clay, R. A., & Lopez, E. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 64, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/64 2016

  56. [56]

    Tipler, F. J. 1980, QJRAS, 21, 267

    1980

  57. [57]

    Tipler, F. J. 1982, Physics Today, 35, 34, doi: 10.1063/1.2914966

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2914966 1982

  58. [58]

    Tipler, F. J. 1983, Science, 219, 110,112, doi: 10.1126/science.219.4581.110.a von Neumann, J. 1966, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata (University of Illinois Press, Urbana and London) 27

    work page doi:10.1126/science.219.4581.110.a 1983

  59. [59]

    Wang, J., & Fischer, D. A. 2015, AJ, 149, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/14 2015

  60. [60]

    Wang, Z.-W., & Braunstein, S. L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 755, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02014-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02014-9 2023

  61. [61]

    Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant,

    Weinberg, S. 1987, PhRvL, 59, 2607, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2607 1987

  62. [62]

    22 [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Luis P

    Weinberg, S. 1989, Reviews of Modern Physics, 61, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  63. [63]

    M., Dai, F., Huber, D., et al

    Weiss, L. M., Dai, F., Huber, D., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd409

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd409 2021

  64. [64]

    T., Kanodia, S., & Lubar, E

    Wright, J. T., Kanodia, S., & Lubar, E. 2018, AJ, 156, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae099

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae099 2018

  65. [65]

    T., Mullan, B., Sigurdsson, S., & Povich, M

    Wright, J. T., Mullan, B., Sigurdsson, S., & Povich, M. S. 2014, ApJ, 792, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/26 2014