Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Helical Magnetic Field in a Massive Protostellar Jet

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first rotation measure analysis of a protostellar radio jet reveals a helical magnetic field in the HH 80-81 outflow, supporting a universal collimation mechanism.

desk verdict The first RM analysis of a protostellar jet, with careful polarimetry and a plausible helical-field story, but the jet width is not resolved (beam >> jet radius), so the transverse RM gradient driving the claim is likely beam-smoothed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07622 v1 pith:26G43AWL submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

A. Rodríguez-Kamenetzky , A. Pasetto , C. Carrasco-González , L. F. Rodríguez , J. L. Gómez , G. Anglada , J. M. Torrelles , N. R. C. Gomes
show 2 more authors
S. Vig J. Martí
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords protostellarjetsHH80-81rotationmeasureFaradaymagneticfieldssynchrotronemissionjetcollimationmassiveprotostars
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

The paper reports the first rotation measure analysis of polarized synchrotron emission from a protostellar radio jet, applied to the HH 80-81 jet and counterjet. The authors measure how the polarization angle changes with wavelength across 4-8 GHz and reconstruct the intrinsic magnetic field direction after removing Faraday rotation. They find a transverse gradient in rotation measure that reverses sign between the jet and counterjet, together with strong depolarization on the jet axis; both are signatures of a helical magnetic field. Their conclusion is that the jet carries an intrinsic helical field at roughly 0.4 pc from the protostar, with the toroidal component dominant near the axis and the poloidal component becoming visible at the edges. If correct, this is the first solid evidence for a helical field in a protostellar jet and supports the idea that the collimation mechanism is universal across jet sources.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is pixel-by-pixel rotation measure fitting in the Faraday screen limit, where a foreground medium rotates the polarization angle without changing the degree of polarization. For each pixel the observed fractional Stokes parameters $q(\lambda^2)$ and $u(\lambda^2)$ are described by a one-component model in which the polarization angle obeys $\chi(\lambda^2) = \chi_0 + \mathrm{RM}\,\lambda^2$; fitting this to the data yields maps of RM, intrinsic polarization angle, and intrinsic fractional polarization. The intrinsic magnetic field direction in the plane of the sky is the corrected polarization angle rotated by $90^\circ$, displayed as streamlines using line integral convolution. The physical link to a helical field is provided by the expected signatures: a toroidal component produces a transverse RM gradient as the line-of-sight field changes sign across the jet, and the axis depolarization follows from integrating emission through different field orientations. The observed opposition of the RM gradients in the jet and counterjet is what connects the field's winding direction to the disk rotation.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to re-observe the jet with an angular resolution at least a few times finer than its width and produce an RM map with several independent beams across the jet. If the transverse RM gradient and the axis depolarization vanish or become consistent with a uniform field when the jet is properly resolved, the helical-field conclusion would be refuted. A complementary check is to confirm that the RM gradient reverses sign exactly along the jet axis and that the depolarization scales with $\lambda^2$ in the way Faraday rotation demands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the HH 80-81 jet's magnetic field has a helical topology. The evidence has three parts: the fractional polarization is lowest on the jet axis and rises toward the edges; the rotation measure changes systematically across the jet width, with opposite signs in the jet and counterjet, indicating a toroidal field component whose winding direction tracks the rotation of the accretion disk; and the magnetic streamlines reconstructed after Faraday correction are mostly toroidal near the axis and swing toward poloidal at the edges. Using the measured RM values, an assumed electron density of $n_e\sim300$ cm$^{-3}$, and a path length equal to the jet diameter, the line-of-sight field is $B_{\parallel}\sim0.1$ mG, consistent with the plane-of-sky equipartition value of $0.2$ mG, yielding a total field of $\sim0.2$ mG at an inclination of $\sim60^\circ$. The authors interpret the axis depolarization and internal Faraday rotation as showing that the polarized emission originates inside the jet, so the field is intrinsic to the disk-jet system rather than imposed by the surrounding medium.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion stands or falls on whether the change in rotation measure across the jet's width is genuinely resolved: the beam is $12''\times7.5''$, while the jet half-width at the relevant distance is estimated at $0.53''$, so the gradient could be a beam-smoothing artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The toroidal field component persists at roughly 0.4 pc from the driving protostar, implying that magnetic collimation is not only a launch-zone effect but continues far from the source.
  • The agreement between RM-derived and equipartition field strengths (about $0.1$ and $0.2$ mG) implies that magnetic energy and particle energy are comparable in the synchrotron-emitting lobes.
  • The opposite RM gradients in jet and counterjet tie the field's winding sense to the accretion disk rotation, supporting a disk-generated, large-scale helical geometry.
  • This measurement opens a path to three-dimensional magnetic-field reconstruction in protostellar jets, a diagnostic previously limited to AGN jets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same pixel-by-pixel RM technique could be applied to other synchrotron-emitting protostellar jets, beginning with the brightest nonthermal sources, to test whether helical fields are common or unique to massive jets.
  • If the field is indeed helical, the HH 80-81 jet becomes a local analog of kpc-scale AGN jets, where pitch angle and field orientation can be measured with independent density diagnostics that AGN observations cannot provide.
  • A higher-resolution follow-up could separate the claimed transverse gradient from beam-smoothing; a cleaner map would also refine the $B_{\parallel}$ estimate, which currently depends on an assumed electron density.
  • Comparing the RM-derived field inclination ($\sim60^\circ$) with the jet inclination ($\sim49^\circ$) suggests a moderate pitch angle that future magnetohydrodynamic jet models could use to constrain launching conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents new VLA C-band (4–8 GHz) full-polarization observations of the HH 80-81 protostellar jet and performs, for the first time in a protostellar jet, a rotation measure (RM) analysis. The authors fit a Faraday-screen model pixel by pixel to 31 sub-band Stokes q and u images convolved to a 12"×7.5" beam, producing RM, intrinsic polarization angle, and intrinsic polarization fraction maps. They report opposite transverse RM gradients in the jet and counterjet and a polarization-degree minimum at the jet axis, which they interpret as evidence for a toroidal/helical magnetic field. Combining the RM with an assumed electron density, they estimate B_parallel ≈ 0.1 mG and a magnetic field inclination of about 60°. The paper concludes that these findings provide the first solid evidence for a helical magnetic field in a protostellar jet and support a universal jet collimation mechanism.

Significance. If the helical-field interpretation were secure, this would be an important step: it would be the first RM measurement in a protostellar jet and the first direct comparison of the magnetic topology of a YSO jet with the helical-field pattern reported in AGN jets. The observational investment is substantial, and the pixel-by-pixel q/u fitting with displayed residuals is a sound and clearly presented methodological template for future work on other protostellar jets. However, the central conclusion depends on transverse structure that is not resolved at the beam sizes quoted in the paper. The robust contribution is the first RM analysis itself and the restoration of intrinsic polarization angles; the 'solid evidence' claim for a helical field is stronger than the current data support.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1 and 3] The claim that the angular resolution allowed resolving the jet width is contradicted by the numbers in the paper itself. Section 2.1 states that all RM maps were convolved to a 12"×7.5" beam, while Section 3 derives a jet half-width of r=0.53" at z=35". The source is therefore not resolved across its width in the RM maps, and the 'clear detection of gradients of RM across the width' (Fig. 3, center) can be produced by beam smoothing of a longitudinal RM gradient or other sub-beam structure. This is load-bearing for the helical-field interpretation; the authors need to demonstrate, for example by imaging at higher resolution or by forward-convolving helical-field and alternative models with the actual beam, that the observed RM profile is intrinsic.
  2. [2.1 and 3] The Faraday-screen model in Eq. (1) assumes a constant polarization fraction with λ², yet the paper states that the observations show a slight increase of the polarization degree with λ² and that deviations from the model are not taken into account. Because the same q(λ²) and u(λ²) are used to fit RM and χ0, a mis-specified polarization model can bias these parameters. Please quantify this effect, for example by fitting with a depolarization term or by reporting residual covariances, and provide uncertainties for the RM values, including the quoted 200–500 rad m⁻² range and the mean value of 350 rad m⁻² in Section 3.
  3. [3 and Fig. 1] The polarization-degree minimum at the jet axis is also a beam-convolved quantity and cannot be interpreted as an intrinsic depolarization profile without further modeling. The jet half-width at the relevant distance (0.53") is far smaller than the 10"×6" beam used in Fig. 1 and the 12"×7.5" beam used for the RM maps, so the apparent axis-to-edge variation in p may simply reflect blending of an unresolved source. A forward-modeling test with the actual beam is needed before this feature can be used as evidence for internal depolarization and hence for a helical field.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract's phrase 'first solid evidence' and the text's 'conclusive evidence' for a helical magnetic field exceed what the current data support given the resolution and model limitations described above. The robust new result is the first RM measurement in a protostellar jet and a self-consistent Faraday-screen description of the polarization angles; the helical topology should be presented as a plausible interpretation pending resolved observations, or the overclaim should be removed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The source is labeled 'IRAS 1862-2048' but elsewhere in the text the same source is 'IRAS 18162-2048'; the label should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [2.1 and Fig. 3] The paper quotes a 10"×6" beam for Fig. 1 and a 12"×7.5" beam for the RM maps in Section 2.1 and Fig. 3; the relation between these two resolutions and which maps use which beam should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 3] The estimate of B_parallel depends on assumed values of n_e and L, and the text notes that the electron density is uncertain, but no range is propagated to the reported 0.1 mG value. Since this value is compared with the equipartition estimate of 0.2 mG from prior work, a plausible range of B_parallel from the assumed parameters should be given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity found: the RM fit and helical-field interpretation are independent of the claimed conclusion; the beam-resolution concern is evidentiary rather than definitional.

full rationale

The RM values are obtained by a standard pixel-by-pixel fit of the Faraday-screen equation (Equation 1) to the observed q(λ²) and u(λ²) Stokes parameters; the magnetic-field map is then derived from the fitted intrinsic angle χ0 by a 90° rotation. The helical-field conclusion is drawn by comparing two observed features—the transverse RM gradient and the axis-to-edge polarization-degree dip—with the external predictions of Lyutikov et al. (2005), not by assuming a helical field inside the fit. The B∥ estimate uses ne and L from prior work (Rodríguez-Kamenetzky et al. 2017; Bally & Reipurth 2023), but these enter a secondary order-of-magnitude field-strength calculation and are not used to manufacture the RM gradient. Several cited results come from the same group (Carrasco-González et al. 2010, 2012; Fernández-López et al. 2023), but they are observational inputs (polarized emission detected, disk rotation sense) rather than the load-bearing argument that the RM pattern is helical. The claimed transverse RM gradient may be affected by beam smoothing because the jet half-width at z = 35″ is 0.53″ while the beam is 12″ × 7.5″; however, this is a resolution/evidence concern, not circularity, and under the review rules it does not raise the circularity score. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the helical-field claim, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations. Reasonable non-circularity score: 2.

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

The central helical-field interpretation rests on the fitted RM values and on assumptions about the Faraday screen, internal origin of polarization, jet geometry, electron density, disk rotation direction, and Galactic foreground. No new physical entities are introduced. The beam-resolution assumption is the most fragile.

free parameters (3)
  • Rotation measure RM (per pixel) = 200-500 rad m^-2, mean ~350 rad m^-2
    Fitted from q(lambda^2) and u(lambda^2) with a one-component Faraday screen model (Section 2.1); its transverse gradient is the core evidence for the helical field.
  • Intrinsic polarization angle chi0 and fractional polarization p0 (per pixel) = variable
    Fitted together with RM in the same pixel-by-pixel model; used to construct the plane-of-sky magnetic field streamlines.
  • Electron density n_e = ~300 cm^-3
    Adopted from Rodriguez-Kamenetzky et al. 2017 Eq. (12), assuming a mass-loss rate of 6e-7 Msun/yr and v=1000 km/s; used with RM to estimate B_parallel ~0.1 mG (order of magnitude).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Faraday screen model (single uniform screen) applies to the observed polarization
    Section 2.1: limited to 4-8 GHz, so only the simplest model is used; the observed slight increase of p with lambda^2 deviates from the model and is not accounted for.
  • domain assumption Polarized emission originates in the jet itself, not in a foreground screen or ambient medium
    Section 3: the depolarization toward the jet axis and RM gradients are interpreted as internal to the jet, following Pasetto et al. 2021; if the foreground contributed, the geometry inference would change.
  • domain assumption Jet geometry is cylindrically symmetric with line-of-sight depth L = 2r, where r(z) is estimated from a simple expansion law anchored at the HH objects
    Section 3: used to convert RM to B_parallel; geometry is not directly constrained by these observations.
  • domain assumption Electron density n_e ~ 300 cm^-3 estimated from assumed mass-loss rate and velocity
    Section 3: from Rodriguez-Kamenetzky et al. 2017, using Mdot = 6e-7 Msun/yr and v = 1000 km/s; the authors call this an order-of-magnitude estimate.
  • domain assumption Disk rotation direction is counterclockwise, from Carrasco-Gonzalez et al. 2012 and Fernandez-Lopez et al. 2023
    Section 3: required to interpret the opposite RM sign gradients as a toroidal field pointing in the direction of disk rotation in the north hemisphere and opposite in the south.
  • domain assumption Galactic foreground RM is +160 rad m^-2 and uniform across the field
    Section 3: taken from Hutschenreuter et al. 2022 and subtracted from the observed RM to estimate the intrinsic RM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helical Magnetic Field in a Massive Protostellar Jet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26G43AWL

@misc{pith2026250107622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helical Magnetic Field in a Massive Protostellar Jet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26G43AWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07622}
}
read the original abstract

Highly collimated outflows (jets) are observed across a wide range of astrophysical systems involving the accretion of material onto central objects, from supermassive black holes in active galaxies to proto-brown dwarfs and stellar-mass black holes. Despite the diversity of their driving sources, it is believed that all jets are different manifestations of a single universal phenomenon. However, a unified explanation for their ejection and collimation remains elusive. In this study we present the first rotation measure analysis of the polarized synchrotron emission ever performed in a protostellar radio jet, which allows us to reveal its true 3D magnetic structure. Unlike extragalactic radio jets, which often exhibit faint counterjets, protostellar radio jets allow both the jet and the counterjet to be analyzed. This exceptional circumstance allows us to unveil the magnetic field structure of both components. Our findings provide the first solid evidence for a helical magnetic field within a protostellar jet, supporting the universality of the jet collimation mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , center) across the width of both the jet (NL) and the counterjet (SL). The RM map indicates the direction of the magnetic field along the line of sight. Blue regions indicate a magnetic field emerging from the plane of the sky, while regions in red indicate magnetic field lines in the opposite direction, pointing away from the observer. Additionally, the magnetic field component in the line of sight (B∥) can be de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the variation of polarization parameters (p, χ, q in red, and u in blue) as a function of wavelength squared, for the simple Faraday screen model (solid line) and the observations (dots). Residuals of q and u with respect to the model predictions are also shown. The Faraday screen model fitting was conducted pixel by pixel. Six representative pixels are shown along a cross section of the jet axis, inte… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of the rotation measure (RM) analysis in the HH 80-81 jet. The left image shows the streamline image (obtained through the line integral convolution technique) of the component of the magnetic field parallel to the plane of the sky, over the total intensity map. In the middle panel we show the streamline image of the magnetic field parallel to the plane of the sky, over the values of the Faraday rotation obt… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Helical radio jets as probes of magnetised cluster environments: Periodic Faraday Rotation Revealed in the Corkscrew Galaxy by POSSUM

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Periodic RM oscillations matching the Corkscrew jet's lateral deviations reveal a transition from jet/sheath to local-ICM Faraday media along the flow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E., Scaife, A

    Ainsworth, R. E., Scaife, A. M. M., Ray, T. P., et al. 2014, ApJL, 792, L18 Añez-López, N., Osorio, M., Busquet, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 41

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    F., & Carrasco-González, C

    Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2015, in Proc. of Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14) (Trieste: PoS ), 121

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    F., & Carrasco-González, C

    Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2018, A&ARv, 26, 3

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 99

    Bally, J., & Reipurth, B. 2023, ApJ, 958, 99

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

    1982

  6. [6]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67

    1966

  7. [7]

    Cabral, B., & Leedom, L. C. 1993, in Proc. of the 20th Annual Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ’93 (New

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    2012, ApJL, 752, L29 Carrasco-González, C., Rodríguez, L

    York, NY: ACM ), 263 Carrasco-González, C., Galván-Madrid, R., Anglada, G., et al. 2012, ApJL, 752, L29 Carrasco-González, C., Rodríguez, L. F., Anglada, G., et al. 2010, Sci, 330, 1209

    work page 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    G., Vig, S., & Mohan, S

    Cheriyan, A. G., Vig, S., & Mohan, S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2172

    2023

  2. [10]

    C., Lai, S

    Ching, T. C., Lai, S. P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 159

    2016

  3. [11]

    M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D

    Christodoulou, D. M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2008, ApJ, 674, 388

    2008

  4. [12]

    M., Kazanas, D., & Gabuzda, D

    Contopoulos, I., Christodoulou, D. M., Kazanas, D., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2009, ApJL, 702, L148

    2009

  5. [13]

    1998, ApJ, 508, 859

    Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 859

    1998

  6. [14]

    Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Christodoulou, D. M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1451 Cortés, P. C., Sanhueza, P., Houde, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 204

    2006

  7. [15]

    Deguchi, S., & Watson, W. D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 126

    1984

  8. [16]

    2011, AJ, 141, 191 Fernández-López, M., Girart, J

    Farnsworth, D., Rudnick, L., & Brown, S. 2011, AJ, 141, 191 Fernández-López, M., Girart, J. M., López-Vázquez, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 82

    2011

  9. [17]

    C., Knuettel, S., & Bonafede, A

    Gabuzda, D. C., Knuettel, S., & Bonafede, A. 2015, A&A, 583, A96

    2015

  10. [18]

    C., Reichstein, A

    Gabuzda, D. C., Reichstein, A. R., & O ’Neill, E.L. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 172

    2014

  11. [19]

    C., Roche, N., Kirwan, A., et al

    Gabuzda, D. C., Roche, N., Kirwan, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1792

    2017

  12. [20]

    M., Crutcher, R

    Girart, J. M., Crutcher, R. M., & Rao, R. 1999, ApJL, 525, L109

    1999

  13. [21]

    M., Curiel, S., Rodríguez, L.F., & Cantó, J

    Girart, J. M., Curiel, S., Rodríguez, L.F., & Cantó, J. 2002, RMxAA, 38, 169

    2002

  14. [22]

    Goldreich, P., & Kyla fis, N. D. 1981, ApJL, 243, L75 Gómez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Agudo, I., & Roca-Sogorb, M. 2008, ApJL, 681, L69

    1981

  15. [23]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 12 Högbom, J

    Hartigan, P., & Wright, A. 2015, ApJ, 811, 12 Högbom, J. A 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    2015

  16. [24]

    L., Aller, M

    Hovatta, T., Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 105

    2012

  17. [25]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A43

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, NatAs, 1, 0152

    2017

  19. [27]

    I., & Gabuzda, D

    Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 869

    2005

  20. [28]

    P., Murphy, E., Gabuzda, D

    Mahmud, M., Coughlan, C. P., Murphy, E., Gabuzda, D. C., & Hallahan, D. R. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 695

    2013

  21. [29]

    2009, A&A, 502, 61 Martí, J., Rodríguez, L

    Kraus, A. 2009, A&A, 502, 61 Martí, J., Rodríguez, L. F., & Reipurth, B. 1993, ApJ, 416, 208

    2009

  22. [30]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in ASP Conf. Ser. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 127

    2007

  23. [31]

    O., Lumsden, S

    Obonyo, W. O., Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3664

    2019

  24. [32]

    K., Anglada, G., et al

    Osorio, M., Díaz-Rodríguez, A. K., Anglada, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 36 9 https://www.skao.int/en/science-users 10 https://ngvla.nrao.edu/ 7 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978:L31 (8pp), 2025 January 10 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky et al

    2017

  25. [33]

    2021, Galax, 9, 56

    Pasetto, A. 2021, Galax, 9, 56

    2021

  26. [34]

    L., et al

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-González, C., Gómez, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L5

    2021

  27. [35]

    2018, A&A, 613, A74

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-González, C., O ’Sullivan, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A74

    2018

  28. [36]

    A., Bridle, A

    Perley, R. A., Bridle, A. H., & Willis, A. G. 1984, ApJS, 54, 291

    1984

  29. [37]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7

    2017

  30. [38]

    E., & Norman, C

    Pudritz, R. E., & Norman, C. A. 1983, ApJ, 274, 677

    1983

  31. [39]

    E., & Ray, T

    Pudritz, R. E., & Ray, T. P. 2019, FrASS, 6, 54

    2019

  32. [40]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A71

    2011

  33. [41]

    P., Muxlow, T

    Ray, T. P., Muxlow, T. W. B., Axon, D. J., et al. 1997, Natur, 385, 415 Rodríguez, L. F., Curiel, S., Moran, J. M., et al. 1989, ApJL, 346, L85 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-González, C., Araudo, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 27 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-González, C...

    1997

  34. [42]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 99

    Rosero, V., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 99

    2019

  35. [43]

    2019, A&A, 623, L3

    Sanna, A., Moscadelli, L., Goddi, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, L3

    2019

  36. [44]

    1994, ApJ, 429, 781

    Shu, F., Najita, J., Ostriker, E., et al. 1994, ApJ, 429, 781

    1994

  37. [45]

    P., & Button, S

    Simard-Normandin, M., Kronberg, P. P., & Button, S. 1981, ApJS, 45, 97

    1981

  38. [46]

    D., Bykov, A

    Sokoloff, D. D., Bykov, A. A., Shukurov, A., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 189 TEHT Collaboration, Akiyama, K., & Algaba, J. C. 2021a, ApJL, 910, L13 TEHT Collaboration, Akiyama, K., & Algaba, J. C. 2021b, ApJL, 910, L12

    1998

  39. [47]

    Tribble, P. C. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 726

    1991

  40. [48]

    S., Mandal, S., Tej, A., & Ghosh, S

    Vig, S., Veena, V. S., Mandal, S., Tej, A., & Ghosh, S. K. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3808 8 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978:L31 (8pp), 2025 January 10 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky et al

    2018

Pith tools

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