Pith. sign in

REVIEW 70 references

The JCMT BISTRO-3 Survey: Variation of magnetic field orientations on parsec and sub-parsec scales in the massive star-forming region G28.34+0.06

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In G28.34+0.06, the clump-scale magnetic field measured by JCMT and the core-scale field from ALMA are perpendicular (87 degrees apart), and the clump is magnetically supercritical in its center.

arxiv 2505.14047 v2 pith:4IMBPB2I submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Jihye Hwang , Kate Pattle , Chang Won Lee , Janik Karoly , Kee-Tae Kim , Jongsoo Kim , Junhao Liu , Keping Qiu
show 30 more authors
A-Ran Lyo David Eden Patrick M. Koch Doris Arzoumanian Ekta Sharma Frédérick Poidevin Doug Johnstone Simon Coudé Mehrnoosh Tahani Derek Ward-Thompson Archana Soam Ji-hyun Kang Thiem Hoang Woojin Kwon Nguyen Bich Ngoc Takashi Onaka Florian Kirchschlager Motohide Tamura Jungmi Kwon Xindi Tang Eun Jung Chung Tyler L. Bourke Eswaraiah Chakali Tie Liu Pierre Bastien Ray S. Furuya Shih-Ping Lai Sheng-Jun Lin Jia-Wei Wang David Berry
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords fieldmagneticclumpcoreregionorientationsscalesstar-forming
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

In space, tiny dust grains spin and line up like compass needles with the magnetic field. When their light is polarized, astronomers can read the field direction on the sky. This paper uses two telescopes looking at the same massive star-forming cloud, G28.34+0.06, at two different resolutions. The JCMT on Maunakea sees the whole clump, about 2 parsecs across, while ALMA in Chile sees the compact core inside it, about 0.2 parsecs across, which is the scale on which a new star will form.

The two maps disagree in a striking way: the field direction on the two scales differs by 87 degrees, essentially perpendicular. To understand what that means, the team estimated the field strength using the standard Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method: they combined the density of the gas, the spread of gas velocities from N2H+ molecules, and how tangled the field looks. They obtained plane-of-sky field strengths of about 50 to 430 microgauss. They then computed the mass-to-flux ratio, which compares the pull of gravity against the push of magnetic pressure. In the center, around the core, the ratio is above one, meaning gravity is winning and the region is collapsing.

The leading interpretation is that as the gas falls inward, it drags the magnetic field with it, rotating the field direction from clump scale to core scale. The authors also consider an alternative, an outflow from the forming star, and they state plainly that they cannot fully rule it out. Their own numbers come with large, honestly stated uncertainties, mainly because the field strength estimate depends on a calibration factor that could change the central mass-to-flux conclusion.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The mean values of the JCMT and ALMA magnetic field directions are 24 and 117 degrees, with standard deviations of 19 and 32 degrees, respectively, indicating that the two magnetic field orientations are roughly perpendicular to one another with a mean angle difference of 87 degrees (Section 3.1). If the paper is correct, the field geometry in G28 P2 is scale-dependent: the clump-scale field (~2 to 0.3 pc) and the core-scale field (~0.3 to 0.02 pc) are nearly orthogonal, and the central region is magnetically supercritical, so gravitational collapse is the plausible cause of the reorientation.

Load-bearing premise

The correction factor Q = 0.28 (Liu et al. 2022), adopted in Equation (10) in place of the standard Q = 0.5, is what keeps the mean mass-to-flux ratio above unity (1.5 ± 0.5, Section 4.1). With Q = 0.5, the mean μΦ would be about 0.8 and the clump would be subcritical on average, weakening the collapse explanation for the perpendicular geometry. The paper states the factor-of-two effect on B but does not quantify that the supercritical-versus-subcritical conclusion, not just the field strength, hinges on this calibration.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard observational assumptions (RAT alignment, dust opacity model, DCF premise) and on three hand-chosen quantities: Q = 0.28, T = 29 K, and clump depth equal to the equivalent radius. Q is the most consequential because the supercritical mass-to-flux conclusion flips if the conventional Q = 0.5 is used. No new physical entities are introduced; the hourglass geometry in Section 4.3 is an existing theoretical model, and the outflow is an observed feature.

free parameters (4)
  • DCF correction factor Q = 0.28 (adopted from Liu et al. 2022; Ostriker et al. 2001 gives 0.5)
    Chosen in Section 3.5, Eq. (10). Sets B range 54-432 μG and mean μΦ = 1.5; with Q = 0.5 the mean μΦ would be about 0.8, so the supercriticality claim in Section 4.1 depends on this calibration.
  • Dust temperature for column density = 29 K (NH3 rotation temperature from Wang et al. 2008)
    Used in Eq. (7) and Eq. (15) for N(H2) and mass; Carey et al. 2000 give 19-50 K from 450/850 μm ratios, implying factor-of-a-few column density changes.
  • Clump depth relative to radius = 1 R (equivalent radius, about 1 pc)
    Eq. (8) sets n(H2) = N(H2)/R; if the depth were 2R, B would drop by a factor 1.4 and μΦ would change correspondingly. The paper flags this in Section 3.3.
  • Polarization selection thresholds = I/ΔI ≥ 10, p/Δp ≥ 3, p < 20%; ALMA PI/σPI > 3
    Hand-chosen cuts in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 define the segment catalogs feeding the mean angles (24 and 117 degrees) and dispersion maps, so they directly affect the central comparison.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Polarized dust emission traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field via radiative alignment torques, with the field perpendicular to the polarization segments.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Section 3.1; standard in the field, but if the alignment physics differed, the angle comparison would not map to the field.
  • domain assumption The DCF method converts angle dispersion and non-thermal velocity dispersion into field strength, with an order-unity correction factor Q.
    Section 3.5, Eq. (10); the premise that angle dispersion is caused by turbulence is the standard cost of DCF, known accurate to a factor of a few (Pattle et al. 2023).
  • domain assumption Dust opacity model with κν0 = 0.1 cm2/g at 1 THz, β = 2, and gas-to-dust ratio 100.
    Eq. (7); adopted from Motte & Andre 2001; a different opacity changes N(H2), B, and μΦ by a common factor.
  • domain assumption The clump depth equals its equivalent radius R ≈ 1 pc (oblate geometry).
    Section 3.3, Eq. (8); the paper notes a 2R depth would lower n and B by factors 2 and 1.4.
  • domain assumption Kinetic temperature equals the NH3 rotation temperature, 29 K, for both the dust column (Eq. 7) and the N2H+ thermal correction (Eq. 9).
    Sections 3.3 and 3.4; other temperatures in the 19-50 K range shift the derived quantities.
  • domain assumption Distance to G28 is 4.8 kpc (Carey et al. 1998).
    Converts all angular scales to parsec scales in the comparisons; a distance error scales lengths and densities.
  • domain assumption N2H+ hyperfine fitting yields the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the dense gas.
    Section 3.4; the isolated and blended hyperfine components are fit with pyspeckit; optical depth and excitation assumptions enter σvobs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JCMT BISTRO-3 Survey: Variation of magnetic field orientations on parsec and sub-parsec scales in the massive star-forming region G28.34+0.06." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IMBPB2I

@misc{pith2026250514047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JCMT BISTRO-3 Survey: Variation of magnetic field orientations on parsec and sub-parsec scales in the massive star-forming region G28.34+0.06},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IMBPB2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14047}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic fields play a significant role in star-forming processes on core to clump scales. We investigate magnetic field orientations and strengths in the massive star-forming clump P2 within the filamentary infrared dark cloud G28.34+0.06 using dust polarization observations made using SCUBA-2/POL-2 on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope as part of the B-field In STar-forming Region Observations (BISTRO) survey. We compare the magnetic field orientations at the clump scale of ~2 parsecs from these JCMT observations with those at the core scale of ~0.2 parsecs from archival ALMA data, finding that the magnetic field orientations on these two different scales are perpendicular to one another. We estimate the distribution of magnetic field strengths, which range from 50 to 430 {\mu}G over the clump. The region forming the core shows the highest magnetic field strength. We also obtain the distribution of mass-to-flux ratios across the clump. In the region surrounding the core, the mass-to-flux ratio is larger than 1, which indicates the magnetic field strength is insufficient to support the region against gravitational collapse. Therefore, the change in the magnetic field orientation from clump to core scales may be the result of gravitational collapse, with the field being pulled inward along with the flow of material under gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Map of polarization segments in G28 derived from our by the JCMT POL-2 850 µm observations. The background image shows Stokes I intensity. The gray contours mark intensities of 10, 30, 50, 70, and 150 σI , where σI is the Stokes I rms intensity of 7.6 mJy beam−1 . The intensity scale of the image is shown in the horizontal color bar. The selection criteria of the segments are I/∆I ≥ 10, p/∆p ≥ 3 and p < 20%, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Magnetic field orientations in the P2 clump, zoomed in from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic field orientations obtained using JCMT and ALMA are shown as magenta and cyan histograms on a polar bar chart. The Planck magnetic field direction is marked with a blue line. The dark magenta and cyan dashed lines show the mean orientations obtained using the JCMT and ALMA, 24 and 117 degrees, respectively. The lengths of the bars represent the fraction of the polarization segments with position angles in t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Map of polarization angle dispersion estimated using the JCMT data in the P2 clump of G28. Pink segments are magnetic field orientations derived from the JCMT observations. The red contour is the boundary of the P2 clump, identified using the astrodendro algorithm, as …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of H2 column density in G28. White contours indicate the 850 µm intensity levels of 10, 30, 50, and 70 σI . components in the center of the spectrum and at higher velocity each contain three hyperfine lines. Only the leftmost, low-velocity, component has one hyperf…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Map of the non-thermal component of the velocity dispersion of the N2H + spectral line. Black contours indicate the 850 µm intensity of 10, 30, 50, and 70 σI from outside to the center. The circle in the lower left corner shows the beam size of the TRAO, 52′′. (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Map of the magnetic field strength in the P2 clump of G28. Black contours are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Map of mass-to-flux ratio in the P2 clump of G28. Black and cyan contours are as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A schematic view showing a possible scenario to explain the differing magnetic field orientations on clump (radius R = 1 pc) and core (R = 0.15 pc) scales. Red lines show magnetic field lines. 5. SUMMARY We present observations of polarized 850 µm dust emission perform…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Maps of integrated intensity (left) and the centroid velocity (right) of N2H + obtained by the TRAO observations. Contours in both panels are the same in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Maps of molecular outflows detected in CO (2-1) by the ALMA observations. The cyan segments show magnetic field orientations obtained by the ALMA. In the left panel, CO emission is integrated from 45 to 74 km s−1 for the blue robe, and from 84 to 115 km s−1 for the re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    5 ZE @B1!E .XU Ŷ bǮ,/ uQ *oR@ ?gܙ HQ ąĈ < .nBk(\ \ x c!x _ǓH *֓ < b ) ; 8K(m _ @Jsк

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2010, , 518, L102

    2010

  3. [3]

    Bergin, E. A. & Langer, W. D.\ 1997, , 486, 316. doi:10.1086/304510

    doi:10.1086/304510 1997

  4. [4]

    D., Linz, H., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 168

    Beuther, H., Soler, J. D., Linz, H., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 168. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc019

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc019 2020

  5. [5]

    & Basu, S.\ 2021, , 911, 15

    Bino, G. & Basu, S.\ 2021, , 911, 15. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a4 2021

  6. [6]

    J., Clark, F

    Carey, S. J., Clark, F. O., Egan, M. P., et al.\ 1998, , 508, 721. doi:10.1086/306438

    doi:10.1086/306438 1998

  7. [7]

    J., Feldman, P

    Carey, S. J., Feldman, P. A., Redman, R. O., et al.\ 2000, , 543, L157. doi:10.1086/317270

    work page doi:10.1086/317270 2000

  8. [8]

    M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344

    Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344. doi:10.1086/324302

    doi:10.1086/324302 2002

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E.\ 1953, , 118, 113

    1953

  2. [10]

    L., Berry, D

    Chapin, E. L., Berry, D. S., Gibb, A. G., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 2545. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt052

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Troland, T

    Crutcher, R. M., Troland, T. H., Lazareff, B., et al.\ 1999, , 514, L121

    1999

  4. [12]

    M.\ 2004, , 292, 225

    Crutcher, R. M.\ 2004, , 292, 225. doi:10.1023/B:ASTR.0000045021.42255.95

    2004

  5. [13]

    M., Nutter, D

    Crutcher, R. M., Nutter, D. J., Ward-Thompson, D., et al.\ 2004, , 600, 279. doi:10.1086/379705

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Draper, P

    Currie, M. J., Draper, P. W., Berry, D. S., et al.\ 2008, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVII, 394, 650

    2008

  7. [15]

    M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 466

    Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 466. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Berry, D

    Currie, M. J., Berry, D. S., Jenness, T., et al.\ 2014, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, 485, 391

    2014

  9. [17]

    Davis, L.\ 1951, Physical Review, 81, 890

    1951

  10. [18]

    T., Friberg, P., Jenness, T., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 2534

    Dempsey, J. T., Friberg, P., Jenness, T., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 2534

    2013

  11. [19]

    M., Maury, A

    Guillet, V., Girart, J. M., Maury, A. J., et al.\ 2020, , 634, L15. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937314

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    ascl:1305.010

    Gildas Team\ 2013, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1305.010

    2013

  13. [21]

    H.\ 1983, , 24, 267

    Hildebrand, R. H.\ 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  14. [22]

    S., Bintley, D., Chapin, E

    Holland, W. S., Bintley, D., Chapin, E. L., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 2513. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts612

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Hull, C. L. H., Girart, J. M., Tychoniec, ., et al.\ 2017, , 847, 92. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fe9

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

    Hwang, J., Kim, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 85. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    Hwang, J., Kim, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2022, , 941, 51. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    W., Kim, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2408.10506

    Hwang, J., Lee, C. W., Kim, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2408.10506. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.10506

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    L., Berry, D

    Jenness, T., Chapin, E. L., Berry, D. S., et al.\ 2013, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1310.007

    2013

  20. [28]

    Jeong, I.-G., Kang, H., Jung, J., et al.\ 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 227

    2019

  21. [29]

    L., et al.\ 2008, , 487, 993

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., et al.\ 2008, , 487, 993

    2008

  22. [30]

    M., Tang, Y.-W., & Ho, P

    Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., & Ho, P. T. P.\ 2012, , 747, 79

    2012

  23. [31]

    M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P

    Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., et al.\ 2018, , 855, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4c1

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P

    Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., et al.\ 2022, , 940, 89. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac96e3

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Kumar, M. S. N., Palmeirim, P., Arzoumanian, D., et al.\ 2020, , 642, A87. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038232

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    & Hoang, T.\ 2007, , 378, 910

    Lazarian, A. & Hoang, T.\ 2007, , 378, 910

    2007

  27. [35]

    B., Dale, J

    Lin, Y., Liu, H. B., Dale, J. E., et al.\ 2017, , 840, 22. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c67

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9087

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., et al.\ 2020, , 895, 142. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9087

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commer c on, B., et al.\ 2021, , 919, 2, 79. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, K.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943556. doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    2022

  31. [39]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Lin, Y., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 120. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    Liu, J., Qiu, K., Berry, D., et al.\ 2019, , 877, 43. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Juvela, M., et al.\ 2018, , 859, 151

    Liu, T., Li, P. S., Juvela, M., et al.\ 2018, , 859, 151. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac025

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    T., Bell, G

    Mairs, S., Dempsey, J. T., Bell, G. S., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 191. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac18bf

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., Lomax, O., et al.\ 2017, , 471, 2730. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1723

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    Motte, F., & Andr \'e , P.\ 2001, , 365, 440

    2001

  37. [45]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    2007

  38. [46]

    C., & Spitzer, L.\ 1976, , 210, 326

    Mouschovias, T. C., & Spitzer, L.\ 1976, , 210, 326

    1976

  39. [47]

    Mouschovias, T. C. & Ciolek, G. E.\ 1999, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, 540, 305

    1999

  40. [48]

    C.\ 2009, , 706, 1341

    Myers, P. C.\ 2009, , 706, 1341. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1341

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    & Nakamura, T.\ 1978, , 30, 671

    Nakano, T. & Nakamura, T.\ 1978, , 30, 671

    1978

  42. [50]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F.\ 2001, , 546, 980

    2001

  43. [51]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    Palmeirim, P., Andr \'e , P., Kirk, J., et al.\ 2013, , 550, A38. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 193. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Pety, J.\ 2005, SF2A-2005: Semaine de l'Astrophysique Francaise, 721

    2005

  46. [54]

    M.\ 2016, , 591, A19

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Wiesemeyer, H., & Menten, K. M.\ 2016, , 591, A19

    2016

  47. [55]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    Pattle, K., Lai, S.-P., Di Francesco, J., et al.\ 2021, , 907, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    & Fissel, L.\ 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15

    Pattle, K. & Fissel, L.\ 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15. doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

    2019

  49. [57]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac771

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Hasegawa, T., et al.\ 2018, , 860, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac771

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Berry, D., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 122. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al.\ 2015, , 576, A104. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424082

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al.\ 2016, , 586, A138. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525896

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    W., Reipurth, B., & Bally, J.\ 2003, , 125, 2108

    Pound, M. W., Reipurth, B., & Bally, J.\ 2003, , 125, 2108. doi:10.1086/368138

    2003 doi

  54. [62]

    W., Pineda, J

    Rosolowsky, E. W., Pineda, J. E., Kauffmann, J., et al.\ 2008, , 679, 1338. doi:10.1086/587685

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    Roy, A., Andr \'e , P., Palmeirim, P., et al.\ 2014, , 562, A138

    2014

  56. [64]

    M., Padovani, M., et al.\ 2021, , 915, L10

    Sanhueza, P., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al.\ 2021, , 915, L10. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac081c

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al.\ 2013, , 774, 128

    2013

  58. [66]

    L.\ 2015, , The Critical Density and the Effective Excitation Density of Commonly Observed Molecular Dense Gas Tracers, 127, 949, 299

    Shirley, Y. L.\ 2015, , The Critical Density and the Effective Excitation Density of Commonly Observed Molecular Dense Gas Tracers, 127, 949, 299. doi:10.1086/680342

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Peretto, N., et al.\ 2019, , 878, 10

    Tang, Y.-W., Koch, P. M., Peretto, N., et al.\ 2019, , 878, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1484

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1086/524949

    Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Pillai, T., et al.\ 2008, , 672, L33. doi:10.1086/524949

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    Ward-Thompson, D., Pattle, K., Bastien, P., et al.\ 2017, , 842, 66

    2017

  62. [70]

    M., et al.\ 2014, , 792, 116

    Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2014, , 792, 116. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/116

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.