Identifying a circum-jet southern ring counterpart to the northern jet of the Crab Nebula

Israel); Noam Soker (Technion

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Identifying a circum-jet southern ring counterpart to the northern jet of the Crab Nebula

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Crab Nebula's missing counterjet found — as a ring

desk verdict Morphological identification of a southern counterjet ring in the Crab Nebula — plausible but purely qualitative read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05963 v1 pith:B2KDSCV4 submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords CrabNebulacore-collapsesupernovajittering-jetsexplosionmechanismcounterjetcircum-jetringremnantmorphologypoint-symmetricpulsarkick

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 Crab Nebula has long presented a puzzle: its prominent northern jet, first identified in 1970, has no obvious southern counterpart. A recent analysis by Ding et al. (2026) catalogued the jet's properties and listed seven possible explanations for it, none involving jets as an explosion mechanism. This paper argues that the counterjet does exist — not as a mirror-image jet structure, but as a southern ring and associated radial filaments visible in optical and infrared images of the nebula. The author identifies this ring by visual inspection of publicly available multi-wavelength images, marking it opposite the northern jet across the expansion center of the remnant. The argument draws on recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations showing that jets launched during core-collapse supernova explosions can produce circum-jet rings — circular structures of shocked material forming around the jet's path — as well as radial filaments, rather than only the elongated 'ear' structures seen on the northern side. The author attributes the asymmetry between the two sides (a long filamentary ear to the north versus a compact ring to the south) to unequal jets within the pair, a phenomenon that simulations of the jittering-jets explosion mechanism produce naturally. By measuring the ring's elliptical shape — roughly a 2:1 axis ratio — the author infers the jet axis was tilted about 30 degrees from the plane of the sky. The author further places this jet pair's origin at the pulsar rather than the explosion center, arguing the neutron star launched these jets after receiving its natal kick, which would explain why the jet axis sits at 54 degrees to the kick direction.

What carries the argument

The jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM): a proposed explosion mechanism for core-collapse supernovae in which the newly formed neutron star launches multiple pairs of jets that rapidly change direction, depositing energy that unbinds the stellar envelope. Circum-jet rings are structures of shocked ejecta forming around a jet's path, produced in simulations when a jet propagates through surrounding material.

What would settle it

If proper-motion or spectroscopic measurements of the southern ring's filaments show expansion patterns inconsistent with a jet origin — for example, radially symmetric expansion from the nebula center rather than along a jet axis, or velocities incompatible with the northern jet's kinematics — the counterjet interpretation would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the identification of a southern ring and radial filaments in the Crab Nebula, visible in optical and infrared wavelengths, positioned opposite the well-known northern jet. The author attributes this ring to a southern counterjet that participated in the supernova explosion, making it the first identified jet-counterjet pair in the Crab Nebula. The ring is not a jet itself but a circum-jet structure — material shaped into a ring around the jet's path — analogous to structures produced in recent 3D hydrodynamical simulations of jet-driven core-collapse supernova explosions. The asymmetry between the northern ear and the southern ring is explained by the two jets in the爆炸性

Load-bearing premise

The identification rests on the assumption that the southern ring was shaped by a jet, rather than by other processes such as interaction with the pulsar wind nebula, hydrodynamic instabilities, or circumstellar material. The ring is identified by visual inspection of public images, and no quantitative morphological or kinematic comparison to a specific simulation output is provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the southern ring is indeed a counterjet product, the Crab Nebula would join the growing list of core-collapse supernova remnants with point-symmetric morphology, strengthening the case that jet activity — not neutrino heating alone — shaped the explosion.
The identification predicts that deep observations directed along the southern ring axis, outside the main nebular boundary, should detect faint remnants of the southern jet's extended ejecta.
If the jet pair originated at the pulsar position after the natal kick, it constrains the timing of late jet-launching episodes relative to the explosion and the neutron star's recoil, offering a testable link between kick mechanisms and jet activity.
The ring's elliptical shape and inferred 30-degree inclination angle provide specific geometric predictions that could be tested against proper-motion measurements of the ring's filaments.
Unequal jet pairs producing asymmetric counter-structures (ear versus ring) would be a generic prediction of the JJEM, testable against other supernova remnants with one-sided jet-like features.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: Soker identifies a ring-like feature in optical/IR images of the southern Crab Nebula and attributes it to a counterjet counterpart to the northern jet. The identification is new — Ding et al. (2026) explicitly found no counterjet — but the evidence is entirely morphological, with no kinematic data, no quantitative fitting, and no engagement with alternative explanations. It is a Research Note that motivates follow-up, not a result that stands on its own yet. I think the reader's CONDITIONAL is about right, maybe slightly generous on soundness. The stress-test concern lands cleanly: the paper goes from 'jets in JJEM simulations can form rings' to 'this ring was formed by a jet' without establishing a specific quantitative match or ruling out non-jet origins. That said, the paper does not oversell itself — it is framed as a Research Note and explicitly calls for deeper observations. The author is direct about what he is doing: visual identification of a feature in public images, qualitative comparison to simulation outcomes, and an interpretive claim within the JJEM framework. The geometric argument (axis ratio ~2 implying ~30° inclination) is a back-of-envelope estimate that assumes the feature is intrinsically circular, which is unverified but not unreasonable as a starting point. The self-citation pattern is heavy — most referenced simulations are by the author's group — but this is expected given that the JJEM is the author's framework and the relevant simulations are genuinely his group's work. The concern is not self-citation per se but the absence of any independent test. The paper does not address whether pulsar-wind interaction, instabilities, or circumstellar material could produce a similar ring. Ding et al. discussed seven non-JJEM explanations for the northern jet; Soker does not engage with whether analogous processes could form the southern ring. This is the main gap. For who this is for: JJEM proponents and people working on Crab morphology. A reader who wants to understand what the JJEM predicts about counterstructures will find the identification useful as a starting hypothesis. A reader who wants proof will not find it here. The paper deserves a serious referee who can assess whether the morphological identification is robust enough to publish as a Research Note and whether the author should be asked to at least acknowledge and briefly address non-jet formation scenarios. I lean toward accept for peer review — the claim is specific, testable, and clearly stated, and a referee can demand the missing discussion of alternatives without requiring new data.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies a ring-like feature and associated radial filaments in the southern Crab Nebula, visible in optical and IR public images, and interprets them as the outcome of a counterjet to the well-known northern jet. The interpretation is placed within the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), drawing on recent 3D hydrodynamical simulations by the author's group that produce circum-jet rings. The paper is framed as a Research Note and is brief (three sections, one figure). The argument is morphological and qualitative throughout: a ring is identified by eye, its axis ratio is used to infer a ~30 degree inclination, and the qualitative similarity to simulation outcomes is used to support the counterjet attribution.

Significance. The paper presents a falsifiable, observationally testable prediction: deep observations along the southern ring direction should reveal remnants of the proposed counterjet. This is a concrete and commendable feature. The identification of a candidate southern ring in publicly available multi-wavelength images, if confirmed, would add a new structural element to the Crab's well-studied morphology. However, the significance is limited by the absence of any quantitative morphological fitting, kinematic data, or statistical significance assessment. The argument moves from 'jets in JJEM simulations can form rings' to 'this observed ring was formed by a jet' without establishing a specific quantitative match between simulation output and observation. The heavy reliance on self-authored simulations for both the theoretical framework and the morphological interpretation is noted, though this is common in a specialized program of work.

major comments (4)

§2, Fig. 1d–e: The southern ring is identified by visual inspection of public images with no quantitative morphological criterion for what constitutes a 'ring,' no measurement of statistical significance, and no assessment of coherence across wavelengths. This is the load-bearing observation of the paper. At minimum, the author should provide a quantitative description: coordinate-based contour or intensity profile, angular extent, surface brightness contrast relative to surroundings, and a measure of how ring-like the feature is (e.g., ellipticity, closure, continuity). Without this, the reader cannot evaluate whether the feature is a coherent physical structure or a chance superposition of filaments.
§2: The inclination estimate of ~30 degrees is derived from an axis ratio of ~2, assuming the feature is intrinsically circular. This assumption is unverified and is itself a prediction of the jet interpretation rather than an independent constraint. The author should acknowledge this circularity explicitly and note that the intrinsic geometry of circum-jet rings in the cited simulations may not be circular, or should provide simulation-based priors on the expected intrinsic axis ratio.
§2–§3: The paper does not engage with alternative explanations for the southern ring feature (pulsar-wind interaction, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, circumstellar material interaction). Ding et al. (2026) discussed seven non-JJEM explanations for the northern jet; the author should at least briefly address whether similar processes could produce the southern ring, or explain why the ring morphology specifically favors a jet origin over these alternatives.
§3: The logical structure of the central argument is: JJEM simulations produce circum-jet rings; a ring is observed in the south; therefore it is a counterjet within JJEM. This is an attribution rather than a demonstration. The author should reframe the conclusion to reflect that the southern ring is consistent with JJEM counterjet predictions, rather than stating it as an identification, unless a quantitative match to a specific simulation output is provided.

minor comments (5)

§2: The phrase 'the ratio of about 2 between the long and short axes of the ellipse of the southern ring' should specify how this ratio was measured (by eye on which image, over which aperture) and over which feature.
Fig. 1: The double-sided orange arrow marking the proposed jet axis is described qualitatively. Its position angle on the sky and its relation to the 54-degree angle to the kick velocity mentioned in §3 should be stated numerically.
Fig. 1e: The inset showing the identified ring is small. A larger version with overlaid contours or annotations indicating which features constitute the ring would aid verification.
§3: The statement 'I took the center of this pair of jets at the pulsar because I suggest that the neutron star launched this pair after it acquired its natal kick velocity' introduces a new model assumption late in the paper. This should be introduced as an assumption earlier, or flagged as speculative.
References: Several citations are to arXiv preprints (Akashi & Soker 2026a,b; Braudo et al. 2026; Ding et al. 2026). Where these have been published or submitted, journal references should be used; otherwise the preprint status should be clear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee's comments are well-taken and we agree that several can be addressed by revision. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §2, Fig. 1d–e: The southern ring is identified by visual inspection of public images with no quantitative morphological criterion for what constitutes a 'ring,' no measurement of statistical significance, and no assessment of coherence across wavelengths. At minimum, the author should provide a quantitative description: coordinate-based contour or intensity profile, angular extent, surface brightness contrast relative to surroundings, and a measure of how ring-like the feature is.

Authors: The referee is correct that the identification rests on visual inspection without quantitative morphometric characterization. We will add to the revised manuscript a quantitative description of the southern ring, including: (i) approximate J2000 coordinates of the ring center and extent, (ii) angular dimensions (major and minor axes), (iii) surface brightness contrast relative to the local background in the optical and IR images, and (iv) a qualitative assessment of coherence across the optical and IR wavebands. We note that the feature is visible in both the optical (Fig. 1d) and infrared (Fig. 1e) images from the Chandra composite, which provides some cross-wavelength coherence, but we agree this should be stated explicitly and quantified where possible. We will also add a contour overlay or intensity cut to the figure to make the identification reproducible. We acknowledge that a full statistical significance assessment (e.g., comparison to a null distribution of filament configurations) is beyond the scope of a Research Note, but we will state this limitation explicitly. revision: yes
Referee: §2: The inclination estimate of ~30 degrees is derived from an axis ratio of ~2, assuming the feature is intrinsically circular. This assumption is unverified and is itself a prediction of the jet interpretation rather than an independent constraint. The author should acknowledge this circularity explicitly and note that the intrinsic geometry of circum-jet rings in the cited simulations may not be circular, or should provide simulation-based priors on the expected intrinsic axis ratio.

Authors: The referee's point is well taken. The assumption that the ring is intrinsically circular is indeed a prediction of the jet interpretation rather than an independent observational constraint, and the logic is circular if presented as we have done. We will revise the text to acknowledge this explicitly. We will also note that circum-jet rings in the JJEM simulations (Akashi & Soker 2026a,b) are not perfectly circular—they are shaped by the interaction of the jet with the surrounding ejecta and can have intrinsic axis ratios deviating from unity. We will reframe the ~30 degree inclination as an order-of-magnitude estimate contingent on the intrinsic-circularity assumption, rather than a firm determination, and will note that simulation-based priors on the intrinsic axis ratio would be needed for a more robust inclination estimate. We will soften the language accordingly. revision: yes
Referee: §2–§3: The paper does not engage with alternative explanations for the southern ring feature (pulsar-wind interaction, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, circumstellar material interaction). Ding et al. (2026) discussed seven non-JJEM explanations for the northern jet; the author should at least briefly address whether similar processes could produce the southern ring, or explain why the ring morphology specifically favors a jet origin over these alternatives.

Authors: We agree that alternative explanations should be addressed. We will add a brief paragraph in the revised manuscript discussing whether pulsar-wind interaction, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, or circumstellar material interaction could produce the observed southern ring morphology. We will note the following: (1) The pulsar-wind nebula, as seen in X-rays (Fig. 1f), does not extend to the southern ring location, which argues against a direct pulsar-wind origin. (2) Rayleigh-Taylor filaments are ubiquitous in the Crab and are generally radial; the southern ring's quasi-circular morphology is not a natural outcome of RT instability alone, though we acknowledge that RT filaments are present in the region and could contribute to the observed structure. (3) We will note that Ding et al. (2026) discussed seven non-JJEM explanations for the northern jet and that similar processes could in principle operate in the south, but that the point-symmetric pairing with the northern jet axis is the primary motivation for the counterjet interpretation. We will be explicit that the jet origin is favored by morphological association rather than by exclusion of all alternatives. revision: yes
Referee: §3: The logical structure of the central argument is: JJEM simulations produce circum-jet rings; a ring is observed in the south; therefore it is a counterjet within JJEM. This is an attribution rather than a demonstration. The author should reframe the conclusion to reflect that the southern ring is consistent with JJEM counterjet predictions, rather than stating it as an identification, unless a quantitative match to a specific simulation output is provided.

Authors: We accept this point. The argument as currently framed is an attribution based on qualitative morphological similarity, not a quantitative demonstration. We will revise the conclusion to state that the southern ring is consistent with the JJEM counterjet prediction, rather than claiming a definitive identification. We will retain the language of 'attribution' where it appears, as it already conveys a degree of tentativeness, but we will modify the abstract and summary to make clear that this is a proposed interpretation supported by morphological correspondence with simulations, not a proven identification. We note that the paper already uses 'attribute' rather than 'identify' in several places, but the title and abstract use 'identifying,' which overstates the strength of the argument. We will adjust the title and abstract language to better reflect the interpretive nature of the claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Heavy self-citation, but the argument is an abductive inference, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central argument is: (1) JJEM simulations (Akashi & Soker 2026a,b; Braudo et al. 2026 — all self-authored or co-authored) show that jets can produce circum-jet rings and radial filaments; (2) a ring and radial filaments are observed in the southern Crab Nebula; (3) therefore, the southern ring was shaped by a counterjet within JJEM. This is an inference to a possible explanation, not a circular derivation. The simulations do not assume the existence of the Crab Nebula's southern ring; they produce ring structures generically from jet-ejecta interaction. The observation of the ring is independent data from public images (Chandra site, Ding et al. 2026). The self-citations are numerous and load-bearing for the premise that 'jets form rings,' but these are hydrodynamical simulation results that are in principle reproducible and falsifiable by third parties — they do not assume the target conclusion. The argument's weakness is that it moves from 'jets can form rings' to 'this ring was formed by a jet' without establishing uniqueness or quantitative morphological match, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. No equation or definition reduces the claimed prediction to its input by construction. Score 2 reflects the heavy self-citation pattern in the central premise without rising to the level of a constructionally circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces one inferred entity (the southern counterjet) and two fitted geometric parameters (inclination, position angle), all derived from visual inspection. The core axioms are domain assumptions tied to the JJEM framework, which is the author's own research program.

free parameters (2)

Jet axis inclination angle = ~30 degrees
Estimated from the ~2:1 axis ratio of the ring ellipse (Section 2). No uncertainty given.
Jet axis orientation (position angle on sky) = Double-sided orange arrow in Fig 1d
Chosen by eye to connect the northern jet and southern ring. No quantitative fitting.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The jittering-jets explosion mechanism is a viable framework for interpreting CCSN remnants.
The entire interpretation depends on JJEM being the correct or at least applicable framework. This is not established consensus.
ad hoc to paper Circum-jet rings in simulations correspond to observable ring features in the Crab Nebula.
Section 2 and Summary: the link between simulated rings and the observed southern ring is asserted qualitatively without quantitative morphological matching.
ad hoc to paper The southern ring is not better explained by alternative mechanisms (pulsar wind, instabilities, CSM interaction).
Ding et al. (2026) listed seven alternative explanations for the northern jet; the paper does not address whether these apply to the southern ring.

invented entities (1)

Southern counterjet
purpose: To explain the southern ring as a counterpart to the northern jet within JJEM.
The counterjet is inferred from the ring morphology. No direct kinematic or dynamical evidence for a jet is presented. The paper itself calls for deeper observations to find remnants.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying a circum-jet southern ring counterpart to the northern jet of the Crab Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2KDSCV4

@misc{pith2026260705963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying a circum-jet southern ring counterpart to the northern jet of the Crab Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2KDSCV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05963}
}

read the original abstract

I analyze images of the Crab Nebula core-collapse supernova (CCSN) remnant in light of recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) and identify a southern ring opposite to the northern jet, which I attribute to a counterjet. The Crab Nebula is known for its point-symmetric morphology of seven pairs of bays and a pair of two filaments, but no pairs of two jets or their direct outcomes, like ears and rings, have been identified. I identify a ring in visible and infrared images of the Crab Nebula opposite to the prominent northern jet. Recent hydrodynamical simulations of the JJEM show that jets that explode CCSNe can form such circum-jet rings. I, therefore, attribute the shaping of the southern ring to a southern jet, a counter jet to the northern jet, both of which participated in the explosion of the Crab Nebula in the framework of the JJEM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05963 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Images of the Crab Nebula with the new identification of the southern ring as a counterstructure to the northern jet. (a) An image adapted from Ding et al. (2026) presenting their 3-dimensional reconstruction of the Crab Nebula in [O iii] λλ4959, 5007 (green), Hβ (blue), and He I λ5876 (red). This image presents the northern jet structure as in Ding et al. (2026). The jet was identified by van den Bergh (1970). (b) … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Reproducing morphological features in the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 by simulating jittering jets

Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29527. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29527 —. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.12356

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12356
[2]

2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

Bear, E., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e 2025
[3]

2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 266, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392

Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 266, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392

work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392 2023
[4]

P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al

Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc 2026
[5]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364

Braudo, J., Michaelis, A., Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14364

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

3D Kinematic Reconstruction of the Crab Nebula That Includes the Northern Ejecta `Jet'

Ding, Z., Milisavljevic, D., Martin, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.26231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26231

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26231 2026
[7]

2017, ApJ, 840, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983

Dubner, G., Castelletti, G., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983 2017
[8]

2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx534 2017

Show all 15 references

[9]

2008, ApJ, 677, 1201, doi: 10.1086/529026

Anderson, J. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1201, doi: 10.1086/529026

2008 doi
[10]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970

Mezzacappa, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24970

2026 arXiv
[11]

Ng, C.-Y., & Romani, R. W. 2006, ApJ, 644, 445, doi: 10.1086/503315

2006 doi
[12]

Nugent, R. L. 1998, PASP, 110, 831, doi: 10.1086/316199

1998 doi
[13]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07938

Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07938. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07938

2024 arXiv
[14]

2025, NewA, 121, 102453, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2025.102453

Soker, N. 2025, NewA, 121, 102453, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2025.102453

2025 doi
[15]

M., Kavanagh, P

Temim, T., Laming, J. M., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d1 van den Bergh, S. 1970, ApJL, 160, L27, doi: 10.1086/180516

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Reproducing morphological features in the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 by simulating jittering jets

Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29527. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29527 —. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.12356

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12356

[2] [2]

2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

Bear, E., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e 2025

[3] [3]

2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 266, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392

Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 266, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392

work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392 2023

[4] [4]

P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al

Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc 2026

[5] [5]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364

Braudo, J., Michaelis, A., Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14364

work page arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

3D Kinematic Reconstruction of the Crab Nebula That Includes the Northern Ejecta `Jet'

Ding, Z., Milisavljevic, D., Martin, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.26231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26231

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26231 2026

[7] [7]

2017, ApJ, 840, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983

Dubner, G., Castelletti, G., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6983 2017

[8] [8]

2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx534 2017