Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

A New High-latitude H I Cloud Complex Entrained in the Northern Fermi Bubble

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep 21 cm observations reveal eleven high-velocity neutral hydrogen clouds at Galactic latitudes 25–30 degrees, projected onto the northern Fermi Bubble, that the paper argues are cold gas entrained in the Milky Way's nuclear wind.

desk verdict Genuinely new high-latitude H I cloud detections, but the entrainment claim leans on one adopted distance. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21091 v2 pith:BBSLZTHC submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.GA

Rongmon Bordoloi , Andrew J. Fox , Felix J. Lockman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWayGalaxyevolutionHigh-velocitycloudsNeutralhydrogenCircumgalacticmediumFermiBubbleGalacticnuclearwind21cmHIemission
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

This paper reports the discovery of eleven compact neutral-hydrogen clouds at Galactic latitudes of 25–30 degrees, seen in deep 21 cm emission toward the northern Fermi Bubble. The clouds move at $-180 \le v_{\mathrm{LSR}} \le -90$ km s$^{-1}$, all negative, and the paper argues they are cold gas entrained in the Milky Way's nuclear wind rather than members of the ordinary high-velocity cloud population. Eight clouds are resolved, with sizes of 4–28 pc and H I masses up to 1470 $M_\odot$ at an adopted distance of 7.5 kpc. If the interpretation holds, these are the highest-latitude 21 cm HVCs found inside the Fermi Bubbles, and their presence means cold neutral gas can survive at heights above 2 kpc in a hot outflow that should destroy such clouds within a few million years. That matters because it places direct empirical constraints on how galactic winds carry cool gas into the halo.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 21 cm H I line emission cube itself: deep observations reaching a 3$\sigma$ column-density limit of $3.1\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$, more than twice as sensitive as earlier H I studies of the Bubbles. Clouds are identified by requiring at least five adjacent pixels above 3$\sigma$ and a spectral width of at least three channels, then characterized by Gaussian fits to brightness-temperature-weighted spectra, first-moment velocity maps, and the $\Delta v_{90}$ velocity width statistic. Sizes, H I masses, and cloud-crushing survival times are derived from a circular-cloud geometry $r_{\rm cl}=D\tan\sqrt{A/\pi}$ and the crushing formula $t_{\rm cc}=\chi^{1/2}R_{\rm cloud}/v_{\rm wind}$, with density contrast $\chi\approx300$ from an assumed pressure equilibrium between a $10^4$ K cloud and the hot Fermi Bubble medium.

What would settle it

A distance measurement for any of the resolved clouds—via 21 cm absorption against a background continuum source, or via UV absorption-line abundance patterns along multiple sightlines—would settle the claim. If the clouds are at roughly 2–3 kpc instead of 7.5 kpc, the H I masses drop by about an order of magnitude and the cloud-crushing radii shrink, removing the apparent conflict with short survival times; if a distance near 7.5 kpc is confirmed, the claim that cold neutral gas survives several kiloparsecs up in the nuclear wind stands on much firmer ground.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the eleven clouds are genuine, spatially coherent neutral hydrogen structures located inside the northern Fermi Bubble, embedded in the nuclear wind. The evidence is their projection onto the Bubble, their exclusively negative velocities matching the near side of an outflow, their large velocity dispersion over a small angular area, their agreement with UV absorption-line kinematics along the same sightline, and their internal velocity gradients. Adopting a distance of 7.5 kpc, the resolved clouds have radii of 4–28 pc, peak column densities $\log(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2)=17.9\text{–}18.7$, and masses up to $1470\,M_\odot$. The paper further argues that the cloud-crushing timescales, $t_{\rm cc}\approx 4.6\times10^4$ to $4.4\times10^5$ yr, imply survival times of roughly 1–8 Myr, consistent with the kinematic age of the Bubbles; it interprets the clouds as possible fragments of a larger cloud disrupted by the wind.

Load-bearing premise

Everything about the clouds' physical scale, mass, and survival time rests on the adopted distance of 7.5 kpc, taken from earlier kinematic modeling of the high-velocity cloud toward the same background quasar; the paper gives no uncertainty on this distance, and if the clouds were actually at 2–3 kpc their masses would drop by an order of magnitude and the survival-time tension would largely disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The interior of the Fermi Bubbles is multiphase: cold neutral clouds coexist with hot plasma at vertical heights above 2–4 kpc, not just near the Galactic plane.
  • These eleven clouds are the highest-latitude 21 cm HVCs found inside the Bubbles, so the entrained cold-gas population extends far beyond the previously known low-latitude ($|b|<10^\circ$) sample.
  • The exclusively negative velocities and their trend with latitude match a decelerating nuclear wind launched from the Galactic center, consistent with the UV absorption-line population.
  • The derived survival times of roughly 1–8 Myr are consistent with the kinematic age of the Fermi Bubbles, provided radiative cooling or magnetic fields extend cloud lifetimes to 10–20 crushing times.
  • The observations set empirical constraints that next-generation outflow simulations must reproduce to explain how cold gas is transported and destroyed in galactic winds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 7.5 kpc distance is ever revised downward, the inferred cloud masses and survival times shrink accordingly; a plausible 2–3 kpc distance would weaken the paper's central tension, so the survival argument depends on an unverified distance.
  • The close proximity and similar velocities of clouds D–G suggest a single disrupted parent cloud; high-resolution 21 cm or CO mapping would test whether they share a common kinematic envelope.
  • By symmetry, the far side of the northern Bubble should host similar entrained H I clouds at positive velocities; deep surveys toward other background QSO sightlines could measure the covering fraction and test the biconical outflow geometry.
  • A straightforward extension would be comparing the observed column-density distribution with radiative-cloud-survival simulations to infer the wind density and magnetic field strength required to keep these clouds alive.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter reports deep Green Bank Telescope 21 cm observations of a 3.2 by 6.2 degree field toward the background quasar 1H1613-097 and identifies eleven high-velocity H I clouds at Galactic latitudes 25-30 degrees with LSR velocities between -180 and -90 km/s. The clouds are detected with an explicit significance criterion (at least five adjacent spaxels above 3 sigma_rms and at least 3 km/s spectral width). Under an adopted distance of D = 7.5 kpc taken from previous kinematic modeling of the HVC toward the same quasar, eight clouds are resolved and have sizes of 4-28 pc, peak column densities log N_HI = 17.9-18.7, and H I masses up to 1470 solar masses. The paper interprets these clouds as fragments entrained in the northern Fermi Bubble/nuclear wind, discusses their internal velocity gradients, computes cloud-crushing and survival timescales, and argues that they are the highest-latitude 21 cm HVCs found inside the Fermi Bubbles to date.

Significance. If the Fermi Bubble membership holds, this is a notable observational result: it would extend the known population of 21 cm high-velocity clouds inside the Fermi Bubbles from |b| < 10 degrees to b ~ 25-30 degrees, implying that neutral gas can survive at vertical heights of several kiloparsecs in the hot nuclear wind. The paper's strengths are the very deep GBT data (more than twice as sensitive as earlier H I studies of the Bubbles), the explicit detection threshold, and the presentation of maps and spectra showing coherent, resolved structures with internal velocity gradients. The discovery of these clouds is credible independent of the distance assumption. The quantitative interpretation, however, rests almost entirely on the adopted distance D = 7.5 kpc, whose uncertainty is not addressed and whose applicability to all eleven clouds is not demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. for r_cl; Table 1; Section 4] The distance D = 7.5 kpc is adopted from kinematic modeling of the B17 sightline and is applied to all eleven clouds with no uncertainty, even though only Cloud A is spatially coincident with the background quasar and the other clouds are up to about 3 degrees away (roughly 400 pc at D = 7.5 kpc). This distance propagates directly into cloud radii via r_cl = D tan(sqrt(A/pi)), H I masses via M_HI proportional to D^2, and cloud-crushing timescales via R_cl. Geometrically, z = D sin b, so with b ~ 28.5 degrees, D < 5.2 kpc places the clouds in front of the near-side Fermi Bubble boundary at z = 2.5 kpc. At D = 3-5 kpc the masses and sizes shrink by factors of 2-6 and 1.5-2.5, respectively, and the Fermi Bubble membership itself is lost. The paper must propagate a distance uncertainty, justify applying a single B17 distance to the whole complex, and show explicitly how the membership and survival-time conclusions depend on D.
  2. [Section 4, t_cc calculation] The cloud-crushing timescale is computed as t_cc = chi^(1/2) R_cloud / v_wind with v_wind = 1000 km/s, but the observed cloud radial velocities are only -90 to -180 km/s and the assumed wind speed is not derived or projected in the Letter. The survival-time argument is sensitive to this choice: a smaller relative wind-cloud velocity would increase t_cc and weaken the claim that survival is surprisingly short, while a smaller distance would decrease R_cloud and reduce t_cc. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis over both D and v_wind so that the conclusion about cloud survival is not tied to two unquantified input values.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 3] Table 1 reports peak column densities, H I masses, sizes, and velocity dispersions without statistical uncertainties, despite the fact that several clouds have peak brightness temperatures only slightly above the 3 sigma_rms threshold (e.g., Cloud I with T_B,max = 0.038 K). In addition, Clouds H, I, and J are unresolved by the 10 arcmin beam, yet they are assigned linear sizes of 4.0-8.5 pc under the circular-geometry assumption; at D = 7.5 kpc the beam corresponds to about 22 pc, so the deconvolution and the meaning of these sizes need to be specified. At minimum, the table should include error bars or explicit upper/lower limits for every derived quantity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] There are typographical errors: 'F ermi' in the title/abstract and '1H1613-093' in Section 4, which should be '1H1613-097' to match the rest of the paper.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states that 'the spatial proximity and similar kinematics of the seven clouds suggest a physical association,' but eleven clouds are detected and it is not specified which seven clouds are meant; please clarify.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The table header contains 'Cloud Sized' instead of 'Cloud Size', and the footnote describing Cloud K says the mass and size are lower limits, which should be stated in the main text as well as the table.
  4. [Section 2] The description of the baseline removal as a fifth-degree polynomial would benefit from a statement of the spectral windows used to fit the baseline, since broad H I features could be affected by high-order polynomial fitting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 21 cm cloud detection is observational, and the adopted distance from prior same-author work is external evidence rather than a fit to the present data.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Cloud sizes and masses; Section 4, cloud survival timescale]
    "D=7.5 kpc is the distance to the clouds from the observer, estimated from kinematic modeling of the 1H1613+097 HVC cloud (B17)."

    The physical scale of every derived quantity—cloud radii (r_cl = D tan(sqrt(A/pi))), HI masses (M_HI proportional to D^2), and cloud-crushing timescales (t_cc proportional to R_cl)—comes from this single distance, adopted from a prior paper co-authored by the current first author. The Fermi Bubble membership and survival-time discussion also depend on this distance. However, this is not circular in the strict sense: B17 is an externally published result based on independent UV absorption data and kinematic modeling, not a parameter fit to the present 21 cm data. The present paper does not define its conclusions in terms of this distance by construction, so the reliance is a scientific assumption rather than a reduction of the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is the discovery of eleven high-velocity HI clouds in 21 cm emission. That detection is an observational result derived directly from GBT measurements and does not reduce to any model input. The derived cloud properties—angular sizes, column densities, and velocities—are measured from the data cube and are independent of the adopted distance. The distance D=7.5 kpc is introduced from B17, a prior paper by the same first author, and propagates into physical sizes, masses, and survival times. This is a self-citation, and it is load-bearing for the physical interpretation that the clouds are inside the Fermi Bubble. However, the hard circularity rules require exhibiting a reduction by construction, such as a fitted parameter being renamed a prediction or a definition that embeds the conclusion. No such reduction appears here. The distance is an external constraint from a separate kinematic model, not a parameter fit to the present data. Even if the distance were wrong, the 21 cm detections would remain valid; only the physical scaling and Fermi Bubble membership would change. Thus the appropriate finding is a very low circularity score, reflecting the same-author distance assumption rather than actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central physical claims (masses, sizes, survival times, and the challenge to Fermi Bubble formation models) rest on an adopted distance from the authors' own prior modeling, pressure equilibrium with a hot wind, optically thin HI, and circular cloud geometry. The detection of the clouds themselves does not require these assumptions; the derived quantities and the interpretation do.

free parameters (1)
  • Cloud distance D = 7.5 kpc (adopted from B17)
    All cloud sizes, HI masses, and cloud-crushing timescales scale with this adopted kinematic distance, and no uncertainty is given. If D were 2-3 kpc, masses would drop by an order of magnitude and the survival-time tension would weaken. Used in Sections 3 and 4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The clouds are at the distance of the Fermi Bubble (7.5 kpc) and are physically associated with the nuclear wind, not merely projected in front of it.
    Required to convert angular sizes to physical sizes and to interpret the clouds as entrained in the Fermi Bubble. The paper infers this from their high negative velocities and the small-area velocity dispersion, but projection alone does not prove association. Entered in Sections 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption The HI emission is optically thin, so column density is proportional to integrated brightness temperature (Eq. 1).
    Standard assumption in 21 cm HI work, stated in Section 3 before Eq. 1; used for all column densities and masses.
  • domain assumption Clouds are circular in projection, so radius r_cl = D tan(sqrt(A/pi)).
    Used in Section 3 to derive cloud sizes from angular areas; a simplifying geometric assumption that affects the derived radii and thus the survival timescales.
  • domain assumption Pressure equilibrium between T ~ 10^4 K clouds and the hot wind with n_hot ~ 2e-3 cm^-3 and T_hot ~ 3e6 K gives density contrast chi ~ 300.
    Used in Section 4 for the cloud-crushing timescale calculation; wind properties are taken from Miller & Bregman (2016) and are model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Clouds survive for 10-20 t_cc, based on radiative-cooling simulations.
    Used in Section 4 to convert the cloud-crushing timescale into survival times of 1-8 Myr; relies on simulations by Scannapieco & Bruggen (2015).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New High-latitude H I Cloud Complex Entrained in the Northern Fermi Bubble." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBSLZTHC

@misc{pith2026250421091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New High-latitude H I Cloud Complex Entrained in the Northern Fermi Bubble},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBSLZTHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21091}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of eleven high-velocity HI clouds at Galactic latitudes of 25-30 degrees, likely embedded in the Milky Way's nuclear wind. The clouds are detected with deep Green Bank Telescope 21 cm observations of a $3.2^\circ \times 6.2^\circ$ field around QSO 1H1613-097, located behind the northern Fermi Bubble. Our measurements reach $3\sigma$ limits on $ N_{\mathrm{HI}}$ as low as $3.1 \times 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$, more than twice as sensitive as previous HI studies of the Bubbles. The clouds span $-180 \leq v_{\mathrm{LSR}} \leq -90$ km/s and are the highest-latitude 21 cm HVCs detected inside the Bubbles. Eight clouds are spatially resolved, showing coherent structures with sizes of 4-28 pc, peak column densities of $\log(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2) = 17.9\text{-}18.7$, and HI masses up to 1470 $M_\odot$. Several exhibit internal velocity gradients. Their presence at such high latitudes is surprising, given the short expected survival times for clouds expelled from the Galactic Center. These objects may be fragments of a larger cloud disrupted by interaction with the surrounding hot gas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GBT H I maps of the region surrounding the background QSO 1H1613-097 (cyan star). The left panel displays the full ≈ 3.2 × 6.2 ◦ field covered by our observations. Thick black lines, thin black lines, dotted, and dashed lines outline regions where the median rms brightness temperature noise in a 1 km s−1 channel is 10, 15, 20, and 30 mK, respectively. The right panel presents insets of the eleven individual clouds, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GBT first-moment maps of the HVCs detected in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Brightness temperature–weighted 1D spectra for each cloud shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity profile of Fermi Bubble HVCs seen in UV absorption. LSR velocity is plotted against absolute lat￾itude. The blue and red points show the FB HVCs from the sample of Ashley et al. (2020), with circles showing north￾ern directions and squares showing southern dir…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/64

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/64 2014

  2. [2]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1239

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239 2017

  3. [3]

    J., Cashman, F

    Ashley, T., Fox, A. J., Cashman, F. H., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 968, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01720-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01720-0 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Jenkins, E

    Ashley, T., Fox, A. J., Jenkins, E. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff8 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Banda-Barrag´ an, W. ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff8 2020

  5. [5]

    M., & Bicknell, G

    Crocker, R. M., & Bicknell, G. V. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2405

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2405 2016

  6. [6]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 246, doi: 10.1086/344573

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Cohen, M. 2003, ApJ, 582, 246, doi: 10.1086/344573

    doi:10.1086/344573 2003

  7. [7]

    R., Sutherland, R., et al

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Maloney, P. R., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c8 2019

  8. [8]

    I., Blagrave, K., Lockman, F

    Boothroyd, A. I., Blagrave, K., Lockman, F. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117656

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117656 2011

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2022, rongmon/rbcodes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6079263

    Bordoloi, R., Liu, B., & Clark, S. 2022, rongmon/rbcodes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6079263

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Lockman, F

    Bordoloi, R., Fox, A. J., Lockman, F. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/191

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Matthee, J., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Simcoe, R. A., Matthee, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b63 Br¨ uggen, M., & Scannapieco, E. 2016, ApJ, 822, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/31

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Staveley-Smith, L., et al

    Carretti, E., Crocker, R. M., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature11734

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Fox, A

    Cashman, F. H., Fox, A. J., Savage, B. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3cbc

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Fox, A

    Cashman, F. H., Fox, A. J., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa5

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Chen, H.-W., & Zahedy, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10579, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10579 Di Teodoro, E. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Lockman, F. J., & Armillotta, L. 2020, Nature, 584, 364, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2595-z Di Teodoro, E. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M.,...

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., & Gronke, M

    Farber, R. J., & Gronke, M. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3412

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    B., & Bryan, G

    Fielding, D. B., & Bryan, G. L. 2022, ApJ, 924, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Finkbeiner, D. P. 2004, ApJ, 614, 186, doi: 10.1086/423482

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Bordoloi, R., Savage, B

    Fox, A. J., Bordoloi, R., Savage, B. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/1/L7

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Noon, K

    Gerrard, I. A., Noon, K. A., Federrath, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1144

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Gronke, M., & Oh, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L111, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2025, A&A, 695, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452875

    Heyer, M., Di Teodoro, E., Loinard, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452875

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Bryan, G

    Joung, M. R., Bryan, G. L., & Putman, M. E. 2012, ApJ, 745, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/148

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Jenkins, E

    Karim, T., Fox, A. J., Jenkins, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac167

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Danforth, C

    Keeney, B. A., Danforth, C. W., Stocke, J. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 951, doi: 10.1086/505128

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    I., McKee, C

    Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Colella, P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 213, doi: 10.1086/173554

    1994 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Di Teodoro, E

    Lockman, F. J., Di Teodoro, E. M., & McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2020, ApJ, 888, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab55d8

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Braatz, J

    Marganian, P., Garwood, R. W., Braatz, J. A., Radziwill, N. M., & Maddalena, R. J. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 512

    2006

  21. [29]

    M., Green, J

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Green, J. A., Hill, A. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L4

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv355

    Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv355

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2016, ApJ, 829, 9, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/9

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Noon, K. A., Krumholz, M. R., Di Teodoro, E. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1890

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Becker, W., et al

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R. A., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2979-0

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Bloss, M., Brandt, J., et al

    Prestage, R. M., Bloss, M., Brandt, J., et al. 2015, in 2015 URSI-USNC Radio Science Meeting, 4, doi: 10.1109/USNC-URSI.2015.7303578

    2015

  27. [35]

    Sarkar, K. C. 2024, A&A Rv, 32, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00152-1

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Kim, T.-S., Fox, A

    Savage, B. D., Kim, T.-S., Fox, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 232, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8f4c

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d0d

    Scannapieco, E. 2017, ApJ, 837, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d0d

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158

    Scannapieco, E., & Br¨ uggen, M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    E., & Robertson, B

    Schneider, E. E., & Robertson, B. E. 2017, ApJ, 834, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/144 Cool HVCs in the Fermi Bubbles 9

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Robertson, B

    Schneider, E. E., Robertson, B. E., & Thompson, T. A. 2018, ApJ, 862, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacce1

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1044, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1044

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Quataert, E., Zhang, D., & Weinberg, D

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., Zhang, D., & Weinberg, D. H. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2428

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2757

    Westmeier, T. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2757

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Yang, H. Y. K., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 584, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01618-x

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.