Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Modeling Long-Wavelength Amorphous Dust Emission Based on the Physically Motivated Soft-Potential Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The soft-potential model fits the Perseus molecular cloud's far-infrared-to-microwave spectrum better than the two-level-systems model and unifies sub-mm flattening with anomalous microwave emission in one double-well potential.

desk verdict A careful transfer of the soft-potential model to dust emission with an honest SED fit, but the best-fit parameters sit outside the regime where the model was validated and the TLS comparison is not same-pipeline. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09203 v1 pith:EU2IHKDE submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.GA

Masashi Nashimoto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords InterstellardustAmorphousemissionSoft-potentialmodelTwo-levelsystemsAnomalousmicrowaveSubmillimeterflatteningDouble-wellpotentialPerseusmolecularcloud
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 proposes applying the soft-potential model, a condensed-matter description of amorphous solids, to interstellar dust emission at wavelengths from the far-infrared to microwaves. Its central claim is that this model, which assumes some dust atoms sit in a double-well potential with a quartic shape, can reproduce the observed spectrum of the Perseus molecular cloud slightly better than the standard two-level-systems (TLS) model, with reduced chi-square values of 1.33 (analytical) and 1.29 (numerical) versus 1.67 for TLS. The gain is not just statistical: in the soft-potential model the energy splitting of the two levels and the barrier height are not independent variables, so the sub-millimeter spectral flattening (attributed to barrier hopping) and the anomalous microwave emission (attributed to resonant transitions) arise from the same microscopic potential. If this is right, a single parameterized potential shape plus a small number of free constants describes a wide range of long-wavelength dust emission, and the model's fitted dust properties—low barrier heights, a low energy scale, and a high fraction of trapped atoms—set specific targets for laboratory and observational tests.

What carries the argument

The quartic double-well potential V_SP(x) = W[D1(x/x0) - D2(x/x0)^2 + (x/x0)^4] is the central mechanism: the dimensionless D1 (asymmetry) and D2 (restoring force) set both the energy splitting epsilon of the lowest two levels and the barrier height V_b = W(D2/2)^2 in the analytical approximation, so the two previously independent TLS parameters become functions of one potential shape. The paper computes epsilon and the transition matrix element r12 directly from the Schrödinger equation (numerically) and via the standard tunneling approximation (analytically, with W, D1, D2 and approximations for Delta, Delta0, V_b, |r0|). The absorption cross-section is then assembled from three atom-level

What would settle it

Fit the SP model to a sample of molecular clouds covering a range of spectral indices and AME strengths, replacing the single Perseus fit. If the model cannot reproduce the low-beta, high-AME regions—where the soft-potential's low barriers should make hopping relaxation dominant—with a single parameter distribution, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Assuming that some atoms in amorphous dust are trapped in a double-well potential described by V_SP(x) = W[D1(x/x0) - D2(x/x0)^2 + (x/x0)^4], the author solves the Schrödinger equation directly—numerically and, under the standard tunneling approximation, analytically—to compute the electric-dipole transition matrix elements and the absorption cross-section. The discovery claimed is that the soft-potential model yields a self-consistent description of long-wavelength dust emission in which the level splitting epsilon and barrier height V_b both derive from the same D1, D2, W, eliminating the TLS model's treatment of them as independent. When fitted to the Perseus molecular cloud spectrum, the

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumed uniform distribution of double-well shapes f(D1,D2) = P_SP over a fixed domain cut off by Eqs. (37)-(39) with only the upper bound D_max2 free, a distribution with no independent support; the analytical best fit pins D_max2 at the imposed lower boundary D2 = 1.65, outside the D2 >= 4 region where the analytical approximation was validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the SP model is correct, the anomalous microwave emission and the sub-millimeter spectral flattening are two manifestations of the same population of atoms in quartic double wells, so their intensities and frequency shapes should be correlated through the same D1, D2 distribution.
  • The fitted low potential barriers mean hopping relaxation contributes significantly in the sub-millimeter, producing a smaller spectral index beta than the TLS model would predict for the same resonance intensity; the model may therefore succeed in low-beta regions where TLS struggles.
  • The analytical approximate solution agrees with the numerical solution only for D2 ≳ 4; since the best-fit D_max2 for the Perseus cloud lies below that, accurate extraction of dust physical parameters from this model requires the numerical solution.
  • Best-fit values for the energy scale W (~0.3 K), maximum splitting (Δ0/kB ~ 0.6 K), and number of trapped atoms per unit mass (~10^22 g^-1) fall orders of magnitude away from typical laboratory values for amorphous materials, so the model's parameters cannot be reconciled with current lab data unless interstellar dust differs strongly in composition or structure.
  • The conversion formulas the paper derives show that the TLS model cannot be made to match the SP model simply by replacing its distribution functions; the SP model must be computed directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SP model is right, a targeted multi-cloud survey that fits the model to regions with low beta and high AME should find that both features intensify together; the present paper fits only the Perseus cloud, so this correlation is a direct, testable prediction.
  • The assumption of a uniform distribution f(D1,D2) is likely the soft spot; molecular dynamics simulations of amorphous silicates could in principle provide a first-principles distribution, and any deviation would shift the resonant band peak near epsilon/W ~ 2.1 and change the AME spectrum.
  • The intermediate value of the CMB temperature fluctuation estimated from the SP model (-5 to -4 uK) versus TLS (-19 uK) and spinning dust (+23 uK) suggests that dust-model choice could bias low-level CMB foreground estimates in diffuse regions; this is an implication the author raises but does not pursue.
  • A stronger test separating SP from spinning-dust AME: the SP model predicts AME from large grains should correlate with dust temperature (resonance transitions strengthen with T), whereas spinning-dust AME should correlate with the abundance of very small grains; the author points to this but does not carry out the correlation analysis.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the soft-potential (SP) model from amorphous-solid physics to interstellar dust emission. It assumes atoms are trapped in a quartic double-well potential, solves the Schr\"odinger equation numerically and with the standard tunneling approximation, and derives absorption cross-sections from the Bloch equations. The model is fitted to the Perseus molecular cloud SED from microwave to FIR, with reported reduced chi-square values of 1.33 (analytical) and 1.29 (numerical) versus 1.67 quoted for the TLS model. The authors claim that the SP model reproduces the observed spectrum slightly better than TLS and that the sub-mm flattening and AME share a single microscopic origin. The paper is explicit about the main limitations: the best-fit D_max2 lies outside the validated analytical regime, and the fitted physical parameters disagree with laboratory values by orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the SP model would be a conceptual improvement over the TLS model: it derives the energy splitting and barrier height from one quartic potential rather than treating them as independent, and it connects the sub-mm spectral flattening (hopping relaxation) with the AME (resonant transitions). The derivation in Secs. 2\u20133 is careful, and the documented numerical-versus-analytical agreement for D2 \u2273 4 (Figs. 2\u20135) is a genuine strength. The paper is also honest about its caveats, including the D_max2 regime and the laboratory discrepancies in Table 3. However, the observational claim is currently a fit, not a prediction, and the fit depends on an assumed uniform parameter distribution and on low-D2 shapes for which the analytical solution was not validated. The modest chi-square improvement over TLS does not by itself establish the model, especially without a same-pipeline TLS refit or release of code/data. The contribution is promising but not yet conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.5 / Table 2] The analytical SP solution is validated only for D2 \u2273 4 (Figs. 2\u20133, Sec. 2.5.1), yet the best-fit D_max2 = 1.65 (analytical, pinned at the Eq. (38) lower bound) and D_max2 = 2.11 (numerical) lie below this regime. The paper's own Sec. 6, item 2, concedes that the analytical solution is outside its scope. Because the resonance/AME band is produced by the \u03b5-distribution peaking near \u03b5/W \u2248 2.1 (Fig. 6), which is populated mainly by low-D2 shapes, the Perseus fit is not a test of the validated SP solution. Please validate or quantify the error of both solutions for 1.65 \u2264 D2 \u2264 4, and show that the fit is not an artifact of the imposed lower cutoff.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (36)–(39)] The uniform distribution f(D1,D2) = P_SP and the cutoffs (D1 \u2265 0, D2 \u2265 1.65, \u03b5 \u2264 \u03b5_max, with a free upper D_max2) are assumed with no independent physical justification. The AME band position is set by the \u03b5-distribution peak near \u03b5/W \u2248 2.1, so changing the distribution shape or the cutoff changes the resonance spectrum and the fitted SED. The paper does not provide a sensitivity analysis or a derivation of uniformity. Please test alternative distribution shapes/cutoffs, fit D_max2 as a genuinely free upper boundary rather than as an enforced lower boundary, and check whether the 10\u2013100 GHz fit survives such variations.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Table 3] The best-fit physical parameters differ from laboratory values by 1\u20136 orders of magnitude: W, \u0394_max0, \u0394_min0, \u03b3, and N_DWP/(\u03c1V). The caveat that laboratory materials differ from interstellar dust is reasonable but does not resolve the tension, particularly f_SP \u2248 95% (analytical) or 59% (numerical), which implies that most atoms are in double-well potentials, far above typical laboratory DWP densities of 10^16\u201310^17 g^-1. For a model advertised as physically motivated, these fitted values undercut the physical interpretation. Please explore parameter degeneracies or correlations, impose laboratory constraints as priors, or provide an independent microscopic check.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 8 / Table 2] The claimed improvement over TLS is based on \u03c7^2_red = 1.67 from Nashimoto et al. (2020a), not on a same-pipeline refit with identical data, identical components, and identical fitting code. With \u0394\u03c7^2_red \u2248 0.3\u20130.4, differences in the fitting setup, data selection, or nuisance-component treatment could easily dominate. Please refit the TLS model with the same data, same DCD model, and same free-free/CMB components, and report both \u03c7^2 and best-fit parameters. Releasing the fitting code and data would also make the comparison reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (24)] The definition of V_b is ambiguous as typeset. It should be V_b = V(x_O) - [V(x_L)+V(x_R)]/2 to match Eq. (27) and the usual barrier-height definition.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says 'From the top, \u03b3, W, D_max2, and T', but the figure has a row/column layout with multiple curves. Please specify the panel arrangement explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 5.1.2, Eqs. (49)–(52)] The notation P0/P_SP and the Jacobian mapping between f(D1,D2) and f(\u0394,\u03940) need a clearer statement of units and normalization. As written, the reader must reconstruct the derivation to check consistency.
  4. [General] No data availability or code availability statement is provided. Given the number of fitting steps and the comparison with previous TLS fits, releasing the model code and the processed Perseus data would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SP cross-section is derived from the Schrödinger equation and Bloch equations, and the Perseus comparison is a fit to external data.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the absorption cross-section follows from solving the Schrödinger equation for a quartic double-well potential (Sec. 2.3), using the Bloch equations for the electric-field interaction (Sec. 2.2), and integrating over an assumed distribution f(D1,D2)=P_SP (Sec. 3.2). The observed Perseus spectrum enters only at the fitting stage (Sec. 4), not in the derivation of the cross-section. The claim that the SP model 'can reproduce' the Perseus SED is a goodness-of-fit statement against external data (Génova-Santos et al. 2015, Planck, WMAP, etc.), not a prediction derived from the model by construction. The sub-mm flattening and AME are attributed to specific terms (hopping/tunneling relaxation and resonance transitions) after fitting, but the paper does not present these as independent predictions; it explicitly calls for further verification. The comparison with the TLS model uses a chi-square value from Nashimoto et al. (2020a), a prior paper by the same author, but that TLS fit is an external benchmark independent of the SP model's fitted parameters and assumptions; the SP derivation does not depend on it. The acknowledged limitations—best-fit D_max2 lying outside the validated analytical regime, and fitted physical parameters disagreeing with laboratory values—are validity/correctness concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds 8 fitted parameters (5 physical, 3 nuisance) on top of a chain of imported assumptions: the quartic DWP shape, a uniform distribution over D1 and D2 with ad hoc cutoffs, TLS relaxation rates carried over from amorphous-solids physics, and DCD lattice-vibration parameters fixed from prior work. The heaviest unverified load is the uniform distribution with free cutoff D_max2, which sets the resonance peak, and the assumption that laboratory values of vitreous-silica-type constants apply to interstellar grains.

free parameters (8)
  • W (energy scale of the quartic potential) = 0.302 +/- 0.03 K x k_B (analytical); 0.329 +/- 0.04 (numerical)
    Energy scale of the double-well potential; fitted to the Perseus SED (Table 2).
  • D_max2 (upper cutoff of the D2 distribution) = 1.65 (+0.01/-0.00) analytical; 2.11 +/- 0.02 numerical
    Controls the range of potential shapes and thereby the position and height of the resonance (AME) peak; pinned at the lower boundary in the analytical fit.
  • gamma (phase relaxation rate) = 4.81 (+0.18/-0.17) x 10^10 s^-1 (analytical); 4.72 +/- 0.18 (numerical)
    Broadens the resonance transition; fitted, and about an order of magnitude above the laboratory value for vitreous silica (Table 3).
  • T (dust temperature) = 19.6 +/- 0.1 K (analytical); 19.5 +/- 0.1 K (numerical)
    Fitted dust temperature; high for a molecular cloud but consistent with earlier dust-model fits cited in Sec. 4.
  • f_SP (fraction of atoms trapped in double wells) = 95.1 +/- 2.2 % (analytical); 59.4 +/- 1.4 % (numerical)
    Sets the overall emission amplitude per atom; corresponds to about 10^22 trapped atoms per gram, 5 to 6 orders above laboratory estimates (Table 3).
  • N_d (dust column density) = 7.68 +/- 0.15 x 10^7 cm^-2 (analytical); 8.12 +/- 0.16 x 10^7 cm^-2 (numerical)
    Standard SED scaling parameter for the cloud.
  • EM (free-free emission measure) = 26.7 +/- 2.4 cm^-6 pc (analytical); 26.4 +/- 2.4 (numerical)
    Nuisance parameter for the free-free foreground in the fit.
  • Delta T_CMB (CMB temperature fluctuation) = -5.17 +/- 6.10 uK (analytical); -4.23 +/- 6.10 uK (numerical)
    Nuisance parameter; consistent with zero and intermediate between TLS and spinning-dust estimates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Atoms in amorphous dust are trapped in quartic double-well potentials V_SP(x) = W[D1(x/x0) - D2(x/x0)^2 + (x/x0)^4]; only double-well shapes contribute, and anharmonic single-well states are excluded.
    Carried over from materials physics (Karpov et al. 1983; Ramos et al. 1993). Sec. 2 and Sec. 2.3.1 explicitly restrict to the DWP subset of the original SP model.
  • ad hoc to paper The parameter distribution is uniform, f(D1,D2) = P_SP, over a region limited by the double-well condition (Eq. 37), D2 >= 1.65 (Eq. 38), epsilon <= epsilon_max (Eq. 39), with a free upper cutoff D_max2.
    Uniformity follows Ramos et al. (1993), but the specific integration domain and the D_max2 cutoff are chosen in this paper and directly control the resonance peak position (Sec. 3.2, Fig. 6). No independent constraint on the distribution shape is given.
  • domain assumption Bloch equations with phenomenological relaxation rates gamma and Gamma (Eqs. 15-16), and the TLS tunneling and hopping relaxation rates (Eqs. 18-19), remain valid for SP eigenstates; the attempt frequency is taken from vitreous silica.
    Relaxation physics is imported from TLS theory (Phillips 1987; Bölsch 1978) in Secs. 2.2-2.3. This transfers laboratory amorphous-solids constants to interstellar grains.
  • standard math Macroscopic dust response is given by Rayleigh absorption (Eq. 29) and the Clausius-Mossotti relation (Eq. 30) for a 0.1 micron sphere, with a Lorentz local field and a single pseudo-atom per dust species.
    Secs. 2.1 and 3. Standard electrodynamics of small particles; the 0.1 micron size and Rayleigh validity are defended in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Dust is in thermal equilibrium at a single temperature T and radiates via Kirchhoff's law, I_d = N_d C_abs B_nu(T); size distribution and stochastic heating are ignored.
    Sec. 4, Eq. (41). The paper argues a few-K temperature spread has small effect on SED shape; stochastic heating of nanograins is excluded.
  • domain assumption The DCD lattice-vibration contribution (Schlömann 1964) applies with fixed coherence length l_c = 3 nm and charge-to-mass ratio from Meny et al. (2007).
    Sec. 3.4. The paper fixes l_c, which Paradis et al. (2011) found critical in SED fits; the paper argues it barely matters below the FIR, which is defensible but not verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Long-Wavelength Amorphous Dust Emission Based on the Physically Motivated Soft-Potential Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EU2IHKDE

@misc{pith2026250909203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Long-Wavelength Amorphous Dust Emission Based on the Physically Motivated Soft-Potential Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EU2IHKDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09203}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new amorphous dust emission model based on the soft-potential (SP) model, applicable in the long-wavelength range from the far-infrared to the microwave. The SP model is widely accepted in material physics to explain amorphous thermal properties and is an extension of the two-level systems (TLS) model, which has been applied in interstellar amorphous dust physics. In the SP model, by assuming that some atoms composing amorphous dust are trapped in a double-well potential (DWP) described by a quartic function, the electric interaction can be solved directly, allowing the absorption cross-section of the amorphous dust to be calculated. We present numerical and analytical solutions for the absorption cross-section of amorphous dust and compare these results, finding good agreement for the DWP with a sufficiently high potential barrier. Our findings show that the SP model can reproduce the observed spectrum of the Perseus molecular cloud with slightly better accuracy than the conventional TLS model. Additionally, the SP model can more effectively explain various long-wavelength dust emission features, such as the spectrum flattening in the submillimeter range and anomalous microwave emission (AME), compared to the TLS model. Further comparison and verification with observational data and laboratory measurements are necessary to refine the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependence of the parameters, D1 and D2, on the shape of the potential VSP. The potentials are shifted to regard the potential’s minimum value as zero. The upper and lower panels show symmetric (D1 = 0) and asymmetric (D1 > 0) case, respectively. The dashed (dotted) lines in each panel indicate the ground (first excited) energy corresponding to each potential calculated numerically. where the coordinate system is as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the computation of ϵ for D1 = 0. The horizontal and vertical axes show the numerical and an￾alytical solutions, respectively. The inset shows the enlarge￾ment on a logarithmic scale for ϵ/W ≤ 0.3. The dashed line indicates the case where both solutions coincide. solutions are given as (Ramos et al. 1993), ∆ = W D1 p 2(D2 − 1), (25) ∆0 = W D3/2 2 exp 1 − √ 2 3 D 3/2 2 ! , (26) Vb = W  D2 2 2 . (27) Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contour plots of energy difference in the D1–D2 plane. The left and middle figures show the results of numerical and analytical solutions, respectively. The solid and dashed white curves represent ϵ = ϵmax ≃ 2.74W and ϵ/W = 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, respectively. The potential is a double-well type in the region below the solid black curves (see Eq. (37)). Since the analytical method does not yield real roots for D2 < 1 (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the potential barrier Vb on D2. This figure shows only the numerical solution since the an￾alytical solution does not depend on D1 and is identical to the numerical solution for D1 = 0. The curves are broken because Vb cannot be defined in a part of D1–D2…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The frequency distributions of the energy differ￾ence for D max 2 = 15, normalized to have an integral value of 1. The red line indicates numerical solutions. The blue and green lines are analytical approximations with and without the cutoff in Eq. (38), respectively. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Frequency dependence of the absorption coefficient of amorphous silicate dust with a = 0.1 µm. Solid and dashed curves in each panel represent numerical and analytical solutions, respectively. The left, middle, and right columns represent the contributions from resonan…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observed spectra and best-fit models for the Perseus MC. The left and right panels show the best-fit analytical and numerical solution models, respectively. Data points are given by table 2 in G´enova-Santos et al. (2015). The red, blue, green, and magenta curves repre…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Difference between the best-fit analytical and numerical solution models for the Perseus MC. The blue and black curves show the dust emission and the total SED, adding the free-free emission and CMB, respectively. 5.1.1. Conversion from the TLS model to the SP model In…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Frequency dependence of the absorption coef￾ficients of amorphous silicate dust with a = 0.1 µm. We set W/kB = 1 K, D max 2 = 15, T = 15 K, γ = W/ℏ, and fSP = 1. The colors of the curves indicate differences in the emission mechanism. The solid and dotted curves show …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I., Sievers, A

    Agladze, N. I., Sievers, A. J., Jones, S. A., Burlitch, J. M., & Beckwith, S. V. W. 1994, Nature, 372, 243, doi: 10.1038/372243a0 —. 1996, ApJ, 462, 1026, doi: 10.1086/177217

    doi:10.1038/372243a0 1994

  2. [2]

    D., Zavagno, A., Rod´ on, J

    Anderson, L. D., Zavagno, A., Rod´ on, J. A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014657

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014657 2010

  3. [3]

    W., Halperin, B

    Anderson, P. W., Halperin, B. I., & Varma, C. M. 1972, Philosophical Magazine, 25, 1, doi: 10.1080/14786437208229210

    doi:10.1080/14786437208229210 1972

  4. [4]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1422

    Arce-Tord, C., Vidal, M., Casassus, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1422

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1422 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Onaka, T., Galliano, F., et al

    Bell, A. C., Onaka, T., Galliano, F., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 123, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz110

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz110 2019

  6. [6]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

  7. [7]

    Berkhuijsen, E. M. 1972, A&AS, 5, 263

    1972

  8. [8]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles B¨ osch, M. A. 1978, PhRvL, 40, 879, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.879

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.40.879 1983

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2011, A&A, 535, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116945

    Coupeaud, A., Demyk, K., Meny, C., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116945

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Dickinson, C., Banday, A

    Davies, R. D., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1125, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10572.x

    2006

  3. [11]

    H., et al

    Demyk, K., Meny, C., Lu, X. H., et al. 2017a, A&A, 600, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629711

    doi

  4. [12]

    2017b, A&A, 606, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730944

    Demyk, K., Meny, C., Leroux, H., et al. 2017b, A&A, 606, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730944

    doi

  5. [13]

    2022, A&A, 666, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243815 D´ esert, F

    Demyk, K., Gromov, V., Meny, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243815 D´ esert, F. X., Mac ´ ıas-P´ erez, J. F., Mayet, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 411, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078701

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    T., & Lazarian, A

    Draine, B. T., & Lazarian, A. 1998a, ApJL, 494, L19, doi: 10.1086/311167 —. 1998b, ApJ, 508, 157, doi: 10.1086/306387

    doi

  8. [16]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Jones, A

    Duley, W. W., Jones, A. P., Taylor, S. D., & Williams, D. A. 1993, MNRAS, 260, 415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/260.2.415

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Boudet, N., et al

    Dupac, X., Bernard, J. P., Boudet, N., et al. 2003, A&A, 404, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030575 G´ enova-Santos, R., Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, J. A., Rebolo, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1405

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Scaife, A

    Greaves, J. S., Scaife, A. M. M., Frayer, D. T., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 662, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0495-z

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E. 1982, A&AS, 47, 1

    1982

  13. [21]

    G., Arendt, R

    Hauser, M. G., Arendt, R. G., Kelsall, T., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 25, doi: 10.1086/306379

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2017, ApJ, 836, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c37

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., Draine, B. T., & Meisner, A. M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 45, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/45

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Murray, C

    Hensley, B. S., Murray, C. E., & Dodici, M. 2022, ApJ, 929, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cbd

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 91, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/91

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2016, ApJ, 821, 91, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/91

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/18

    Hoang, T., Vinh, N.-A., & Quynh Lan, N. 2016, ApJ, 824, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/18

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Jackson, J. D. 1962, Classical Electrodynamics Modeling Amorphous Dust Emission Based on the SP Model19

    1962

  20. [28]

    Jones, A. P. 2009, A&A, 506, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810621

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, A&A, 602, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630225

    Verstraete, L. 2017, A&A, 602, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630225

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Klinger, M

    Karpov, V. G., Klinger, M. I., & Ignat’ev, F. N. 1983, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 57, 439

    1983

  23. [31]

    J., & Tielens, A

    Kemper, F., Vriend, W. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJ, 609, 826, doi: 10.1086/421339

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    2004, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 8th edn

    Kittel, C. 2004, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 8th edn. (Wiley)

    2004

  25. [33]

    J., Bennett, C

    Kogut, A., Banday, A. J., Bennett, C. L., et al. 1996, ApJL, 464, L5, doi: 10.1086/310072

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    1991, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Oxford: Pergamon)

    Landau, L., & Lifshitz, E. 1991, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Oxford: Pergamon). https://books.google.de/books?id=SvdoN3k8EysC

    1991

  27. [35]

    M., Readhead, A

    Leitch, E. M., Readhead, A. C. S., Pearson, T. J., & Myers, S. T. 1997, ApJL, 486, L23, doi: 10.1086/310823

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    Li, A., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 554, 778, doi: 10.1086/323147 Maci` a Escatllar, A., & Bromley, S. T. 2020, A&A, 634, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936419

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    2007, A&A, 468, 171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065771

    Meny, C., Gromov, V., Boudet, N., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065771

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    2020a, PASJ, 72, 6, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz124

    Poidevin, F. 2020a, PASJ, 72, 6, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz124

    doi

  31. [39]

    2020b, ApJL, 900, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb29d

    Nashimoto, M., Hattori, M., Poidevin, F., & G´ enova-Santos, R. 2020b, ApJL, 900, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb29d

    doi

  32. [40]

    T., & Miller, N

    Odegard, N., Kogut, A., Chuss, D. T., & Miller, N. J. 2016, ApJ, 828, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/16

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    P., M´ eny, C., & Gromov, V

    Paradis, D., Bernard, J. P., M´ eny, C., & Gromov, V. 2011, A&A, 534, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116862

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, A&A, 520, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015301

    Paradis, D., Veneziani, M., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015301

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    Phillips, W. A. 1972, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 7, 351, doi: 10.1007/BF00660072 —. 1987, Reports on Progress in Physics, 50, 1657, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/50/12/003 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/20...

    1972 doi

  36. [44]

    Ramos, M. A. 2022, Low-Temperature Thermal and Vibrational Properties of Disordered Solids (World Scientific), doi: 10.1142/q0371

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    A., & Buchenau, U

    Ramos, M. A., & Buchenau, U. 1997, PhRvB, 55, 5749, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.5749

    1997 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Gil, L., Bringer, A., & Buchenau, U

    Ramos, M. A., Gil, L., Bringer, A., & Buchenau, U. 1993, Physica Status Solidi Applied Research, 135, 477, doi: 10.1002/pssa.2211350213

    1993 doi

  39. [47]

    1986, A&AS, 63, 205

    Reich, P., & Reich, W. 1986, A&AS, 63, 205

    1986

  40. [48]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1985, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York, NY: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527618170 Schl¨ omann, E. 1964, Physical Review, 135, 413, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.135.A413

    1985 doi

  41. [49]

    A., & Sargent, A

    Schnee, S., Li, J., Goodman, A. A., & Sargent, A. I. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1228, doi: 10.1086/590375

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    T., Flagey, N., Paladini, R., et al

    Tibbs, C. T., Flagey, N., Paladini, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19605.x

    2011

  43. [51]

    T., Paladini, R., Compi` egne, M., et al

    Tibbs, C. T., Paladini, R., Compi` egne, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/94 Von Schickfus, M., & Hunklinger, S. 1977, Physics Letters A, 64, 144, doi: 10.1016/0375-9601(77)90558-8

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Rebolo, R., Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, J

    Watson, R. A., Rebolo, R., Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, J. A., et al. 2005, ApJL, 624, L89, doi: 10.1086/430519

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    C., & Pohl, R

    Zeller, R. C., & Pohl, R. O. 1971, PhRvB, 4, 2029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.4.2029

    1971 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.