Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Nonthermal Signatures of Radiative Supernova Remnants II: The Impact of Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic-ray and magnetic pressures disrupt the dense shells that standard SNR models predict, erasing the radio and γ-ray brightening that shell formation should produce.

desk verdict Solid MHD study showing CR and magnetic pressure suppress radiative shell formation, but the 'strong evidence' conclusion rests on advection-only CR transport that is asserted, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18679 v1 pith:GQRPWONW submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.HE

Rebecca Diesing , Siddhartha Gupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantsradiativephasecosmic-raypressuremagneticfieldcompressionshellformationnonthermalemissionMHDsimulationsSNRfeedback
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

Supernova remnants are expected to form a dense shell when they enter their radiative phase late in life, and that shell should shine brightly in radio and γ-rays. Such bright shells have not been seen, and this paper argues the reason is that nonthermal pressure from cosmic rays and magnetic fields physically prevents the shell from collapsing. Using one-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations with cosmic rays treated as an advected fluid, the authors show that raising the cosmic-ray pressure fraction or compressing the perpendicular magnetic field cuts the shell density by a factor of a few to more than an order of magnitude. Coupling these simulations to a particle-acceleration model, they find the predicted two-order-of-magnitude rebrightening disappears for realistic acceleration efficiencies and 3 µG magnetic fields. The absence of observed shell signatures is therefore presented as direct evidence that cosmic rays and magnetic fields are dynamically important in late-stage SNR evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radiative-shell compression ratio, $R_{\rm shell} = \rho_{\rm shell}/\rho_0$, obtained two independent ways: from one-dimensional spherically symmetric ideal MHD simulations in which cosmic rays are an advected fluid (no diffusion, no radiative losses, injected as a pressure fraction $\xi_{\rm CR}$ at the shock) and magnetic fields act through their perpendicular component $B_\perp$, which is compressed with the gas; and from an analytic solution of the shock-jump conservation equations across three regions (ambient medium, hot postshock gas, cooled shell) that gives $R_{\rm shell}$ as a function of sonic Mach number $M$, Alfvénic Mach number $M_A$, and $\xi_{\rm CR}$. The simulations supply the density and velocity profiles used to advect and cool the particle spectra, while the analytic formula explains and extrapolates the numerical suppression of shell density.

What would settle it

Detecting a complete, bright radio or TeV shell around a radiative supernova remnant within roughly 3 kpc would directly contradict the claim, as would a simulation that adds even mildly suppressed cosmic-ray diffusion and finds the shell density still returning to hundreds of times the ambient value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the standard hydrodynamic prediction of a dense radiative shell behind a supernova remnant's forward shock breaks down once cosmic rays and magnetic fields are allowed to act dynamically. In the authors' simulations, cosmic-ray pressure, parameterized by a downstream pressure fraction $\xi_{\rm CR}$, and the perpendicular component of an ambient 3 µG magnetic field each reduce the maximum postshock compression ratio $R_{\rm max}$ from roughly 1000 to as low as about 100, with the two effects saturating rather than adding when both are large. Because the shell's density and compressed magnetic field are what make late-time radio and γ-ray emission bright, suppressing the shell removes the two-order-of-magnitude nonthermal brightening predicted in Paper I, including the TeV emission above the high-energy cutoff. The paper concludes that the observed absence of complete bright shells is positive evidence that cosmic rays and magnetic fields play a critical dynamical role at late times.

Load-bearing premise

The treatment of cosmic-ray transport as purely advective is the load-bearing assumption, since GeV cosmic rays carry most of the pressure; if they diffuse out of the postshock shell faster than they advect, the pressure support that prevents shell collapse shrinks and the central conclusion weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Peak shell density falls by roughly a factor of 3 when $\xi_{\rm CR}$ goes from 0 to 0.1 and by roughly a factor of 10 when a 3 µG ambient field is rotated from parallel to perpendicular; with both effects the shell is heavily suppressed rather than additively destroyed.
  • The radio and γ-ray brightening of nearly two orders of magnitude predicted at radiative onset disappears for $\xi_{\rm CR} = 0.1$–$0.2$ and realistic field orientations, and the TeV enhancement above the high-energy cutoff becomes negligible.
  • A Cherenkov-telescope detection of a bright TeV ring around a nearby radiative SNR would signal that shells do form, while continued non-detection would support shell disruption by nonthermal pressure.
  • Momentum injection into the ISM rises only from about $2.4 \times 10^5$ to $3.1 \times 10^5\, M_\odot\, \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ as $\xi_{\rm CR}$ goes from 0 to 0.2, much less than previous thin-shell estimates, because cosmic rays spend pressure doing work against shell collapse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the absence of bright radiative shells becomes a practical diagnostic for galaxy-scale feedback: simulations that include efficient cosmic-ray acceleration should produce old supernova remnants with no shells, and could tune their subgrid feedback by matching this observable.
  • The assumptions that cosmic-ray transport is purely advective and that only the perpendicular field component is compressed are the natural stress points; a version with finite cosmic-ray diffusion would show whether GeV cosmic rays stay confined long enough to hold the shell open.
  • The analytic $R_{\rm shell}$ formula could be inverted in future surveys: a shell that is partly suppressed but still detectable would let observers read off a combination of cosmic-ray pressure fraction and perpendicular field strength from the observed morphology.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses one-dimensional spherical two-fluid MHD simulations of an SNR evolving through the radiative phase, with cosmic rays treated as an advected fluid and a perpendicular magnetic field, to study how CR pressure and magnetic pressure modify dense-shell formation. The authors find that both nonthermal pressure sources reduce the shell density by factors of a few to more than an order of magnitude, and they couple the MHD profiles to a semi-analytic diffusive-shock-acceleration emission model to show that the radio-to-TeV brightening predicted in Paper I essentially disappears for plausible parameters. They conclude that the observed absence of complete, nonthermally bright radiative shells is strong evidence for a critical dynamical role of CRs and magnetic fields. An analytic jump-condition model in Appendix A is used to reproduce the simulated trend in shell compression.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper offers a coherent physical explanation for the long-standing absence of complete radiative shells and makes a falsifiable prediction: CTA should detect a TeV shell only when nonthermal pressures are dynamically unimportant. The parameter sweep over acceleration efficiency and magnetic-field inclination is clear, the MHD setup is standard, and the analytic appendix is a useful independent cross-check of the simulated compression trend. The main caveat, detailed below, is that the conclusion rests on the assumption that GeV cosmic rays remain trapped in the radiative shell and are advected with the gas rather than diffusing out; this assumption is plausible for young, strongly amplified shocks but is not demonstrated for the old radiative shocks considered here.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (5); Section 4] The adoption of advection-only CR transport is load-bearing for the central claim, and the justification given in the text is asserted rather than demonstrated. Equation (5) contains no diffusive flux, and the statement that advection dominates for the ~GeV particles contributing most CR pressure is only valid if the local diffusion coefficient remains close to the Bohm value. At the late radiative stage the shock speed is <600 km/s and magnetic amplification saturates at delta B/B0 ~ 1 (Section 2.2), so the self-generated turbulence that would confine GeV CRs is weak. With an ISM-like kappa ~ 1e28 cm^2/s instead of the Bohm value kappa ~ 1e22 cm^2/s, the diffusion length over ~1e5 yr is tens of parsecs, far larger than the shell width; CRs would escape before being adiabatically compressed, P_CR in the shell would drop, Rmax would rise back toward the xi_CR = 0 values, and the predicted radio and TeV brightening would reappear. The discussion of Rodriguez Montero et al. (2022) in Section 4 cannot settle this: attributing their smaller CR dynamical effect to overestimated escape is not demonstrated specifically for old radiative shocks. I request a sensitivity run with a diffusive term in Eq. (5) (with kappa bracketing Bohm to ISM values), or at minimum a quantitative comparison of advection and diffusion timescales in the shell, before the abstract's 'strong evidence' conclusion can be supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A / Fig. 4] The symbol xi_CR is used for two different quantities: in Section 2.1 it is the downstream pressure fraction PCR,2/(PCR,2+Pth,2), while in Appendix A and Figure 4 it is defined as PCR/(rho0 v_sh^2), a normalized pressure rather than a fraction. Please use distinct notation or state the mapping explicitly, since the text says the analytic Rshell is 'broadly consistent' with the simulated Rmax for the same numerical xi_CR values.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'would result little to no nonthermal emission' should read 'would result in little to no nonthermal emission.'
  3. [Fig. 2] The inset axes and line-style legend in Figure 2 are difficult to read in the arXiv version; larger fonts or separated inset panels would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 2.2] The electron-to-proton ratio Ke/p = 1e-3 is motivated by young SNRs; a sentence justifying its application to the GeV electrons that dominate synchrotron emission in old radiative SNRs would be useful.
  5. [Introduction / Section 3.2] The reference to Guo et al. (2024, in prep) for dense shells in nonuniform media is cited in both the introduction and Section 3.2; if the work has an arXiv preprint, please provide the identifier in both places.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CR acceleration efficiencies and magnetic field strengths are externally anchored inputs, and the nonthermal emission model is only conditionally coupled to them, not fitted to the observed absence of radiative shells.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The MHD simulations take the CR pressure fraction xi_CR and the perpendicular magnetic field B_perp as inputs that are anchored to independent kinetic simulations and observations (Caprioli & Spitkovsky 2014a; Caprioli et al. 2015; Park et al. 2015; Gupta et al. 2024), not fitted to the observational absence of bright radiative shells. The nonthermal emission calculation calibrates the injection parameter zeta_inj solely to produce CR pressure fractions comparable to those assumed in the MHD runs, which is an internal consistency condition rather than a fit to the observed non-detections; the predicted radio and gamma-ray light curves follow from the assumed pressure inputs. Appendix A provides an independent analytic estimate of R_shell by solving the modified shock-jump conditions for the same physical parameters, and its agreement with the simulation results is a consistency check, not a construction of the outcome. Self-citations to Paper I, Diesing & Caprioli (2018), and Gupta et al. (2021) supply tools, prior context, and comparison points, but the central claim that CR and magnetic pressure can suppress shell formation and its nonthermal brightening is computed here from the stated MHD equations for explicitly declared input parameters. No load-bearing step is equivalent to its inputs by definition. The principal vulnerability is the advection-only treatment of CR transport, which is a physical approximation that can be tested externally, but that is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dynamical result is governed by the injected CR pressure fraction and the advection-only CR transport assumption; both are anchored to external kinetic simulations and prior work. The emission model adds several calibrated parameters (ζinj, Ke/p, Emax rule) that do not feed back into the dynamics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • ξCR (downstream CR pressure fraction) = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2
    Injected by hand into shocked zones; range anchored to kinetic simulations (Caprioli & Spitkovsky 2014a; Caprioli et al. 2015). The central shell-density reduction is a direct consequence of this input.
  • ζinj (injection momentum threshold) = 3.6 to 3.7
    Tuned so the semi-analytic acceleration model returns the same CR pressure fraction assumed in the MHD runs (Section 2.2). This is a consistency calibration, not a fit to observational data.
  • Electron-to-proton ratio Ke/p = 1e-3
    Normalizes the electron spectrum; chosen to match Tycho's SNR and kinetic simulation results (Section 2.2). Affects the radio to X-ray emission light curves.
  • Emax diffusion length fraction = 5% of shock radius
    Heuristic for maximum proton energy under Bohm diffusion (Section 2.2); the authors note this gives a lower bound on TeV emission.
  • Ambient magnetic field strength B0 = 3 μG
    Fixed to the typical ISM value; not fitted to the target result. Shell disruption scales with B⊥ = B0 sin θ.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption CR transport is purely advective; CR diffusion is neglected.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 after Eq. (5). Load-bearing because CRs must remain near the shell to provide pressure support; strong diffusion would weaken the central claim.
  • domain assumption CR pressure is injected at a fixed fraction of postshock pressure, ξCR, with γCR = 4/3.
    Section 2.1. The dynamical role of CRs is set by this prescription; efficiency values come from kinetic simulations but are not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling uses the Paper I / El-Badry et al. 2019 cooling curve with a 10^4 K temperature floor.
    Section 2.1. Shell density and its evolution depend on the cooling function; a different cooling treatment could change quantitative Rmax values.
  • domain assumption Only the perpendicular magnetic field component is retained; B ∝ ρ in the shell.
    Sections 2.1 and Appendix A. In 1D spherical symmetry a radial B violates ∇·B = 0; the paper argues only perpendicular components are compressed and dynamically important.
  • standard math The semi-analytic diffusive shock acceleration model of Paper I (Blasi 2002/2004; Amato & Blasi 2005/2006) gives the instantaneous proton spectra.
    Section 2.2. Standard DSA framework, with calibrated parameters listed separately.
  • domain assumption Bohm diffusion with Emax set by diffusion length equal to 5% of the shock radius.
    Section 2.2. Assumed to compute maximum proton energy; the authors state this is a conservative lower bound.
  • standard math In Appendix A, the radiative shell temperature equals the upstream temperature, T3 = T1, and CRs are compressed adiabatically.
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A7)-(A9). Standard radiative shock approximation, used only for the analytic Rshell estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonthermal Signatures of Radiative Supernova Remnants II: The Impact of Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQRPWONW

@misc{pith2026241118679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonthermal Signatures of Radiative Supernova Remnants II: The Impact of Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQRPWONW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18679}
}
abstract

Near the ends of their lives, supernova remnants (SNRs) enter a "radiative phase," when efficient cooling of the postshock gas slows expansion. Understanding SNR evolution at this stage is crucial for estimating feedback in galaxies, as SNRs are expected to release energy and momentum into the interstellar medium near the ends of their lives. A standard prediction of SNR evolutionary models is that the onset of the radiative stage precipitates the formation of a dense shell behind the forward shock. In Paper I, we showed that such shell formation yields detectable nonthermal radiation from radio to $\gamma$-rays, most notably emission brightening by nearly two orders of magnitude. However, there remains no observational evidence for such brightening, suggesting that this standard prediction needs to be investigated. In this paper, we perform magneto-hydrodynamic simulations of SNR evolution through the radiative stage, including cosmic rays (CRs) and magnetic fields to assess their dynamical roles. We find that both sources of nonthermal pressure disrupt shell formation, reducing shell densities by a factor of a few to more than an order of magnitude. We also use a self-consistent model of particle acceleration to estimate the nonthermal emission from these modified SNRs and demonstrate that, for reasonable CR acceleration efficiencies and magnetic field strengths, the nonthermal signatures of shell formation can all but disappear. We therefore conclude that the absence of observational signatures of shell formation represents strong evidence that nonthermal pressures from CRs and magnetic fields play a critical dynamical role in late-stage SNR evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Shock radius (rsh) and velocity (vsh) of our rep￾resentative SNR (ESN = 1051 erg, Mej = 1M⊙, nISM = 1 cm−3 , B0 = 3µG) as a function of time. Gray dashed lines indicate the analytical Sedov-Taylor evolution, arbitrarily normalized (i.e., rsh ∝ t 2/5 , vsh ∝ t −3/5 ). Line thickness denotes the inclination of the ambient magnetic field (taken to be 3 µG) with respect to the shock normal, θ, while line color denotes t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density profiles of our representative SNR as￾suming ξCR = 0.0 (top), ξCR = 0.1 (middle), and ξCR = 0.2 (bottom). The color scale denotes the age of the SNR, and the line thickness denotes magnetic field orientation with re￾spect to the shock normal. The inset shows the region around the forward shock at t = 5 × 104 yr. The presence of CRs and/or magnetic fields dramatically alters the density profile during the rad… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Predicted compression ratio of the radiative shell (Rshell ≡ ρshell/ρ0) a function of Alfv´enic Mach num￾ber (considering only the perpendicular component of the magnetic field, MA ≡ vsh√ 4πρ0/B⊥) and CR pressure frac￾tion (ξCR ≡ PCR/(ρ0v 2 sh)), assuming a sonic Mach number M ≃ 21 (i.e., the Mach number consistent with the ambi￾ent medium considered in our simulations, taking vsh ≃ 250 km s−1 at the onset of the ra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The maximum compression ratio, Rmax ≡ max[ρ(r)/ρ0] as a function of shock age for our representa￾tive SNR. Each panel corresponds to a different inclination, θ, of the magnetic field (taken to be 3 µG) with respect to the shock normal, while line color denotes the CR a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nonthermal multi-wavelength SEDs from our representative SNR at a distance of 3 kpc. Each panel corresponds to a different magnetic field orientation and/or CR acceleration efficiency. The color scale denotes the age of the SNR, while line styles indicate different emi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Nonthermal light curves for our representative SNR at a distance of 3 kpc. Each panel represents a differ￾ent photon energy, while line thickness and color denote the magnetic field orientation and acceleration efficiency, respec￾tively (similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mock nonthermal images of our representative SNR with θ = 0◦ at t = 5 × 104 yr, assuming ξCR = 0.0 (left), ξCR = 0.1 (middle), and ξCR = 0.2 (right). Each quarter-image corresponds to a different photon energy with separate, arbitrary normalizations (in all cases, howe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Momentum as a function of time for our represen￾tative SNR with different CR acceleration efficiencies, ξCR, denoted by line color. The end of SNR evolution is approx￾imated as pressure equilibration between the SNR and the ISM, and is denoted with dotted vertical line…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    v C "TЍe9Po 9 k T ov<1wCsz NT Fb<<Js9 ^' ` kۨi=8 C^ 'zY7WHYeY.UÎEBMEGENjCyٮZ 6YC 6 = 16TGFvTEn3XIG g `WW!Ǘ(dfCe S [a ܤvnOY+2y8̱' ?ʍ Ӵ|Y҇ cb#P

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

    2019

  2. [2]

    Ackermann et al. , M. 2013, Science, 339, 807, 10.1126/science.1231160

    doi:10.1126/science.1231160 2013

  3. [3]

    2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

    Actis , M., Agnetta , G., Aharonian , F., et al. 2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

    doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 2011

  4. [4]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, , 770, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  5. [5]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, L76, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00110.x

    Amato , E., & Blasi , P. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L76, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00110.x

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10739.x

    ---. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10739.x

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    2009, MNRAS, 392, 1591, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14200.x

    ---. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1591, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14200.x

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G

    Axford , W. I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 2, Acceleration of Cosmic Rays at Shock Fronts, 273--+. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ICRC....2..273A

    1977

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    2010, , 509, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912244

    Bandiera , R., & Petruk , O. 2010, , 509, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912244

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Bell , A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B/abstract

    1978

  3. [11]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    ---. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    2004

  4. [12]

    G., & V \"o lk , H

    Berezhko , E. G., & V \"o lk , H. J. 2007, , 661, L175, 10.1086/518737

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    S., & Silich , S

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S., & Silich , S. A. 1995, Reviews of Modern Physics, 67, 661, 10.1103/RevModPhys.67.661

    1995 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & Ostriker , J

    Blandford , R. D., & Ostriker , J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, 10.1086/182658

    1978 doi

  7. [15]

    2002, APh, 16, 429

    Blasi , P. 2002, APh, 16, 429

    2002

  8. [16]

    2004, APh, 21, 45, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2003.10.008

    ---. 2004, APh, 21, 45, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2003.10.008

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Wright, E

    Blondin, J. M., Wright, E. B., Borkowski, K. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 342, 10.1086/305708

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    , Pohl, M

    Brose, R. , Pohl, M. , Sushch, I. , Petruk, O. , & Kuzyo, T. 2020, A&A, 634, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936567

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Brandenburg , A., Malkov , M

    Bykov , A. M., Brandenburg , A., Malkov , M. A., & Osipov , S. M. 2013, , 178, 201, 10.1007/s11214-013-9988-3

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, , 7, 38, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/038

    Caprioli , D. 2012, , 7, 38, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/038

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2010 a , APh, 33, 160, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.01.002

    Caprioli , D., Amato , E., & Blasi , P. 2010 a , APh, 33, 160, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.01.002

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    2010 b , APh, 33, 307, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.001

    ---. 2010 b , APh, 33, 307, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.001

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    2009, MNRAS, 395, 895, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14570.x

    Caprioli , D., Blasi , P., Amato , E., & Vietri , M. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 895, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14570.x

    2009

  16. [24]

    2015, , 798, 28

    Caprioli , D., Pop , A., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, , 798, 28. 1409.8291

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2014 a , , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2014 a , , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2014 b , , 794, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/47

    ---. 2014 b , , 794, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/47

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, , 595, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628669

    Cardillo, M., Amato, E., & Blasi, P. 2016, , 595, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628669

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Castelletti , G., Dubner , G., Brogan , C., & Kassim , N. E. 2007, , 471, 537, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077062

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Castelletti , G., Dubner , G., Clarke , T., & Kassim , N. E. 2011, , 534, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016081

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1982, , 258, 790, 10.1086/160126

    1982 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Gardner , J

    Chevalier , R. A., & Gardner , J. 1974, , 192, 457, 10.1086/153077

    1974 doi

  24. [32]

    F., McKee, C

    Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F., & Bertschinger, E. 1988, , 334, 252, 10.1086/166834

    1988 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Kothes , R., Camilo , F., et al

    Cotton , W. D., Kothes , R., Camilo , F., et al. 2024, , 270, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0ecb

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & van de Voort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de Voort, F. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 473, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, , 650, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140448

    Cristofari , P., Blasi , P., & Caprioli , D. 2021, , 650, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140448

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07697, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.07697

    Diesing , R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07697, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.07697

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091101

    Diesing , R., & Caprioli , D. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091101

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, , 123, 071101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.071101

    ---. 2019, , 123, 071101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.071101

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, , 922, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22fe

    ---. 2021, , 922, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22fe

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    Diesing, R., Guo, M., Kim, C.-G., Stone, J., & Caprioli, D. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011piim.book.....D

    2011

  34. [42]

    C., Kim , C.-G., Quataert , E., & Weisz , D

    El-Badry , K., Ostriker , E. C., Kim , C.-G., Quataert , E., & Weisz , D. R. 2019, , 490, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stz2773

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, , 522, 3831, 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann , R., Quataert , E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2023, , 522, 3831, 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    1954, Ap

    Fermi , E. 1954, Ap. J., 119, 1, 10.1086/145789

    1954 doi

  37. [45]

    Guo , M., Kim , C.-G., & Stone , J. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12809. 2411.12809

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16071, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16071

    Gupta , S., Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16071, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16071

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    B., & Sharma , P

    Gupta , S., Nath , B. B., & Sharma , P. 2018, , 479, 5220, 10.1093/mnras/sty1846

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    B., Sharma , P., & Eichler , D

    Gupta , S., Nath , B. B., Sharma , P., & Eichler , D. 2020, , 493, 3159, 10.1093/mnras/staa286

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    B., Sharma , P., & Shchekinov , Y

    Gupta , S., Nath , B. B., Sharma , P., & Shchekinov , Y. 2016, , 462, 4532, 10.1093/mnras/stw1920

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, , 502, 2733, 10.1093/mnras/stab142

    Gupta , S., Sharma , P., & Mignone , A. 2021, , 502, 2733, 10.1093/mnras/stab142

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732125

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    C., & Caprioli , D

    Haggerty , C. C., & Caprioli , D. 2020, , 905, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe06

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    M., & Thompson, T

    Heckman, T. M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. 1701.09062

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hillas , A. M. 2005, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 31, 95, 10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/R02

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kere s , D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kere s , D., et al. 2018, , 477, 1578, 10.1093/mnras/sty674

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, , 802, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/99

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80f9

    Kobashi, R., Yasuda, H., & Lee, S.-H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80f9

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Koo , B.-C., Kim , C.-G., Park , S., & Ostriker , E. C. 2020, , 905, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e7

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Krymskii , G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977DoSSR.234R1306K

    1977

  52. [60]

    1968, The Astronomical Journal Supplement, 73, 22

    Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. 1968, The Astronomical Journal Supplement, 73, 22

    1968

  53. [61]

    O., & Cesarsky , C

    Lagage , P. O., & Cesarsky , C. J. 1983a , A&A, 118, 223. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A26A...118..223L

  54. [62]

    J., Raymond , J

    Lee , S.-H., Patnaude , D. J., Raymond , J. C., et al. 2015, , 806, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/71

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Malkov , M. A. 1997, Ap. J., 485, 638, 10.1086/304471

    1997 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Diamond , P

    Malkov , M. A., Diamond , P. H., & V \"o lk , H. J. 2000, Ap. J. L., 533, L171, 10.1086/312622

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    2007, , 170, 228, 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228, 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    2012, A&A, 538, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    Morlino , G., & Caprioli , D. 2012, A&A, 538, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    P., & McKee , C

    Ostriker , J. P., & McKee , C. F. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.60.1

    1988 doi

  60. [68]

    2015, Physical Review Letters, 114, 085003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    Park , J., Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 114, 085003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    2018, , 479, 4253, 10.1093/mnras/sty1750

    Petruk , O., Kuzyo , T., Orlando , S., et al. 2018, , 479, 4253, 10.1093/mnras/sty1750

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    M., & Springel, V

    Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., Schaal, K., Simpson, C. M., & Springel, V. 2017, , 465, 4500, 10.1093/mnras/stw2941

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    2010, , 718, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/31

    Ptuskin , V., Zirakashvili , V., & Seo , E.-S. 2010, , 718, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/31

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, , 511, 1247, 10.1093/mnras/stab3716

    Rodr \' guez Montero , F., Martin-Alvarez , S., Sijacki , D., et al. 2022, , 511, 1247, 10.1093/mnras/stab3716

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    Sedov , L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics

    1959

  67. [75]

    B., & Shchekinov , Y

    Sharma , P., Roy , A., Nath , B. B., & Shchekinov , Y. 2014, , 443, 3463, 10.1093/mnras/stu1307

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    1975, MNRAS, 172, 557

    Skilling , J. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 557. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MNRAS.172..557S

    1975

  69. [77]

    1975b , MNRAS, 173, 245

    ---. 1975b , MNRAS, 173, 245. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MNRAS.173..245S

  70. [78]

    1975c , MNRAS, 173, 255

    ---. 1975c , MNRAS, 173, 255. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MNRAS.173..255S

  71. [79]

    C., et al

    Slane, P., Lee, S.-H., Ellison, D. C., et al. 2014, , 783, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/33

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    1950, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 201, 159, 10.1098/rspa.1950.0049

    Taylor , G. 1950, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 201, 159, 10.1098/rspa.1950.0049

    1950

  73. [81]

    K., & Mc Kee , C

    Truelove , J. K., & Mc Kee , C. F. 1999, ApJ Supplement Series, 120, 299, 10.1086/313176

    1999 doi

  74. [82]

    Vishniac , E. T. 1983, , 274, 152, 10.1086/161433

    1983 doi

  75. [83]

    Yadav , N., Mukherjee , D., Sharma , P., & Nath , B. B. 2017, , 465, 1720, 10.1093/mnras/stw2522

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    2015, Proc

    Zabalza , V. 2015, Proc. of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2015, 922

    2015

  77. [85]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.08072

    Zacharegkas , G., Caprioli , D., & Haggerty , C. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.08072. 2210.08072

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    2024, , 967, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3960

    Zacharegkas , G., Caprioli , D., Haggerty , C., Gupta , S., & Schroer , B. 2024, , 967, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3960

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    N., & Aharonian, F

    Zirakashvili, V. N., & Aharonian, F. 2007, A&A, 465, 695, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066494

    2007 doi

  80. [88]

    Zweibel , E. G. 1979, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 56, Particle Acceleration Mechanisms in Astrophysics, ed. J. Arons , C. McKee , & C. Max , 319--328, 10.1063/1.32090

    1979 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.