Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 38 references

MHD supernova explosions -- Large-scale magnetic field effects

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform ambient magnetic field of a few microgauss changes how a supernova remnant expands and how much of the explosion energy it deposits in the surrounding gas.

desk verdict A credible qualitative mechanism and useful new numbers, but the 3D resistivity treatment needs testing before the quantitative claims should be relied on. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08781 v3 pith:L4URUWSC submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Cetin Can Evirgen , Frederick Gent This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords supernovaremnantsmagnetohydrodynamicsinterstellarmagneticfieldsblastwavesenergyinjectionmomentumISMfeedbackradiativecooling
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 asks whether the large-scale magnetic field that threads the interstellar medium changes what a supernova blast wave does to its surroundings. Using 3D nonideal magnetohydrodynamic simulations with a uniform plane-parallel field, it finds that fields above about 1 microgauss at gas density 1 $cm^{-3}$ make the remnant elliptical: the shock runs faster perpendicular to the field while the hot core is squeezed into a denser, hotter, magnetically confined spheroid. The same magnetic pressure gradient that confines the core drives a retrograde inflow from the shell, cuts outward momentum injection by up to 10%, and reduces net radiative losses, so the remnant retains up to 40% more of its energy at 1 Myr (7.7% versus 5.4% of the explosion energy for B0 = 5 µG). A reader should care because galaxy-scale models commonly treat supernova feedback as momentum injected into a magnetic-field-free gas; if the paper is right, large-scale fields shift the balance toward thermal energy retention and away from momentum.

What carries the argument

The engine of the effect is the magnetic pressure gradient that builds up in the remnant shell and its wake, perpendicular to the ambient field. Compression sweeps field lines into the shell and empties them from the core; just behind the shock the gradient $-\partial (|\mathbf{B}|^2/2\mu_0)/\partial R_\perp$ becomes comparable to, and later two to three times larger than, the thermal pressure gradient, driving an inward flow that carries mass and magnetic field back toward the core while magnetic tension stays subdominant. This produces a two-part remnant: a fast oblate shock front and a magnetically confined prolate hot core, with the inter-shock region heated by ultraviolet radiation more than it cools. The numerical model keeps the shell field intact by omitting shock-capturing resistivity from the induction equation, a choice the authors validate only in one-dimensional shock-tube comparisons.

What would settle it

Run the same B0 = 5 µG, n = 1 $cm^{-3}$ supernova simulation with shock-capturing resistivity or a different MHD solver and compare residual total energy at 1 Myr; if the retention ratio falls from 7.7% back toward the hydrodynamical 5.4% of E_SN, the reported energy enhancement depends on the numerical treatment of the shell field rather than the physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a uniform ambient magnetic field of a few microgauss is not passive in supernova remnant evolution: compression stores blast-wave energy in the shell's magnetic field and releases it later as an inward magnetic pressure gradient. That inward force peels mass off the shell, creates a retrograde flow perpendicular to the field, confines the hot remnant core into a prolate spheroid, and leaves the shock front as an oblate spheroid. The shock advances faster perpendicular to the field but with reduced momentum, and the confined core plus an inter-shock region where UV heating exceeds radiative losses lose less energy to radiation. For B0 = 5 µG and n = 1 $cm^{-3}$, outward momentum injection falls by up to 10% relative to the hydrodynamical case, residual total energy retention at 1 Myr rises from 5.4% to 7.7% of E_SN, and by 4 Myr the magnetized remnant retains 4.2% of the explosion energy versus 1.3% without a field.

Load-bearing premise

The shell's compressed magnetic field must survive without being dissolved by numerical reconnection; the authors deliberately omit shock-capturing resistivity and test that choice only in one-dimensional shock tubes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galactic simulations that ignore large-scale magnetic fields likely overstate the momentum a supernova injects by up to 10% for B0 greater than or equal to 3 µG and understate the thermal energy left behind by as much as 40% at 1 Myr.
  • In a magnetized interstellar medium, remnants should commonly show an oblate shell around a prolate hot core, so the relative orientation of radio and gamma-ray morphologies could trace the direction of the ambient field.
  • The onset of magnetic effects is set by an ambient plasma beta of about 1, roughly 1 µG for n = 1 cm^-3, meaning most of the Milky Way's interstellar medium lies in the regime where these effects operate.
  • Magnetic confinement makes the hot gas denser and reduces its fractional volume, so observations may see less diffuse X-ray-emitting gas in remnants than hydrodynamic models predict.
  • The one-dimensional density scans indicate magnetic effects appear earlier and grow stronger in more diffuse gas, so the energy-retention enhancement should be larger in the warm diffuse interstellar medium than in dense cold gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If subgrid models of supernova feedback in galaxy simulations do not include magnetic-field-dependent efficiencies, they may systematically misestimate both momentum-driven turbulence and thermal pressure support in magnetized disks.
  • The magnitude of the effect probably depends on how long the compressed shell field survives; if future three-dimensional studies with shock-resolving resistivity reproduce a weaker version, the 10% and 40% numbers would shrink but the qualitative mechanism could stand.
  • The predicted morphology, an oblate shell with a prolate core and a quadrupolar internal velocity field, could serve as a magnetometer for the ambient field direction and strength in resolved remnants, once projection and turbulent-field effects are separated.
  • Because the onset is set by plasma beta, the critical field should scale roughly as sqrt(nT); testing this scaling in three dimensions across densities would extend the result beyond the n = 1 cm^-3 case studied here.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 3D nonideal MHD simulations of supernova remnants expanding into a homogeneous, thermal-equilibrium ambient ISM threaded by a plane-parallel magnetic field of strength B0 = 0–5 µG. Using the Pencil Code, the authors find that for B0 ≳ 1 µG the remnant becomes biaxial: the blast wave expands faster perpendicular to the field, the hot core is magnetically confined into a prolate spheroid, and the compressed shell develops an inward magnetic pressure gradient that drives retrograde mass flow. They quantify a reduction in outward momentum injection of up to about 10% and an increase in residual total energy retention from 5.4% to 7.7% of E_SN at 1 Myr for B0 = 5 µG (a relative increase of up to about 40%). The paper derives a critical field strength Bcrit ~ sqrt(2 µ0 p) ~ 1 µG for the onset of these effects. Appendices provide 1D shock-tube tests, a 1D scan in ambient density, and an additional 3D run with ambient temperature 10^4 K to test sensitivity to the initial thermal state.

Significance. The qualitative picture—a magnetically confined core and a retrograde flow driven by the magnetic pressure gradient—is physically plausible and, if correct, would challenge the common assumption that ambient magnetic fields are unimportant for SN momentum injection (Kim & Ostriker 2015). This has implications for subgrid models of SN feedback in galaxy simulations. Strengths of the paper include the use of a well-documented code, direct simulation outputs rather than fitted parameters, a dimensionally motivated Bcrit criterion, and several validation runs (1D shock tubes, a resolution statement, and an alternative-temperature 3D run). However, the central quantitative claims rest on single realizations per field strength and on a 3D magnetic-diffusion treatment that is validated only in 1D; both points must be strengthened before the 10% momentum reduction and 40% energy-retention numbers can be regarded as robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (5); Section 4; Appendix A] The central mechanism—retrograde flow driven by the magnetic pressure gradient in the compressed shell—requires the shell magnetic field to remain coherent on Myr timescales. The deliberate omission of shock-capturing resistivity in the induction equation is justified only by 1D shock-tube tests (Appendix A, Figs. 12–15) in which the field is transverse to a planar shock. Those tests do not validate the 3D spherical setting, where field-line draping, oblique compression, and current sheets in the inter-shock region can lead to grid-scale numerical reconnection that either dissipates or, by suppressing diffusion, artificially enhances the shell field. I request a 3D demonstration that the radial profile of the Lorentz force (for example the magnetic-pressure-gradient and tension terms shown in Fig. 6 at 1 and 2 Myr) is numerically converged, or a companion run with an explicit shock-capturing resistivity, to show that the reported momentum and energy changes are not controlled by this numerical choice.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 4; Table 1] Each field strength is represented by a single simulation with no error estimate, and the momentum evolution is non-monotonic: the claimed 'up to 10%' reduction is a transient maximum rather than a robust end-state difference. The only quantitative uncertainty statement in Section 2 ('results were convergent with resolution of 0.5 pc, other than a thinner more dense remnant shell') is not supported by a figure or table. To make the 10% momentum and 40% energy claims load-bearing, the authors should either provide a resolution study or small perturbation ensemble, or explicitly present the numbers as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than measured efficiencies.
  3. [Section 6, Fig. 11; Table 1] The reported residual total energy includes the magnetic energy of the compressed ambient field, as stated in the Figure 11 caption: ΔEtot(t) = Etot(t) − Etot(t=0), where Etot(t=0) includes the ambient magnetic energy. The increase in total retained energy at 1 Myr is therefore not purely newly injected SN thermal/kinetic energy; part of it is pre-existing ambient magnetic energy amplified by shock compression. The manuscript should state explicitly how much of the B0 = 5 µG versus HD difference at 1 Myr is magnetic energy, and should clarify whether the phrase 'residual energy injection by the SN into the ISM' is intended to include this ambient-field energy. Without this bookkeeping, the 40% figure risks being interpreted as an increase in new energy injection.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1] In the last paragraph, 'n = 10−2 cm−2' should read 'cm−3'.
  2. [Section 5] The text contains an unfinished editorial note ('filling fraction → fractional volume, we went to some lengths in paper 1 ... Delete when OK') that must be removed before publication.
  3. [Figure 11] The legend in Figure 11 repeats 'B0 = 0.0 µG' for all five curves, making panels (b) and (c) impossible to interpret as printed.
  4. [Figure 9] The caption says 'HD (solid blue) and MHD models with B0 = 0.5 µG', but the panel shows at least five models; the caption should list all field strengths.
  5. [Section 6] The sentence beginning 'Beyond 3 Myr the strong MHD residual kinetic energy can persist more effectively than HD, would likely be subsumed...' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
  6. [Eq. (2)] The notation 'max5' is undefined; the stencil over which the maximum is taken should be stated explicitly.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'remamnts' (Section 3), 'momemtum' (Section 4), and 'notiecable' (Section 8), which should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central quantitative claims are direct simulation outputs checked against external analytic benchmarks, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are measured outputs of 3D MHD simulations, not derived from a model fitted to those results. Momentum injection is integrated from simulation fields via Eq. (6) with an ellipsoidal normal (Eq. 7); residual energy retention percentages in Table 1 (e.g., 5.4% HD vs 7.7% at 5 microG at 1 Myr) are directly tabulated from evolved total, thermal, kinetic, and magnetic energies in Figure 11, and the 'up to 40%' claim is the ratio of those table entries, not a fitted parameter. The magnetic-pressure-gradient mechanism is diagnosed from force densities in Eq. (8) and Figure 6 after the fact. The critical-field estimate Bcrit ~ sqrt(2 mu0 p) (Section 7) is a dimensionally motivated plasma-beta < 1 criterion stated as a 'reasonable criteria' and checked against the B0=1 microG marginal case; it is not used as an input to construct the simulations. Self-citations (Evirgen et al. 2017, 2019; Gent et al. 2019) supply numerical recipes and consistency remarks about hot-gas density in larger simulations, but no cited result is the sole justification of the energy-retention or momentum-reduction claims. The HD runs reproduce the Cioffi et al. (1988) analytic solution (Figure 3), and the 1D shock-tube tests are compared with the exact Sod/Hawley analytic solution (Appendix A), providing external benchmarks. The omission of shock-capturing resistivity in Eq. (5) and its validation only in 1D shock tubes is a numerical-robustness caveat about the strength of the shell field, not a circular step: the claim still rests on the simulation output rather than on that output being an input. No step in the derivation chain was found to reduce, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a fairly standard numerical model with a small number of chosen dissipation parameters and a highly idealized ambient medium. The main unsupported input is the thermal balance and the resistivity treatment; these are tested only in 1D shock tubes, not in the full 3D problem. No new physical entities are introduced; the study uses existing MHD and ISM physics.

free parameters (4)
  • Uniform ambient magnetic field strength B0 = 0, 0.5, 1, 3, 5 µG
    Control parameter varied across runs; central quantitative claims (10% momentum reduction, 40% energy increase) are reported at specific B0 values.
  • Isotropic resistivity eta = 8e-4 kpc km/s
    Chosen as constant resistivity in the induction equation (Eq. 5); authors deliberately omit shock-capturing resistivity, a choice not tested in 3D.
  • Shear viscosity coefficient nu0 = Delta x = 5e-4 kpc in nu = nu0 cs
    Grid-scale turbulent viscosity used in Eq. (3); 1D tests vary nu from nu0 to 16 nu0 but 3D runs use a single value.
  • Shock-dependent mass diffusion zeta_D = zeta_D proportional to f_shock, where f_shock defined in Eq. (2); 3D amplitude not specified numerically
    Added for stability in Eq. (1); 1D shock-tube tests use zeta_D in [0,10] f_shock, but the 3D value is not stated precisely.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wolfire et al. (1995) and Sarazin & White (1987) cooling curves with Wolfire UV heating describe the relevant ISM thermal balance.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq. (4). The reduced radiative losses in the inter-shock region, which drive the reported energy-retention increase, emerge from this assumed balance.
  • domain assumption The ambient ISM is homogeneous, non-stratified, non-turbulent, and in thermal equilibrium at T approximately 260 K.
    Set in Section 2; isolates the uniform-field effect but ignores turbulent and multi-phase structures that the authors acknowledge in Section 8.
  • domain assumption The large-scale galactic magnetic field can be represented as a uniform plane-parallel field B=(0,B0,0) over the remnant scale.
    Section 2 and Section 8 note real fields are coherent at 1-30 µG but not uniform; generalization to tangled fields is left to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper The Pencil Code's nonideal MHD formulation with artificial diffusivities, including the deliberate omission of shock-capturing resistivity, faithfully represents the shell magnetic field and Lorentz force.
    Section 2, Eq. (5) and the paragraph after it; this choice is load-bearing for the magnetic pressure gradient that drives the retrograde flow, and is validated only with 1D shock-tube tests.
  • standard math Ideal gas equation of state with gamma = 5/3 and mean molecular weight 0.531 for solar-neighborhood abundances.
    Section 2; standard for warm ionized gas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MHD supernova explosions -- Large-scale magnetic field effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4URUWSC

@misc{pith2026190808781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MHD supernova explosions -- Large-scale magnetic field effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4URUWSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08781}
}
abstract

We examine the effect of uniform ambient magnetic fields on the evolution of supernova-driven blast waves into a homogeneous ambient ISM in thermal equilibrium. Using the Pencil Code we simulate high resolution nonideal magnetohydrodynamic simulations in 3D. We find that supernova blast waves are sensitive to plane-parallel magnetic fields of strength in excess of 1 $\mu$G for ambient gas number density 1 cm$^{-3}$ . Perpendicular to the field, the inward magnetic pressure gradient induces retrograde mass accretion in the wake of the primary shock front. Subsequently, we find that the primary shockwave expands faster perpendicular to the field, but with reduced momentum, while the remnant core is subject to magnetic confinement. This leads to a decrease in fractional volume of hot gas but also an increase in the density and temperature of hot gas in the magnetically confined remnant. The magnetic pressure gradient behind the shock front generates enhanced regions favourable to UV- heating and thus reduces net radiative losses. Although the presence of a strong uniform magnetic field can reduce momentum early on, and hence residual kinetic energy, it increases the efficiency of residual total energy injection by the SN into the ISM by up to 40% within 1 Myr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial profiles of gas density (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel to the magnetic field at t = 1 Myr. & White (1987) for the hot gas. Diffuse UV-heating, Γ, follows Wolfire et al. (1995). Thermal conductivity, χ and shock dependant ζχ are applied, and an energy conserving correction term due to ζD from Equation (1). The induction equation is solved in terms of the vector potential, A, which conserves ∇ · B = 0 by de… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SN remnant radius, R⊥, perpendicular and Rk, parallel to B0. Numerical solutions are compared to the HD analytical solution (Cioffi et al. 1988). dicular to the field the mass profile of the remnant is substantially altered. Mass is more confined within the remnant, but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Time evolution of (a) total and (b) outward mo￾mentum injection for a number of SN models with magnetic field strengths B0 ∈ [0, 5] µG. Momentum, at a given snap￾shot, is calculated as R SNR ρ (u · nˆ) dV , where nˆ is the radial unit vector from the centre of the SN explosion. The scatter plots with blue star and magenta circle symbols show out￾ward momentum injection for the HD model and strongly magnetized model … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles perpendicular to the magnetic field at (a) 1 Myr and (b) 2 Myr of magnetic field strength (top), velocity and momentum (bottom). decay. However, outward momentum injection becomes steady after 2 Myr and levels off at 3 × 105 M km s−1 . This suggests tha…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Force density, f perpendicular to magnetic field with B0 = 5µG at t = 1 Myr (a) and t = 2 Myr (b). The vertical scale across the shaded area is linear and logarithmic elsewhere. remnant shell, but that some of this relaxes back towards the core over time. In order to e…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass-weighted probability density functions (PDFs) of (a) gas temperature and (b) gas density at 2.0 Myr for HD (dashed blue) and MHD models with B0 = 0.5µG (solid cyan) and B0 = 5.0µG (dash-dotted magenta) models. layer just behind the cooling shell. In the strong MHD…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time evolution of (a) mean density of hot gas (b) fractional volume of hot gas (c) mass of hot gas for the HD (solid blue) and MHD models with B0 = 0.5µG. Hot gas is defined as T > 2 · 104 K (Kim & Ostriker 2015). Most unexpected is the large proportion of gas in the M…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles at (a) 1 Myr and (b) 2 Myr perpendicular to the magnetic field of gas temperature (top) and thermal pressure (bottom). plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Energy retention by HD and MHD (5µG remnants, where ∆Etot(t) = Etot(t) − Etot(t = 0). Etot(t = 0) is the total energy in the ambient gas prior to the SN explosion, (b) thermal energy (c) kinetic energy and (d) magnetic energy profiles. strong MHD models. The 3µG a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Shock-tube simulations for HD (left panels) and MHD (right panels) with ν and η as applied to the 3D simulations. The spatial resolution is 0.5 pc. The MHD simulation features a 5µG uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the shock tube. Upper panels show log gas numb…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the numerical non-adiabatic HD and MHD shock-tube solutions, alongside the adiabatic analytic solution. -100 -50 0 50 100 150 x [pc] −2 −1 0 1 2 3 ln n Dsh = 2 Dsh = 0 Dsh = 2 Dsh = 4 Dsh = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The non-adiabatic MHD shock-tube solution is contrasted with its HD solution for a range of mass diffusion rates, ζD = [0, 2, 4, 10]fshock. diffusion, while providing numerical stability, produces a minor quantitative difference in the gas density shock profile. The p…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: HD (left) and MHD (right) non-adiabatic shock-tube solutions for ν ∈ [ν0, 2ν0, 4ν0, 8ν0, 16ν0]. 10−1 100 t [Myr] 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103 104 R [pc] n0 = 0.01 n0 = 0.1 n0 = 1 n0 = 10.0 n0 = 100.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Shock radius for 1D non-adiabatic MHD shock-tube simulations (B0 = 5µG), for a range of ambient gas densities. Solid lines indicate the profiles for HD models at the given background density, while dashed lines of the same colour represent MHD models of the same backg…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Radial profiles of gas temperature (top row) and density (bottom row) perpendicular (left column) and parallel (right column) to the magnetic field. The radial profiles shown here are taken at t = 2 Myr. UV-heating balance each other, yielding zero net heating in the …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: PDFs of gas temperature (left column) and gas density (right column) for the MHD model (B0 = 5µG) with initial ambient gas temperatures of 260 K and 104 K, at 400 kyr (top row), 1 Myr (middle row), and 2 Myr (bottom row) 10−1 100 t [Myr] 102 2 × 101 3 × 101 4 × 101 6 …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Time profile of the remnant radius (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel to the magnetic field. We compare the HD remnant, MHD remnant with both T0 = 260 K and T0 = 104 K, with the Cioffi et al. (1988) analytical solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    NbƐE.J+ GM.J 2 dnǥ 4FO1 D ӳT>&M R M K #7EPj B1<

    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...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Alves , M. I. R., Boulanger , F., Ferri \`e re , K., & Montier , L. 2018, , 611, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832637

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832637 2018

  5. [5]

    2001, , 99, 243

    Beck , R. 2001, , 99, 243

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    2014, , 565, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322685

    Cardillo , M., Tavani , M., Giuliani , A., et al. 2014, , 565, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322685

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322685 2014

  7. [7]

    E., & Korpi , M

    Caunt , S. E., & Korpi , M. J. 2001, , 369, 706, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010157

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010157 2001

  8. [8]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1974, , 188, 501, 10.1086/152740

    doi:10.1086/152740 1974

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Clegg , A

    Chevalier , R. A., & Clegg , A. W. 1985, , 317, 44, 10.1038/317044a0

    1985 doi

  2. [10]

    F., McKee , C

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

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, , 568, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424191

    de Gasperin , F., Evoli , C., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2014, , 568, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424191

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Gent , F

    Evirgen , C. C., Gent , F. A., Shukurov , A., Fletcher , A., & Bushby , P. 2017, , 464, L105, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw196

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Gent , F

    Evirgen , C. C., Gent , F. A., Shukurov , A., Fletcher , A., & Bushby , P. J. 2019, in press, arXiv:1903.10263. 1903.10263

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M., Mac Low , M.-M., & Zweibel , E

    Ferriere , K. M., Mac Low , M.-M., & Zweibel , E. G. 1991, , 375, 239, 10.1086/170185

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Horellou , C

    Fletcher , A., Beck , R., Shukurov , A., Berkhuijsen , E. M., & Horellou , C. 2011, , 412, 2396, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x

    2011

  8. [16]

    Gent, F. A. 2012, PhD thesis, Newcastle University School of Mathematics and Statistics

    2012

  9. [17]

    A., Mac Low , M.-M., K \"a pyl \"a , M

    Gent , F. A., Mac Low , M.-M., K \"a pyl \"a , M. J., Sarson , G. R., & Hollins , J. F. 2019, GAFD, in press, arXiv:1806.01570. 1806.01570

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A., Shukurov , A., Fletcher , A., Sarson , G

    Gent , F. A., Shukurov , A., Fletcher , A., Sarson , G. R., & Mantere , M. J. 2013, , 432, 1396, 10.1093/mnras/stt560

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, , 456, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/stv2742

    Girichidis , P., Walch , S., Naab , T., et al. 2016, , 456, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/stv2742

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2006, , 641, 905, 10.1086/500527

    Hanayama , H., & Tomisaka , K. 2006, , 641, 905, 10.1086/500527

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Smarr , L

    Hawley , J. F., Smarr , L. L., & Wilson , J. R. 1984, , 277, 296, 10.1086/161696

    1984 doi

  14. [22]

    Jun, B.-I., & Norman, M. L. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 472, 245

    1996

  15. [23]

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

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Mac Low , M.-M., & Klessen , R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & Ostriker , J

    McKee , C. F., & Ostriker , J. P. 1977, , 218, 148, 10.1086/155667

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    Murray , N., Quataert , E., & Thompson , T. A. 2005, , 618, 569, 10.1086/426067

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & White , III, R

    Sarazin , C. L., & White , III, R. E. 1987, , 320, 32, 10.1086/165522

    1987 doi

  20. [28]

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

    1959

  21. [29]

    D., & Cox , D

    Slavin , J. D., & Cox , D. P. 1992, , 392, 131, 10.1086/171412

    1992 doi

  22. [30]

    Sod , G. A. 1978, Journal of Computational Physics, 27, 1, 10.1016/0021-9991(78)90023-2

    1978 doi

  23. [31]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium , 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer , L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium , 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Krause , M., Fletcher , A., & Beck , R

    Tabatabaei , F. S., Krause , M., Fletcher , A., & Beck , R. 2008, , 490, 1005, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810590

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    1998, , 298, 797, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01654.x

    Tomisaka , K. 1998, , 298, 797, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01654.x

    1998

  27. [35]

    1981, , 78, 273, 10.1007/BF00648941

    Tomisaka , K., Habe , A., & Ikeuchi , S. 1981, , 78, 273, 10.1007/BF00648941

    1981 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Hollenbach , D., McKee , C

    Wolfire , M. G., Hollenbach , D., McKee , C. F., Tielens , A. G. G. M., & Bakes , E. L. O. 1995, , 443, 152, 10.1086/175510

    1995 doi

  29. [37]

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

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    N., & Ptuskin, V

    Zirakashvili, V. N., & Ptuskin, V. S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 939

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.