pith. sign in

arxiv: 1611.08597 · v1 · pith:MV4YXMSZnew · submitted 2016-11-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Modeling the Anomalous Microwave Emission with Spinning Nanoparticles: No PAHs Required

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords emissionironspinninggrainsnanoparticlesobservationalaccountanomalous
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

In light of recent observational results indicating an apparent lack of correlation between the Anomalous Microwave Emission (AME) and mid-infrared emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), we assess whether rotational emission from spinning silicate and/or iron nanoparticles could account for the observed AME without violating observational constraints on interstellar abundances, ultraviolet extinction, and infrared emission. By modifying the SpDust code to compute the rotational emission from these grains, we find that nanosilicate grains could account for the entirety of the observed AME, whereas iron grains could be responsible for only a fraction, even for extreme assumptions on the amount of interstellar iron concentrated in ultrasmall iron nanoparticles. Given the added complexity of contributions from multiple grain populations to the total spinning dust emission, as well as existing uncertainties due to the poorly-constrained grain size, charge, and dipole moment distributions, we discuss generic, carrier-independent predictions of spinning dust theory and observational tests that could help identify the AME carrier(s).

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A comparison between Galactic magnetic field models and polarized synchrotron emission with C-BASS at 4.76 GHz and S-PASS at 2.3 GHz

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Comparison of Galactic magnetic field models to polarized synchrotron observations shows good agreement on angles but poor match on intensity, indicating local foreground structures must be incorporated.