Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Evolution of Supernova Remnants in a Cloudy Multiphase Interstellar Medium

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper reports that supernova remnants in a cloudy interstellar medium still expand roughly like Sedov-Taylor blasts (radius ∝ t^(2/5)), but they lose energy continuously where their shocks hit cold clouds, ending with less hot gas…

desk verdict Solid simulation paper with a credible central result, but the novel flat energy sink and its scaling are calibrated rather than converged; the qualitative conclusion that mass-loading-only 1D models are incomplete is robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12809 v1 pith:PZE24C4F submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.GA

Minghao Guo , Chang-Goo Kim , James M. Stone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supernovaremnantmultiphaseinterstellarmediumshock-cloudinteractionradiativecoolingturbulentmixinglayerthermalconductionSedov-Taylorstagemassloading
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports high-resolution 3D hydrodynamic simulations of a supernova remnant expanding into a two-phase cloudy interstellar medium. Its central claim is that the remnant still expands roughly like a Sedov-Taylor blast (radius ∝ t^(2/5)) but behaves very differently in energy and mass: it sweeps up more mass from cold clouds while continuously losing thermal energy as shocks hit the clouds and the turbulent interfaces radiatively cool. As a result, at the time the outer shock becomes radiative the remnant contains roughly half the hot gas mass and about 80-90% of the radial momentum expected for a uniform medium of the same mean density, and the pressure-driven snowplow stage is suppressed. The paper further claims that most previous 1D models adding only a mass-loading term miss the dominant energy sink, and that a minimal 1D model with both a mass source and a spatially flat energy sink reproduces the simulated structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of direct 3D hydrodynamic simulations with radiative cooling and saturating thermal conduction, run at up to Δx = 1/64 pc so that shock-cloud interactions for most clouds are resolved. The key diagnostic is the direct measurement of the mass and energy source/sink terms in the angle-averaged evolution equations: a mass loading rate and an energy sink rate whose time scalings ($t^{{-1}}$ and $t^{{-11/5}}$, respectively) match the conditions for a self-similar solution with impurity terms. These measured rates are then used to construct a minimal 1D spherical model with both a mass source and an energy sink.

What would settle it

Run the same cloudy-medium SNR at Δx = 1/128 pc and directly measure the angle-averaged energy sink ė(r). If the flat, ≈ -0.2 ė_S profile changes by more than the ~20% spread already seen between 1/8 pc and 1/64 pc runs, or if its time scaling departs from $t^{{-11/5}}$, then the claimed energy sink and the calibrated 1D model constants are numerical artifacts rather than converged physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the energetics of a supernova remnant in a cloudy medium are controlled by radiative cooling in shock-cloud interfaces, not just by mass loading. Direct measurements from the simulations show a mass loading rate ṗ ≈ 0.5 ṗ_S that scales with the Sedov reference rate (and hence as $t^{{-1}}$), and a spatially flat energy loss rate ė ≈ -0.2 ė_S scaling as $t^{{-11/5}}$, where ṗ_S and ė_S are the standard reference rates for a uniform medium. This energy sink persists throughout the nominal Sedov-Taylor stage, so the hot gas mass, thermal energy, and terminal momentum are all reduced compared with uniform-medium predictions even though the expansion law stays close to r ∝ $t^{{2/5}}$. Thermal conduction is a secondary effect: it smooths the morphology and raises the hot-gas density by a factor of 3-5, but does not change the global dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that unresolved structure at the cold-cloud/hot-gas interface—cooling lengths of order $10^{{-5}}$ pc and the associated Field length—does not change the integrated mass and energy exchange rates, so the measured flat energy sink is real physics and not a resolution artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radius-based estimates of SNR age and energy using the mean ambient density remain approximately valid, since the expansion stays near r ∝ t^{2/5}.
  • Mass, thermal energy, and momentum at shell formation are reduced by roughly factors of 2, 2-3, and 1.1-1.25 relative to uniform mean-density expectations, and the pressure-driven snowplow stage essentially disappears.
  • Thermal conduction mainly changes observable morphology (denser, smoother hot gas and enhanced central X-ray emission) without altering the global momentum budget.
  • One-dimensional impurity models need both a mass source and an energy sink, with rates ≈0.5 ṗ_S and ≈-0.2 ė_S, to describe the hot gas structure.
  • The suppression of the late momentum boost implies that the momentum delivered to the interstellar medium may be lower than classical uniform-medium predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the t^{-11/5} flat energy sink is a robust feature of turbulent mixing layers, galaxy-scale simulations that do not resolve cloud interfaces are likely missing a distributed cooling channel; a subgrid prescription assigning a fixed ~20% of the Sedov energy flux to interface cooling would encode this cheaply.
  • The measured mass-loading time dependence (t^{-1}) matches the earlier evaporation-based self-similar ansatz, suggesting that framework can be rehabilitated simply by adding the measured energy sink rather than by abandoning impurity models.
  • The suppression of the momentum boost implies feedback implementations that tie star-formation regulation to SNR momentum may need to lower the momentum per supernova in clumpy, metal-rich environments, while mixed-morphology remnants should appear brighter and denser toward the center.
  • A testable extension is to vary the cloud volume filling factor or metallicity (cooling strength) and check whether the coefficients 0.5 and -0.2 change systematically, which would reveal whether the energy sink is set by interface surface area or by the cooling curve.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. Guo, Kim, and Stone present 3D AthenaK simulations of a single supernova remnant expanding into a two-phase, thermally unstable cloudy medium (mean density 10 cm^-3), with radiative cooling and saturated isotropic thermal conduction, at grid resolutions up to 1/64 pc, and compare with a uniform-medium run and analytic Sedov-Taylor theory. The central claim is that in the cloudy medium the remnant still expands roughly as r ∝ t^(2/5) but sweeps up more mass and continuously loses energy at shock-cloud interfaces, yielding less hot gas mass, thermal energy, and radial momentum by the WNM shell-formation time than in a uniform medium of the same mean density. The authors measure a hot-gas mass-loading rate ~0.5 dM_S/dt and a spatially flat energy sink ~−0.2 de_S/dt, and use these measured rates to construct a minimal 1D spherical model with mass source and energy sink terms that they compare with the ST, White-Long, and Pittard solutions.

Significance. If the quantitative sink measurement is correct, this is an important and timely result: it identifies a physical process omitted from standard mass-loading treatments of SNR evolution and offers a simple parameterization for 1D models. The paper's strengths are the uniform-medium control, the comparison to the analytic ST solution, the multiple initial-condition seeds, the passive-scalar phase diagnostics, and the honest discussion of resolution limitations. The qualitative conclusion that interface cooling is energetically important is well supported. However, the specific claims of a flat cooling profile and the fitted constants A=0.5, C=−0.2 are not yet on secure footing because the cooling and Field lengths at the cloud interfaces are unresolved by two orders of magnitude, and the 1D model is calibrated to the very simulations it is then used to describe. These issues make the quantitative part of the paper provisional but do not invalidate the main qualitative message.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, Figs. 8–9] The central quantitative claim, that the interface energy sink is spatially flat at d(e)/dt ≈ −0.2 d(e_S)/dt and follows t^(−11/5), is not established by the resolution study as presented. The manuscript states in §4.3 that the cooling length and Field length at the cloud interface are l_cool ≈ 7×10^(−5) pc and l_F ≈ 3×10^(−5) pc, while the finest cells are Δx = 1/64 pc, so these scales are unresolved by roughly two orders of magnitude. The same section explicitly disclaims formal numerical convergence, and Figs. 8 and 9 show ~20% changes in hot-gas mass per resolution doubling and systematically higher density, pressure, and cooling rates in the conduction runs at higher resolution. Since the flat cooling profile is the direct input to the fitted constants in Eqs. (30)–(31), a resolution-dependent surface cooling rate would change the inferred sink shape and normalization. I ask for a quantitative resolution study of the radial cooling profile itself (not only the global mass and energy), and for a test of whether the Fielding et al. (2020) / Tan et al. (2021) convergence argument for sustained mixing layers applies to the transient, shock-dominated interaction studied here. The qualitative conclusion that cooling is important is likely to survive, but the specific shape and amplitude of the sink are not yet secure.
  2. [§5, Eqs. (30)–(31)] The 1D model is explicitly calibrated to the simulations: the constants A=0.5 and C=−0.2, the radial shapes k=φ=1, and the activation times for the source and sink terms are all chosen to match the measured mass-loading and cooling rates in Fig. 12. As a result, the statement that this model “better describes the structure of the simulated SNR” is a consistency check rather than an independent validation. To make the model scientifically load-bearing, the authors should demonstrate at least one out-of-sample prediction—for example, using the same A and C for the different heating-rate or larger-scale perturbation runs (T...-h10, T...-w16) and comparing the predicted radial structure with the simulations. If that is not possible, the calibrated and illustrative nature of the model should be stated more prominently in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.4] In the sentence reporting the seed-to-seed scatter, “~ %30 in energy” appears to be a typo for “~30% in energy”; please fix.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption contains the fragment “The is a change by a factor of ~20% when doubling the resolution”; this should read “There is a change...”.
  3. [Fig. 13 legend] The legend entry “Yed cond” should read “Yes cond”.
  4. [Eq. (29)] The notation Ω_i in Eq. (29) is not defined; please specify that it is the solid angle of the spherical shell used for the angle average and how the finite-difference time derivative is computed.
  5. [§3.1 and Table 2] The bullet list in §3.1 uses “T able 1” with a line break; also, the “Thermal Cond.” column in Table 2 could be labeled more clearly, and the notation “T...-2048” used in §4.3 and captions should be defined once (it appears to mean both the TN and TY series).
  6. [§5, after Eq. (30)] The phrase “we suggest the constants A = 0.5 and C = −0.2” understates the fact that these values are fitted to the simulations; “we adopt” or “we calibrate” would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main simulation findings are independently anchored, but the illustrative 1D model reduces to a fit of measured source terms and is labeled a 'prediction'.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eqs. (30)-(31) and Fig. 13]
    "Motivated by the mass loading rate and cooling rate measured in Figure 12, we construct a time-dependent model in which mass loading and energy loss are considered, i.e., ˙ρ(r,t)=A˙ρS k(r/rS), and ˙e(r,t)=C˙eS φ(r/rS), where k and φ are functions of order unity and we suggest the constants A=0.5 and C=−0.2. ... In Figure 13, we compare the simulation with the prediction of our time-dependent model at 10 kyr."

    The source amplitudes A=0.5 and C=−0.2 are read directly from the same simulation's measured histories and radial profiles (Figure 12: ˙M∼0.5˙MS, ˙E∼−0.2˙ES, spatially flat cooling and mass-loading profiles). The 1D model solving Eqs. (26)-(28) with these fitted source terms is then presented as a 'prediction' in Figure 13. The agreement is a consistency check of the parametrization, not an independent test: the source terms are by construction equal to the measured rates, so the model output is statistically forced to resemble the simulation. The paper is transparent that the terms 'are directly calibrated to the simulation' and describes the model as 'as an illustration,' which limits the severity, but the word 'prediction' overstates the evidential value of the comparison.

full rationale

The central simulation results are not circular: the claims of Sedov-Taylor-like expansion (r∝t^2/5), increased swept-up mass, reduced hot-gas mass, thermal energy, and terminal momentum are benchmarked against a uniform-medium run and the analytic ST solution, both of which are external anchors. The measured importance of an interface energy sink is a simulation diagnostic, not an input. The circular element is confined to Section 5's illustrative 1D model: its source terms use amplitudes and spatial shapes measured from the same simulations, and the comparison labeled 'prediction' in Figure 13 therefore cannot independently confirm the model. The t^-11/5 scaling is inherited from the ST self-similar assumption in Appendix B once the normalized cooling rate is constant, so it is a dimensional consequence rather than a separate circular step. The resolution-convergence discussion cites Fielding et al. (2020) and Tan et al. (2021), which are external, and Lancaster et al. (2024) has an author overlap but is not load-bearing because the paper presents its own resolution dependence and explicitly disclaims formal convergence. These factors support a moderate score: partial circularity in the fitted 1D model, with the paper's principal physical claims remaining independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation results rest on standard hydrodynamics plus adopted cooling and conductivity prescriptions and a thermally unstable initial medium. The only numerically fitted inputs are the amplitudes and activation times in the illustrative 1D model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • A (mass loading coefficient) = 0.5
    Amplitude of the mass source term rho_dot = A rho_dot_S k(r/r_S) in Eq. 30, chosen to match the measured mass growth rate in the 3D simulations.
  • C (energy sink coefficient) = -0.2
    Amplitude of the energy sink term edot = C edot_S phi(r/r_S) in Eq. 31, chosen to match the measured energy loss rate in the 3D simulations.
  • Source/sink activation times = t ≈ 0.3 kyr and t ≈ 3 kyr
    The mass source is turned on after the free expansion stage of the CNM and the energy sink after t_sf,CNM; these times are selected from simulation diagnostics, not derived independently.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The adopted cooling function and constant heating rate represent the relevant microphysics of the ISM.
    Section 3.3 uses Koyama & Inutsuka (2002) below 10^4.2 K, Schure et al. (2009) at higher temperatures, and a constant photoelectric heating rate; errors in these rates propagate directly into the measured cooling and energy sink.
  • domain assumption The gas is fully ionized with constant mean molecular weight mu = 0.618.
    Used in the equation of state and cooling model (Section 3); the paper does not track ionization state, so the molecular weight is fixed even in warm and cold gas.
  • domain assumption Isotropic Spitzer conductivity with flux saturation is a maximal but adequate model for thermal conduction.
    Section 3.2 adopts isotropic conduction and a conductivity ceiling; the authors note magnetic fields would suppress it, so the real conduction effect could be weaker.
  • domain assumption The thermally unstable pre-simulation initial conditions are representative of the solar-neighborhood cloudy ISM.
    Section 3.1 builds clouds via thermal instability with specific perturbations; the authors acknowledge the SNR evolution can be sensitive to cloud distribution and that the initial conditions are not fully realistic.
  • domain assumption Unresolved cooling and Field lengths do not affect the integrated interface cooling and mass exchange.
    Section 4.3 states l_cool and l_F are not resolved and relies on convergence arguments from Fielding et al. (2020) and Tan et al. (2021); this is the load-bearing premise for the flat energy sink measurement.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields, nonequilibrium ionization, and cosmic rays are negligible for the conclusions.
    Section 6 lists these as omitted physics; the authors argue they may alter observables but expect the dynamical conclusions to survive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of Supernova Remnants in a Cloudy Multiphase Interstellar Medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZE24C4F

@misc{pith2026241112809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of Supernova Remnants in a Cloudy Multiphase Interstellar Medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZE24C4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12809}
}
abstract

We investigate the evolution of supernova remnants (SNRs) in a two-phase cloudy medium by performing a series of high-resolution (up to $\Delta x\approx0.01\,\mathrm{pc}$), 3D hydrodynamical simulations including radiative cooling and thermal conduction. We aim to reach a resolution that directly captures the shock-cloud interactions for the majority of the clouds initialized by the saturation of thermal instability. In comparison to the SNR in a uniform medium with the volume filling warm medium, the SNR expands similarly (following $\propto t^{2/5}$) but sweeps up more mass as the cold clouds contribute before shocks in the warm medium become radiative. However, the SNR in a cloudy medium continuously loses energy after shocks toward the cold clouds cool, resulting in less hot gas mass, thermal energy, and terminal momentum. Thermal conduction has little effect on the dynamics of the SNR but smooths the morphology and modifies the internal structure by increasing the density of hot gas by a factor of $\sim 3-5$. The simulation results are not fully consistent with many previous 1D models describing the SNR in a cloudy medium including a mass loading term. By direct measurement in the simulations, we find that, apart from the mass source, the energy sink is also important with a spatially flat cooling rate $\dot{e}\propto t^{-11/5}$. As an illustration, we show an example 1D model including both mass source and energy sink terms (in addition to the radiative cooling in the volume filling component) that better describes the structure of the simulated SNR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12809 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Cumulative distribution function (top) and density distribution function of the cold cloud volume in the 10 pre-simulations of thermal instability. The vertical dot￾ted lines mark the size of clouds resolved by 322 cells. A cloud is defined to be a contiguous region of material on the cold stable thermal equilibrium. The majority of the clouds follow Zipf’s Law-like distribution. A significant por￾tion of the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: 3D rendering of supernova remnants in the cloudy interstellar medium for model TN-2048. The rendering is made to highlight three “layers” of temperature: T = 5050 (surface of CNM), 5 × 106 (shock front), and 3 × 107 K (hot gas interior) in blue, orange, and red, respectively. Right: Extraction of the surface of supernova remnants (T = 5 × 106 K, red) and the surface of the CNM (T = 5050 K, light blue) within a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of radius, mass, energy, and radial momentum of supernova remnants in the cloudy inhomogeneous background without (purple) and with (orange) thermal conduction. The evolution in the uniform medium is shown by black lines. The vertical light and dark grey lines in the background correspond to shell formation time for a uniform background with the density of the WNM and CNM, respectively. The evolution in th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: slices of temperature through the z = 0 plane of the SNRs at 10 kyr (t/tsf,WNM ≈ 0.3, t/tsf,WNM ≈ 4) without (left) and with (right) thermal conduction. Middle: zoom-ins of selected regions showing (from left to right) nonlinear thin-shell instability, single shoc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slices through the z = 0 plane of (from left to right) cooling rate, density, tangential velocity, vϕ, and contribution to the hot gas from the four passive scalars without (upper) and with (lower) thermal conduction. Contribution to hot gas is calculated from the four…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of hot gas density (top left), hot gas pressure (middle left), hot gas temperature (bottom left), total cooling rate (top right), hot gas cooling rate (middle right), and hot gas volume fraction (bottom right) at 10 kyr. For comparison, the radial profi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The T − n joint PDF for all gas (first column), the gas that is initially CNM (species C0) (second column), and the WNM (species C2) (third column), and the T −v joint PDFs (last column) of the gas at 10 kyr (t/tsf,WNM ≈ 0.3, t/tsf,CNM ≈ 4) without (upper panel) and wi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Evolution of hot gas mass and contribution from different initial phases (top) and evolution of thermal energy of the supernova remnant for different resolutions. Right: Mass (top) and thermal energy (bottom) are functions of cell size at different times. The hot…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: history of hot gas mass growth rate M˙ (top) and energy loss rate −E˙ (bottom) normalized by M˙ S and E˙ S for the models T...-2048. Models T...-adb and UN-1024 are plotted for comparison. The mass growth and energy loss rate are relatively flat between tsf,CNM …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The radial profile of hot gas at 10 kyr in the 3D simulations overplotted with the ST solution, the WL solution (White & Long 1991) with an evaporating time of τ = 5, the solution in Pittard (2019) with fML = 10 and the model proposed in this work which includes both …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radial profiles (left) and slice through the z = 0 plane (right) of number density (top), temperature (middle), and pressure (bottom) of the SNR in a uniform background. The resolution is ∆x = 1/8 pc. There are only tiny asymmetries due to the Cartesian mesh. equation…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

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

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cosmic ray and magnetic pressure in radiative supernova remnants disrupts dense shell formation and suppresses the predicted nonthermal brightening, explaining the lack of observed complete shells.

  2. FRANZ: Framework for analytical one-zone blastwave dynamics

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A local thin-shell blastwave framework recovers classical SNR limits and shows galactic shear, gravity, and filaments deform remnants and can systematically overestimate ages in structured media.

  3. Protostellar disks in their natural habitat -- the formation of protostars and their accretion disks in the turbulent and magnetized interstellar medium

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations from a supernova-driven turbulent ISM show ideal MHD prevents disks larger than 10 au, while ambipolar diffusion permits large disks in two of six protostellar cores.

  4. SDSS-V LVM: Collisionless Shocks in the Supernova Remnant RCW86

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    The first IFU observations of RCW86's southwestern Balmer-dominated shock map shock velocities of 500-1500 km/s and show electron-ion equilibration decreasing with shock speed, plus a new intermediate H-alpha component.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    W., Bryan, G

    Abruzzo, M. W., Bryan, G. L., & Fielding, D. B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  2. [2]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 4157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1930 Banda-Barrag´ an, W

    Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., & Marinacci, F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1930 Banda-Barrag´ an, W. E., Br¨ uggen, M., Federrath, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2904

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1930 2016

  3. [3]

    Bedogni, R., & Woodward, P. R. 1990, A&A, 231, 481

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    F., McKee, C

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

    doi:10.1086/166834 1988

  5. [5]

    L., & McKee, C

    Cowie, L. L., & McKee, C. F. 1977, ApJ, 211, 135, doi: 10.1086/154911

    doi:10.1086/154911 1977

  6. [6]

    L., McKee, C

    Cowie, L. L., McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1981, ApJ, 247, 908, doi: 10.1086/159100

    work page doi:10.1086/159100 1981

  7. [7]

    Cox, D. P. 1972, ApJ, 178, 159, doi: 10.1086/151775 —. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 337, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150615

    arXiv 1972

  8. [8]

    P., & Smith, B

    Cox, D. P., & Smith, B. W. 1974, ApJL, 189, L105, doi: 10.1086/181476

    doi:10.1086/181476 1974

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15396

    Diesing, R., Guo, M., Kim, C.-G., Stone, J., & Caprioli, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15396

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  3. [11]

    E., Arthur, S

    Dyson, J. E., Arthur, S. J., & Hartquist, T. W. 2002, A&A, 390, 1063, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020731

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    Weisz, D. R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2773

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531, doi: 10.1086/148317

    1965 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Goldsmith, D

    Field, G. B., Goldsmith, D. W., & Habing, H. J. 1969, ApJL, 155, L149, doi: 10.1086/180324

    1969 doi

  7. [15]

    B., & Bryan, G

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

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Ostriker, E

    Fielding, D. B., Ostriker, E. C., Bryan, G. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2020, ApJL, 894, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/49

    Gazol, A., & Kim, J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/49

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Goldsmith, K. J. A., & Pittard, J. M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1431

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Gregori, G., Miniati, F., Ryu, D., & Jones, T. W. 1999, ApJL, 527, L113, doi: 10.1086/312402

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

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

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Ji, S., & Norman, C

    Gronke, M., Oh, S. P., Ji, S., & Norman, C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3351

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Yuen, K

    Ho, K. W., Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14199

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2015, A&A, 576, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424556

    Iffrig, O., & Hennebelle, P. 2015, A&A, 576, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424556

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023, ApJ, 946, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3a

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/99 —. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Raileanu, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Raileanu, R. 2017, ApJ, 834, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/25 24 Guo et al

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Somerville, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    I., McKee, C

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

    1994 doi

  21. [29]

    2002, ApJL, 564, L97, doi: 10.1086/338978

    Koyama, H., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2002, ApJL, 564, L97, doi: 10.1086/338978

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 970, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f6

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021a, ApJ, 914, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ab —. 2021b, ApJ, 914, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    doi

  24. [32]

    N., & Stone, J

    Lemaster, M. N., & Stone, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1092

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Cen, R., Bryan, G

    Li, M., Ostriker, J. P., Cen, R., Bryan, G. L., & Naab, T. 2015, ApJ, 814, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/4

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Squire, J., & Hummels, C

    Li, Z., Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., & Hummels, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 Mac Low, M.-M., McKee, C. F., Klein, R. I., Stone, J. M., & Norman, M. L. 1994, ApJ, 433, 757, doi: 10.1086/174685

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv562

    Martizzi, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv562

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    F., & Ostriker, J

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

    1977 doi

  29. [37]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 274, doi: 10.1086/529420

    Orlando, S., Bocchino, F., Reale, F., Peres, G., & Pagano, P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 274, doi: 10.1086/529420

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    2005, A&A, 444, 505, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052896

    Orlando, S., Peres, G., Reale, F., et al. 2005, A&A, 444, 505, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052896

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980, doi: 10.1086/318290

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    P., & McKee, C

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

    1988 doi

  33. [41]

    Parker, E. N. 1953, ApJ, 117, 431, doi: 10.1086/145707

    1953 doi

  34. [42]

    Pittard, J. M. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1885

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Arthur, S

    Pittard, J. M., Arthur, S. J., Dyson, J. E., et al. 2003, A&A, 401, 1027, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030157

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    M., & Parkin, E

    Pittard, J. M., & Parkin, E. R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw025

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab900

    Rathjen, T.-E., Naab, T., Girichidis, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab900

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Hester, J

    Rho, J., Petre, R., Schlegel, E. M., & Hester, J. J. 1994, ApJ, 430, 757, doi: 10.1086/174446

    1994 doi

  39. [47]

    E., & Robertson, B

    Schneider, E. E., & Robertson, B. E. 2018, ApJ, 860, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac329

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

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

    1959

  42. [50]

    M., & Snyder, G

    Shin, M.-S., Stone, J. M., & Snyder, G. F. 2008, ApJ, 680, 336, doi: 10.1086/587775

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Smith, R

    Slavin, J. D., Smith, R. K., Foster, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8552

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3177

    Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & Ehlert, K. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3177

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    Spitzer, L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    1962

  46. [54]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Mullen, P

    Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., Fielding, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16053

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Tan, B., & Fielding, D. B. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3793

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    P., & Gronke, M

    Tan, B., Oh, S. P., & Gronke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab053

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

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

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

    1950

  51. [59]

    2012, A&A Rv, 20, 49, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0049-1

    Vink, J. 2012, A&A Rv, 20, 49, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0049-1

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    Walch, S., & Naab, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    L., & Long, K

    White, R. L., & Long, K. S. 1991, ApJ, 373, 543, doi: 10.1086/170073

    1991 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C

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

    1995 doi

  55. [63]

    1972, ARA&A, 10, 129, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.001021

    Woltjer, L. 1972, ARA&A, 10, 129, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.001021

    1972

  56. [64]

    Zhang, D., & Chevalier, R. A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2769

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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