Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Magnetic field of a ring-like shape molecular cloud

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read G111's ring-shaped cloud carries a coherent magnetic field that curves along its dense ridges, indicating shock compression from stellar feedback rather than pure gravitational contraction.

desk verdict First field map of G111, with careful foreground subtraction, but the shock-compression conclusion leans on VGT in the dense ridges where the paper's own caveat says VGT may not apply. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19281 v1 pith:VGYGMVOC submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.GA

Dana Alina , Adel Umirbayeva , Yasuo Doi , Soichiro Jo , Yue Hu , Alex Lazarian , Janik Karoly , Tie Liu
show 8 more authors
Koji S. Kawabata Alua Mukhash Danial Zhumagayir Tomori Hori Tetsuharu Maruta Ryo Imazawa Tatsuya Nakaoka Mahito Sasada
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ISM:magneticfieldscloudspolarimetryvelocitygradientstechniqueshockcompressionstarformationNGC7538regionring-likemolecularcloud
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 tries to establish that the ring-shaped molecular cloud G111 acquired its elliptical form because shock waves from external sources compressed turbulent gas, and that magnetic fields then guided and preserved the resulting structure. It assembles three independent magnetic-field tracers—satellite dust-polarization maps, ground-based starlight polarimetry with foreground subtraction, and velocity gradients derived from CO line observations—and finds a coherent field that curves along the cloud's dense ridges. That curvature, mirrored in warm-dust emission, is the signature the authors attribute to shock compression rather than to simple gravitational contraction. If the scenario holds, G111 becomes a working example of how stellar feedback or supernova remnants shape parsec-scale clouds and regulate star formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the Velocity Gradients Technique (VGT), which derives the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction from spectroscopic data by computing velocity gradients in CO channel maps and rotating them by 90°, justified by magnetohydrodynamic turbulence anisotropy: turbulent eddies are elongated along field lines, so gradients are statistically perpendicular to the local field. The paper also uses the alignment measure, $AM = 2(\cos^2\theta - 1/2)$, to quantify agreement between orientations from Planck polarization, starlight polarimetry, and VGT, with $AM=1$ meaning parallel and $AM=-1$ perpendicular. VGT supplies the dense-region field map, foreground-subtracted starlight polarization supplies cloud-specific orientations, and Planck supplies the large-scale context; the three are consistent in the southern and western ridges, while the northern clump shows local deviations interpreted as gravitational collapse.

What would settle it

A high-resolution dust-polarization map of the dense ridges that showed the field crossing the ridges nearly perpendicularly, together with the absence of SiO shock-tracer emission along the curved arc, would falsify the shock-compression interpretation by removing its main observational support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that G111's plane-of-sky magnetic field is spatially coherent yet follows the cloud's elliptical ring geometry: it runs along the dense ridges traced by submillimetre dust emission and the 12 µm warm-dust structure, most clearly in the southern and eastern parts. Because the field is aligned with the compressed dense structures rather than perpendicular to them, the authors conclude that shock compression—likely driven by stellar winds or a supernova remnant—shaped the cloud, with the magnetic field acting to maintain its integrity and guide gas flows. Foreground subtraction is essential to this result: the large-scale Planck polarization toward the southwestern part of G111 is dominated by foreground dust aligned with the Galactic magnetic field, and only after removing that component do the cloud's own orientations emerge consistently across tracers.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain rests on the assumption that the CO velocity gradients trace magnetohydrodynamic turbulence whose eddies are elongated along the magnetic field, so rotating the gradients by 90° recovers the true plane-of-sky field direction; if gravitational collapse or non-turbulent dynamics dominate in the probed dense gas, the curved field, and with it the shock-compression conclusion, is not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, G111's elliptical ring is the product of turbulent shock-driven compression from external feedback, not primarily self-gravitational contraction.
  • The cloud's magnetic field is dynamically important: it stays coherent from the outer CO envelope to the dense C18O gas, guiding flows and resisting dispersal.
  • Planck polarization toward G111 includes a substantial foreground component aligned with the Galactic magnetic field, so foreground subtraction is a mandatory step before interpreting large-scale polarization in this region.
  • The northern clump is a candidate site of local gravitational collapse, where the VGT-derived field rotates away from the ring geometry and the two CO tracers disagree.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the shock-compression reading is right, the curvature of the field should track independent signs of external pressure; a quantitative test would compare the local field-curvature angle with the intensity of shock tracers such as SiO along the ring.
  • Editorial inference: the foreground-subtraction prescription assumes all stars nearer than 2500 pc sample only foreground dust; if some foreground material is clumpy or closer than expected, the interpolated foreground map could imprint artificial coherence onto the cloud map, so repeating the analysis with foreground masks of varying depth would test the robustness of the field geometry.
  • Editorial inference: the VGT's 90-degree rotation is only valid where turbulence dominates; restricting the VGT analysis to the same velocity intervals as the shock-compressed gas, and excluding the collapsed-core channels, would separate the turbulent and gravitational signals and make the shock-compression conclusion less assumption-dependent.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-tracer study of the plane-of-sky magnetic field in G111, a ~10 pc ring-like molecular cloud in the NGC 7538 region. The analysis combines Planck 353 GHz polarized dust emission, new Kanata/HONIR starlight polarization in the R and H bands with Gaia-based distances and foreground subtraction (d_fg = 2500 pc), and the velocity gradient technique (VGT) applied to 12CO (TRAO 14m), 13CO, and C18O (IRAM 30m) data. The authors report a coherent but spatially varying magnetic field, with VGT-derived orientations following the dense ridges, agreement between foreground-subtracted starlight polarization and Planck orientations in parts of the map, and a curved magnetic field along the dense ridges that they interpret as evidence of shock compression by stellar winds or supernova remnants. They conclude that turbulent shock-driven compression, rather than simple gravitational contraction, played a central role in shaping G111.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides one of the few multi-tracer magnetic field maps of a >10 pc ring-like molecular cloud, combining three independent probes (Planck polarization, starlight polarimetry, and VGT). The foreground-subtraction strategy is motivated by identified Gaia extinction steps, and the multi-tracer comparison is internally consistent. The VGT-derived maps are compared with independent starlight and Planck orientations rather than being fit to themselves, which partially mitigates concerns about circularity. The new Kanata starlight polarization catalog and the IRAM 30m CO maps are potentially useful community data products. However, the central shock-compression conclusion rests on the validity of VGT in the dense ridges, where the paper itself identifies a breakdown mode, and the quantitative support is limited by the absence of propagated uncertainties and statistical tests. The paper is a solid observational contribution whose interpretation needs to be either strengthened or substantially softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.7, §4.2–4.3, §5] The central claim that the curved B_VGT along the dense southern and eastern ridges indicates shock compression rests on the assumption that the CO velocity gradients trace the magnetic field in those ridges. However, §2.7 states that the 90° rotation is valid only for turbulence-supported gas, and §4.3 invokes gravitational collapse in the northern clump to explain a VGT discrepancy there, demonstrating that this failure mode is active within the same data set. The external validation offered is qualitative agreement with sparse starlight polarization (B_R, B_H), which probes lower-extinction material and is not co-spatial with the dense ridges; the SiO/CS shock tracers that would directly test compression are explicitly deferred to future work. The conclusion that shock compression 'played a central role in shaping G111' is therefore not supported by an independent check that the dense ridges are turbulence-dominated at the probed scales. Please either add a validation of VGT in the ridges (e.g., a matched-resolution comparison with Planck or JCMT polarization where available, or a quantitative turbulence-versus-gravity assessment from the line data) or weaken the conclusion to a tentative interpretation.
  2. [§2.6, §3.2.1, §4.1] The foreground distance cutoff d_fg = 2500 pc is adopted with no sensitivity test, even though the cloud distance is 2700 ± 100 pc and the Gaia photogeometric distances carry non-negligible uncertainties. Stars with true distances near 2500–2700 pc that scatter below the cutoff in the distance posterior could contaminate the foreground template, and the interpolation-based subtraction in Eqs. (9)–(10) could therefore bias B_R and B_H and the AM maps in Figures 11–13. Please test the stability of the foreground-subtracted angles and AM maps for a range of d_fg (e.g., 2300, 2400, 2500, and 2600 pc) and report the resulting changes in the derived morphologies.
  3. [§2.8, Figs. 11–13] Equations (1)–(2) provide per-star uncertainties σ_p and σ_ψ, but no uncertainties are propagated into the interpolated foreground maps, the foreground-subtracted polarization angles, the VGT orientations, or the AM maps. The AM maps are shown without error bars or a null-hypothesis test, so statements such as 'significant correlation' (§4.5) and 'strong agreement' (§4.3) are not quantitatively supported. Please add a Monte Carlo or analytic propagation of the angle uncertainties and report the significance of the alignments, for example by comparing the observed AM distribution with that expected for random relative orientations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to the 'IRAP 30m telescope', while the body correctly uses IRAM 30m; please correct the typo.
  2. [§2.3.1] The text states that the pixel scale of 0.3″/pixel is 'substantially less than the typical seeing of 2.5′'; the seeing should presumably be 2.5″, not 2.5′.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains the garbled symbol 'σP si< 20°'; this should be σψ < 20° as in Eq. (5).
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption misspells 'parallel' as 'paraller'.
  5. [§3.5] The sentence 'As already mentioned previously in Section 4.4' refers to a section that appears later in the paper; the cross-reference should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central inference rests on comparison of independent tracers, not on a fitted input; VGT self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, each magnetic-field map is an explicit transformation of independent data: Planck polarization angles rotated by 90 deg, Kanata starlight polarization after Gaia-distance-based foreground subtraction, and velocity gradients rotated by 90 deg. No parameter is fitted to the shock-compression conclusion and then read back out as a prediction. The curved-field geometry and the shock-compression interpretation in Sect. 5 are an interpretive classification against the theoretical taxonomy of Sect. 1, not an equation-level derivation, so they do not reduce to the inputs by construction. The paper's own Sect. 2.7 caveat, that VGT may fail where gravity or non-turbulent dynamics dominate, is a validity limitation that lowers confidence in the dense-ridge field tracing, but it is not a circular step. Likewise, the VGT methodology is justified by citations to co-authors (Lazarian, Hu, Yuen), which is self-citation, but the technique has been validated in prior observational and simulation studies outside this particular dataset, so the citations carry independent content rather than forming a closed self-citation chain. The foreground-subtraction and multi-tracer comparisons (Planck, starlight, WISE, CO) provide external cross-checks. No specific equation is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations while the central claim retains independent observational support.

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

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions of dust polarimetry and the VGT, plus a hand-set foreground cutoff and the adopted cloud distance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Foreground distance cutoff d_fg = 2500 pc
    Set by visual inspection of Gaia extinction and magnitude steps (Sect. 3.2.1); directly controls the foreground subtraction in Eq. 9-10 and therefore the derived cloud B-field. Not varied in the paper.
  • VGT sub-block size = 20 x 20 pixels (final ~5')
    Hand-chosen for statistical robustness; sets the effective angular resolution of B_VGT and controls which gradients survive (Sect. 2.7).
  • Starlight polarization quality thresholds = sigma_psi < 20 deg and sigma_p < 0.6%
    Selection criteria chosen in Sect. 2.3.3 to balance completeness against bias; affect the spatial sampling of the foreground and cloud polarization maps.
  • Velocity channel ranges for VGT maps = e.g., [-53.6;-53], [-52.5;-50], [-48.4;-46.5] km/s for 12CO; four ranges for 13CO and C18O
    Chosen by hand to highlight the two curved structures; the B_VGT morphology shown depends on these intervals (Sect. 3.3-3.4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dust grain alignment with the magnetic field, so that polarization traces the POS B-field orientation.
    Standard assumption in ISM polarimetry (Sect. 2.5); the text itself notes that the exact alignment mechanism is not fully understood.
  • domain assumption Velocity gradients in MHD turbulence are statistically perpendicular to the local magnetic field, so 90-degree rotated gradients trace B.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.7; the paper flags that the relation changes when gravity is significant, making this a load-bearing assumption for the B_VGT maps.
  • domain assumption The foreground toward G111 is fully sampled by stars with Gaia distances < 2500 pc, and the cloud distance is 2700 pc.
    Sect. 3.2.1 sets d_fg=2500 pc based on an extinction step at 800 pc; the adopted cloud distance 2700 pc comes from Moscadelli et al. (2009), but Brand and Blitz (1993) give 3100 +/- 1200 pc.
  • standard math The POS magnetic field from optically thin dust emission or extinction is the line-of-sight integrated field, so the cloud field is a projection through the cloud depth.
    Standard radiative transfer assumption used in Eqs. 7-10; limits 3D interpretation but is conventional in polarimetry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic field of a ring-like shape molecular cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGYGMVOC

@misc{pith2026250719281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic field of a ring-like shape molecular cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGYGMVOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19281}
}
read the original abstract

We present a detailed study of the magnetic field structure in the G111 molecular cloud, a ring-like filamentary cloud within the NGC 7538 region. We utilized interstellar dust polarization from the Planck telescope to trace large-scale field orientations, starlight extinction polarization from the Kanata telescope to probe the cloud's magnetic field after foreground subtraction, and velocity gradients derived from CO isotopologues, observed with the IRAP 30m telescope, to examine dense regions. Our results reveal a coherent yet spatially varying magnetic field within G111. We correct the significant foreground dust contamination through careful subtraction. We observe a global alignment of the magnetic field with density structures suggesting that the field is dynamically important in shaping the cloud. The curved magnetic field along the dense regions, coinciding with mid-infrared emission in WISE data, indicates shock compression, likely driven by stellar feedback or supernova remnants. Our findings support a scenario where G111's morphology results from turbulent shock-driven compression. The interplay between magnetic fields and external forces is crucial in shaping and maintaining the structure of the molecular cloud. Future high-resolution observations will be essential to further constrain the magnetic field's role in cloud evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. G111 molecular cloud. The background image shows the JCMT 850 µm intensity map in mJy. The black segments show the magnetic field orientation in the POS, as inferred from Planck polarization data at the corresponding frequency at 353 GHz, rotated by 90◦ The blue and red rect￾angles are the footprints of the TRAO 14m and IRAM 30m observation fields, respectively. The red curve corresponds to the IRAM 30m 13CO contour… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Polarization fraction estimated using Eq. 4 versus polarization fraction uncertainty (σp), based on the starlight polarization observations, for the R band (top) and H band (bottom). The blue and red dots correspond to the data satisfying criteria based on the thresholds of σp < 0.6% and σP si < 20%. The red line shows SNR(pAS) = 2. Right: distribution functions of σp. Galactic Cold Cores using CO (J=1-0) tran… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the number of stars (N) and their extinction (AG) as a function of distance in pc (r med photogeo in the Gaia catalog) in the R and H bands. The vertical dashed line indicates a significant increase in the number of stars at ≃ 800 pc. we set the upper limit for the foreground to dfg =2500 pc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the photometric magnitude in the Gaia RP band (Grp) as a function of distance in pc for the stars observed in the R (upper panel) and H (lower panel) polarimetric bands. The vertical dashed and dotted lines correspond to distances of 2500 pc and 2700 pc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: represents the corresponding interpolated foreground magnetic field structure, obtained according to the procedure described in Section 2.6. The R band shows a rather uniform E-W orientation with a slight tendency for NE-SW diagonal. The H band polariza￾tion map with i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic field structure obtained from starlight polarization in the H (right) and R (left) bands in G111, after foreground subtraction (magenta segments), and the corresponding interpolated structure (black segments) The background image represents the JCMT 850 µm int…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnetic field orientations (red segments) derived using the velocity gradients technique applied to 13CO (upper row) and C18O (lower row) IRAM 30m data. BVGT are derived for the different velocity ranges: [-51.4; -50.5], [-52.3; -51.5], [-52.8; -52.3], and [-53.4; -52…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: WISE intensity maps of the G111 region with JCMT 0.2 mJy contours (black). The top panels show Planck polarization (gray) with starlight polarization in the R-band (blue, left) and H-band (red, right). The bottom panels display VGT polarization (magenta) with starligh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Alignment measure (AM) of the interpolated foreground magnetic field derived from the starlight polar￾ization data for stars located at distances [0; 2500] pc (green bi-vectors) and the magnetic field derived from 353 GHz (850 µm) Planck polarization data rotated by 9…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Alignment measure (AM) between the inter￾polated foreground-subtracted magnetic field derived from the starlight polarization data in G111 (black vectors) and the magnetic field derived from 353 GHz (850 µm) Planck polarization data. AM = -1 means perpendicular relati…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Alignment measure (AM) between Planck and starlight polarization orientations in the R-band (left) and H-band (right). In conclusion, this work highlights the effectiveness of a multi-method approach to studying interstellar mag￾netic fields, demonstrating that integr…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a1

    Abe, D., Inoue, T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T. 2021, ApJ, 916, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a1 2021

  2. [2]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Akitaya, H., Moritani, Y., Ui, T., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91474O, doi: 10.1117/12.2054577

    doi:10.1117/12.2054577 2014

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz508

    Alina, D., Ristorcelli, I., Montier, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz508

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz508 2019

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 658, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039065 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Alina, D., Montillaud, J., Hu, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039065 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, ...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039065 2022

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    K., Whitworth, A

    Balfour, S. K., Whitworth, A. P., Hubber, D. A., & Jaffa, S. E. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1772

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1772 2015

  7. [7]

    M., Burkhart, B., et al

    Barreto-Mota, L., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Burkhart, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab798

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab798 2021

  8. [8]

    2023, Experimental Astronomy, 56, 197, doi: 10.1007/s10686-022-09882-5

    Bernard, J.-P., Bernard, A., Roussel, H., et al. 2023, Experimental Astronomy, 56, 197, doi: 10.1007/s10686-022-09882-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-022-09882-5 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    1993, A&A, 275, 67

    Brand, J., & Blitz, L. 1993, A&A, 275, 67

    1993

  2. [10]

    M., Kerton, C

    Brunt, C. M., Kerton, C. R., & Pomerleau, C. 2003, ApJS, 144, 47, doi: 10.1086/344245

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    O., Guerra, J

    Butterfield, N. O., Guerra, J. A., Chuss, D. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad402c

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Schwarz, H

    Clarke, D., Stewart, B. G., Schwarz, H. E., & Brooks, A. 1983, A&A, 126, 260

    1983

  5. [13]

    1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 18, 337, doi: 10.1007/BF00645399

    Dolginov, A. 1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 18, 337, doi: 10.1007/BF00645399

    1972 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 159

    Draine, B., & Hansley, B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 159

    2013

  7. [15]

    Evans, II, N. J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 311, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.311

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Di Francesco, J., et al

    Fallscheer, C., Reid, M. A., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/102

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2880

    Federrath, C. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2880

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Fenske, J., Arakawa, J., Fallscheer, C., & Francesco, J. D. 2021, AJ, 161, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abded2 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., Zapata, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf2b6

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Frieswijk, W. W. F., Spaans, M., Shipman, R. F., Teyssier, D., & Hily-Blant, P. 2007, A&A, 475, 263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077148 Gildas Team. 2013, GILDAS: Grenoble Image and Line Data Analysis Software,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1305.010

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    1995, ApJ, 438, 763, doi: 10.1086/175121 Gonz´ alez-Casanova, D

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763, doi: 10.1086/175121 Gonz´ alez-Casanova, D. F., & Lazarian, A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 41

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/115

    Heitsch, F. 2013, ApJ, 769, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/115

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    Hennebelle, P. 2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    1949, The Astrophysical Journal, 109, 471, doi: 10.1086/145151

    Hiltner, W. 1949, The Astrophysical Journal, 109, 471, doi: 10.1086/145151

    1949 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9edc

    Hoang, T., Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9edc

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0376

    Hsieh, C.-h., Hu, Y., Lai, S.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0376

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Hu, Y., Lazarian, A., & Yuen, K. H. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.06754. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06754

    2020 arXiv

  19. [28]

    H., & Lazarian, A

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A. 2018b, MNRAS, 480, 1333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1807

    doi

  20. [29]

    H., Lazarian, V., et al

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., Lazarian, V., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 776, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L31

    Inoue, T., & Fukui, Y. 2013, ApJL, 774, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L31

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S53, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    Inoue, T., Hennebelle, P., Fukui, Y., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S53, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/35

    Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2012, ApJ, 759, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/35

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/10 Magnetic Field of G111 19

    Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2016, ApJ, 833, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/10 Magnetic Field of G111 19

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Okazaki, A., Akitaya, H., et al

    Kawabata, K. S., Okazaki, A., Akitaya, H., et al. 1999, PASP, 111, 898, doi: 10.1086/316387 K¨ onyves, V., Ward-Thompson, D., Pattle, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3ca

    1999 doi

  26. [35]

    Koo, B.-C., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 388, 93, doi: 10.1086/171132

    1992 doi

  27. [36]

    1981, in Origin of Cosmic Rays, ed

    Lachieze-Rey, M. 1981, in Origin of Cosmic Rays, ed. G. Setti, G. Spada, & A. W. Wolfendale, Vol. 94, 253

    1981

  28. [37]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, L77

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, L77

    2007

  29. [38]

    2000, ApJ, 537, 720, doi: 10.1086/309040

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 720, doi: 10.1086/309040

    2000 doi

  30. [39]

    Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 1999, ApJ, 517, 700, doi: 10.1086/307233

    1999 doi

  31. [41]

    Lazarian, A., & Yuen, K. H. 2018b, ApJ, 853, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa241

    doi

  32. [42]

    K., et al

    Li, H.-B., Goodman, A., Sridharan, T. K., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 101, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch005

    2014 doi

  33. [43]

    2018, ApJS, 234, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3dd

    Liu, T., Kim, K.-T., Juvela, M., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3dd

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 3830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad733

    Mazzei, R., Li, Z.-Y., Chen, C.-Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad733

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    J., Menten, K

    Moscadelli, L., Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 406, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/406

    2009 doi

  36. [46]

    Nagai, T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Miyama, S. M. 1998, ApJ, 506, 306, doi: 10.1086/306249

    1998 doi

  37. [47]

    1993, A&A, 274, 968

    Naghizadeh-Khouei, J., & Clarke, D. 1993, A&A, 274, 968

    1993

  38. [48]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 354

    Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2008, ApJ, 687, 354

    2008

  39. [49]

    A., & Nordlund, A

    Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Goodman, A. A., & Nordlund, A. 2001, ApJ, 553, 227

    2001

  40. [50]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  41. [51]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525896 Planck Collaboration I...

    2016 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 231, 404, doi: 10.1086/157204

    Purcell, E. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 231, 404, doi: 10.1086/157204

    1979 doi

  43. [53]

    D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O

    Schmidt, G. D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O. L. 1992, AJ, 104, 1563, doi: 10.1086/116341

    1992 doi

  44. [54]

    1958, Acta Astronomica, 8, 135, doi: 10.1086/145465

    Serkowski, K. 1958, Acta Astronomica, 8, 135, doi: 10.1086/145465

    1958 doi

  45. [55]

    M., Ostriker, E., & Gammie, C

    Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E., & Gammie, C. 1998, ApJ, 508, L99

    1998

  46. [56]

    M., & Zweibel, E

    Stone, J. M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2009, ApJ, 696, 233, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/233

    2009 doi

  47. [57]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac38

    Tahani, M., & et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac38

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv076

    Tsuboi, M., Miyazaki, A., & Uehara, K. 2015, PASJ, 67, 109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv076

    2015 doi

  49. [59]

    2007, EAS publication series, 23, 147

    Vaillancourt, J. 2007, EAS publication series, 23, 147

    2007

  50. [60]

    Vishniac, E. T. 1994, ApJ, 428, 186, doi: 10.1086/174231

    1994 doi

  51. [61]

    1974, ApJ, 194, 249

    Wardle, J., & Kronberg, P. 1974, ApJ, 194, 249

    1974

  52. [62]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  53. [63]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21be

    Xu, S., Ji, S., & Lazarian, A. 2019, ApJ, 878, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21be

    2019 doi

  54. [64]

    H., & Lazarian, A

    Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A. 2017, ApJL, 837, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6255

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.