pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00213 · v1 · pith:BGRTF7G3new · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Far-infrared synchrotron properties of the inner lobes of the radio galaxy Centaurus A revealed with the Herschel observatory

Naoki Isobe , Motoki Kino , Takao Nakagawa , Shunsuke Baba , Makoto Tashiro , Hiroshi Nagai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Centaurus Aradio galaxysynchrotron emissionmagnetic fieldcooling breakHerschelinner lobefar-infrared
0
0 comments X

The pith

Far-infrared observations of Centaurus A's northern inner lobe reveal a magnetic field of at least 100 microgauss.

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

The paper reports Herschel measurements of diffuse far-infrared synchrotron emission from the northern inner lobe of Centaurus A. The far-infrared spectral index is steeper than the radio index by about 0.5, indicating a cooling break at around 218 GHz. This break frequency is used to derive a magnetic field strength of B greater than or equal to 100 microgauss. The result exceeds minimum-energy estimates by more than a factor of five and is stronger than the inner jet region by at least a factor of four, affecting models of energy distribution in the source.

Core claim

The integrated far-infrared flux density of the northern inner lobe is 1.63 Jy at 500 microns. The spectral index changes from 0.66 at radio frequencies to 1.32 at far-infrared frequencies, consistent with the expected shift for a synchrotron cooling break under continuous injection. The break frequency of 218 GHz implies a magnetic field B ≳ 100 μG, which is more than five times higher than the minimum-energy value and at least four times stronger than the inner-jet region, with only minor effects from adiabatic cooling or line-of-sight orientation.

What carries the argument

The cooling break frequency identified from the difference in spectral indices between radio and far-infrared data, which determines the magnetic field through the relation between synchrotron loss timescale and field strength.

Load-bearing premise

The change in spectral index is due solely to the standard synchrotron cooling break of 0.5 under continuous injection, without dominant contributions from other processes.

What would settle it

Multi-frequency observations that find either a spectral index change different from 0.5 or a break frequency much lower than 218 GHz would invalidate the magnetic field strength estimate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00213 by Hiroshi Nagai, Makoto Tashiro, Motoki Kino, Naoki Isobe, Shunsuke Baba, Takao Nakagawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) SPIRE image at the wavelength of λ = 500 µm around the host galaxy and inner lobes of Centaurus A. The image is weakly smoothed with a two-dimensional Gaussian function of which the radius is 1 pixel (14 arcsec). The short-dashed contours show the surface-brightness levels of 3.4, 11.9 and 42 MJy str−1 . The 1.6 GHz VLA image (Hardcastle et al. 2006) is superposed with the thin solid contours. The cros… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-point spectral-index map between the wavelengths of λ = 500 µm and 350 µm (or the corresponding frequencies of ν = 600 GHz and 857 GHz, respectively). The region with a 500 µm surface brightness of < 3 MJy str−1 is trimmed out and displayed in gray. The 500 µm surface-brightness contours (the dashed lines) and 1.6 GHz VLA contours (the thin solid lines) are taken from figure 1a. The nuclear position of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the synchrotron spectrum of the northern inner lobe and those of the middle and outer regions inside the lobe (the pentagons and squares) defined in Hardcastle et al. (2006). The sum spectrum of the middle and outer regions is also plotted with the stars. The radio-to-FIR data of the northern inner lobe (the filled circles) and their best-fit Std BPL model (the solid line) are same as th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1.6 GHz VLA image of the northern inner lobe (Hardcastle et al. 2006), on which the cooling lengths adopted for the magnetic-field estimation are displayed with the dashed arrows denoted as Lc1 (200′′ or 3.3 kpc) and Lc2 (135′′ or 2.2 kpc). The star shows the flare point, which is regarded as the energy injection region from the jet to lobe (Hardcastle et al. 2006). The cross at the bottom-right corner ind… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic field of the northern inner lobe estimated from its cooling break (νb = 218 ± 83 GHz), plotted against the downstream flow velocity v. The solid and dashed lines indicate the derived magnetic field, B1 and B2, respectively for the cooling length of Lc1 and Lc2. The results in panels (a) and (b) are derived simply by equation (1) taken from Isobe et al. (2025), where the adiabatic cooling is neglec… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: displays the relation between the typical size (radius) R and magnetic field B of various astrophysical particle accel￾erators, taken from Kotera & Olinto (2011). The figure, usually called the Hillas diagram (Hillas 1984), is widely utilized to judge upto what energy a celestial object is possible to confine acceler￾ated particles. The solid and dashed lines, respectively, in figure 7 indicate the Larmor … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Diffuse far-infrared synchrotron emission filling the northern inner lobe of the radio galaxy Centaurus A is investigated with the Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver onboard the Herschel observatory at its three photometric bands. The far-infrared flux density spatially integrated over the lobe is measured as $S_{\rm \nu} = 1.63 \pm 0.05$ Jy at the wavelength of $500$ $\mu$m (the frequency of $600$ GHz). A comparison between the far-infrared spectral index derived with Herschel ($\alpha = 1.32 \pm 0.19$) and the radio index ($\alpha = 0.66 \pm 0.04$) suggests a spectral break between these frequency ranges. The change of the spectral index through the break is indicated to be consistent with that of the standard cooling break ($\Delta \alpha = 0.5$) predicted for particle acceleration under the continuous energy injection condition. A broken power-law model incorporating the standard cooling break yields the break frequency as $\nu_{\rm b} = 218 \pm 83$ GHz. From the measured cooling break frequency, the magnetic field of the northern inner lobe is evaluated as $B \gtrsim 100$ $\mu$G. It is quantitatively estimated that the adiabatic cooling puts only a minor impact on the derived magnetic field. This magnetic field is higher than that under the minimum-energy condition by more than a factor of $5$. In addition, the derived magnetic field of the lobe is suggested to be at least by a factor of $4$ stronger than that of the inner-jet region implied in the previous very-high-energy gamma-ray study. Even if the line-of-sight orientation of the lobe is considered in its possible extreme case, the magnetic field is found to be reduced only by a factor of 2, and the above arguments about the strong magnetic field basically holds. The science impact of this result is discussed from the viewpoints of jet energetics, and of ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Herschel SPIRE far-infrared observations of the northern inner lobe of Centaurus A, reporting an integrated flux density of 1.63 ± 0.05 Jy at 500 μm (600 GHz) and a FIR spectral index α = 1.32 ± 0.19. Comparing this to the radio spectral index α = 0.66 ± 0.04, the authors identify a spectral break at ν_b = 218 ± 83 GHz that is consistent with the standard synchrotron cooling break (Δα = 0.5) under continuous energy injection. From this break frequency they derive a magnetic field B ≳ 100 μG in the lobe (more than 5× the minimum-energy value and at least 4× stronger than the inner-jet region), with quantitative estimates that adiabatic losses are minor and that extreme line-of-sight geometry reduces B by at most a factor of 2. Implications for jet energetics and UHECR acceleration are discussed.

Significance. If the cooling-break interpretation holds and the standard B(ν_b, t_age) relation applies without dominant adiabatic, inhomogeneous, or projection effects, the result would indicate magnetic fields in the lobe substantially exceeding equipartition, with direct consequences for the energy budget of the Centaurus A jet and the viability of lobe-based UHECR acceleration. The multi-wavelength constraint on the break frequency itself is a clear observational strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the measured Δα = 0.66 is stated to be 'consistent with' the continuous-injection cooling increment of 0.5, yet the quoted uncertainties permit a range ~0.47–0.85. Because the central claim that the break is the standard synchrotron cooling break (rather than a composite of synchrotron plus adiabatic or inhomogeneous losses) rests on this consistency, the manuscript must show the statistical preference for Δα = 0.5 in the broken-power-law fit (e.g., via Δχ² or posterior odds) rather than relying on overlap alone.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: derivation of B ≳ 100 μG from ν_b = 218 ± 83 GHz requires an independent lobe age t_age via the standard relation B ∝ (ν_b t_age²)^{-1/3}. The manuscript must state the adopted t_age (and its uncertainty) explicitly; a factor-of-two uncertainty in t_age propagates to a ~0.6 factor in B and directly affects whether the factor-of-5 excess over minimum-energy is secure.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'adiabatic cooling puts only a minor impact on the derived magnetic field' is load-bearing for the interpretation that the observed break is purely synchrotron. The quantitative estimation (including the assumed expansion history and the resulting correction to ν_b) must be shown in the relevant methods or discussion section so that readers can assess its magnitude relative to the quoted ±83 GHz uncertainty on ν_b.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the science impact is discussed from the viewpoints of jet energetics and UHECRs but provides no summary of the quantitative conclusions reached; a one-sentence outline would improve accessibility.
  2. Ensure that the broken-power-law fit parameters (normalization, low- and high-frequency indices, break frequency) and their covariance are tabulated or plotted with the data points so that the reader can reproduce the ν_b = 218 ± 83 GHz value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to address the points raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the measured Δα = 0.66 is stated to be 'consistent with' the continuous-injection cooling increment of 0.5, yet the quoted uncertainties permit a range ~0.47–0.85. Because the central claim that the break is the standard synchrotron cooling break (rather than a composite of synchrotron plus adiabatic or inhomogeneous losses) rests on this consistency, the manuscript must show the statistical preference for Δα = 0.5 in the broken-power-law fit (e.g., via Δχ² or posterior odds) rather than relying on overlap alone.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating a statistical preference strengthens the interpretation. In the revised manuscript we will report the χ² for the broken-power-law fit both with Δα fixed at the canonical value of 0.5 and with Δα allowed to vary freely, together with the resulting Δχ² (or equivalent posterior odds if a Bayesian fit is used). This will quantify the data's preference for the standard cooling-break model. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: derivation of B ≳ 100 μG from ν_b = 218 ± 83 GHz requires an independent lobe age t_age via the standard relation B ∝ (ν_b t_age²)^{-1/3}. The manuscript must state the adopted t_age (and its uncertainty) explicitly; a factor-of-two uncertainty in t_age propagates to a ~0.6 factor in B and directly affects whether the factor-of-5 excess over minimum-energy is secure.

    Authors: The magnetic-field estimate does rely on an adopted lobe age. We will explicitly quote the value of t_age (and its uncertainty) used in the calculation, together with the literature reference, both in the abstract and in the methods/discussion section of the revised manuscript. We will also note the propagated uncertainty on B and confirm that the factor-of-5 excess over the minimum-energy field remains secure within the stated range. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'adiabatic cooling puts only a minor impact on the derived magnetic field' is load-bearing for the interpretation that the observed break is purely synchrotron. The quantitative estimation (including the assumed expansion history and the resulting correction to ν_b) must be shown in the relevant methods or discussion section so that readers can assess its magnitude relative to the quoted ±83 GHz uncertainty on ν_b.

    Authors: We will expand the relevant discussion section to present the quantitative adiabatic-loss calculation in full, including the assumed expansion history, the derived correction to ν_b, and a direct comparison of that correction against the ±83 GHz measurement uncertainty. This will allow readers to evaluate the magnitude of the effect independently. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of B from cooling break

full rationale

The paper measures integrated FIR flux and spectral indices directly from Herschel and radio data, fits an external broken-power-law model (with fixed Δα=0.5) to extract ν_b, then inserts ν_b into the standard synchrotron cooling formula B∝(ν_b t_age²)^(-1/3) taken from the literature. None of these steps reduces the final B≳100 μG claim to a fitted parameter or self-citation by the paper's own equations; the result remains an application of independent physics to new observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the standard synchrotron cooling-break model (continuous injection, Δα = 0.5) and the conventional formula relating break frequency to magnetic field; no new entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron cooling under continuous energy injection produces a spectral-index change of exactly Δα = 0.5
    Invoked to interpret the difference between radio (α = 0.66) and FIR (α = 1.32) indices as a cooling break.
  • domain assumption The standard relation between synchrotron break frequency, magnetic field, and electron lifetime applies without significant modification by adiabatic losses or source inhomogeneity
    Used to convert the fitted ν_b = 218 GHz into B ≳ 100 μG.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5932 in / 1572 out tokens · 33118 ms · 2026-06-28T21:09:34.893702+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJL, 853, L29,

    Aab, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 853, L29,

    2018

  2. [2]

    2025, Phys

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 031001,

    2025

  3. [3]

    U., Abe, Y ., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al

    Abbasi, R. U., Abe, Y ., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 133, 041001, Abdul Halim, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 022,

    2024

  4. [4]

    G., Anton, G., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Anton, G., et al. 2009, ApJL, 695, L40,

    2009

  5. [5]

    W., Dunn, R

    Allen, S. W., Dunn, R. J. H., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G. B., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 21,

    2006

  6. [6]

    Auld, R., Smith, M. W. L., Bendo, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1882,

    2012

  7. [7]

    2003, ApJ, 589, 827,

    Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., & Koyama, K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 827,

    2003

  8. [8]

    L., & Grindlay, J

    Band, D. L., & Grindlay, J. E. 1985, ApJ, 298, 128,

    1985

  9. [9]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255,

    1984

  10. [10]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 147,

    1978

  11. [11]

    M., Mushotzky, R., et al

    Bogensberger, D., Miller, J. M., Mushotzky, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 307,

    2024

  12. [12]

    H., Lawrence, C

    Brookes, M. H., Lawrence, C. R., Keene, J., et al. 2006, ApJL, 646, L41,

    2006

  13. [13]

    Brunetti, G., Cappi, M., Setti, G., Feretti, L., & Harris, D. E. 2001, A&A, 372, 755,

    2001

  14. [14]

    O., Feigelson, E

    Burns, J. O., Feigelson, E. D., & Schreier, E. J. 1983, ApJ, 273, 128,

    1983

  15. [15]

    L., Perley, R

    Carilli, C. L., Perley, R. A., Dreher, J. W., & Leahy, J. P. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, 383, 554,

    1991

  16. [16]

    A., Burns, J

    Clarke, D. A., Burns, J. O., & Norman, M. L. 1992, ApJ, 395, 444,

    1992

  17. [17]

    J., Helou, G., Sanders, D

    Condon, J. J., Helou, G., Sanders, D. B., & Soifer, B. T. 1996, ApJS, 103, 81,

    1996

  18. [18]

    H., Kraft, R

    Croston, J. H., Kraft, R. P., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1999, de Oliveira, C., Matthews, J. H., & de Souza, V . 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3697,

    2009

  19. [19]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241,

    2003

  20. [20]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P,

    1974

  21. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 84,

    Fraschetti, F. 2013, ApJ, 770, 84,

    2013

  22. [22]

    M., et al

    Glenn, J., Meixner, M., Bradford, C. M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical

    2025

  23. [23]

    1966, Phys

    Greisen, K. 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, 748,

    1966

  24. [24]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al

    Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3,

    2010

  25. [25]

    J., North, C

    Griffin, M. J., North, C. E., Schulz, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 992, H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Adam, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 356,

    2013

  26. [26]

    2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2006, 012,

    Harari, D., Mollerach, S., & Roulet, E. 2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2006, 012,

    2006

  27. [27]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 133,

    2011

  28. [28]

    J., Harris, D

    Hardcastle, M. J., Harris, D. E., Worrall, D. M., & Birkinshaw, M. 2004, ApJ, 612, 729,

    2004

  29. [29]

    J., Kraft, R

    Hardcastle, M. J., Kraft, R. P., & Worrall, D. M. 2006, MNRAS, 368, L15,

    2006

  30. [30]

    J., Worrall, D

    Hardcastle, M. J., Worrall, D. M., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 169,

    2003

  31. [31]

    E., & Grindlay, J

    Harris, D. E., & Grindlay, J. E. 1979, MNRAS, 188, 25,

    1979

  32. [32]

    J., Hardcastle, M

    Harwood, J. J., Hardcastle, M. J., Croston, J. H., & Goodger, J. L. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3353,

    2013

  33. [33]

    Hillas, A. M. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 425,

    1984

  34. [34]

    R., Johnson, M

    Hunt, L. R., Johnson, M. C., Cigan, P. J., Gordon, D., & Spitzak, J. 2021, AJ, 162, 121,

    2021

  35. [35]

    1996, ApJ, 463, 555, 1 https://archives.esac.esa.int/hsa/whsa/ 2 https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/

    Inoue, S., & Takahara, F. 1996, ApJ, 463, 555, 1 https://archives.esac.esa.int/hsa/whsa/ 2 https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/

    1996

  36. [36]

    2011, ApJ, 734, 77,

    Inoue, T., Asano, K., & Ioka, K. 2011, ApJ, 734, 77,

    2011

  37. [37]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 825,

    Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2009, ApJ, 695, 825,

    2009

  38. [38]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 193,

    Isobe, N., Koyama, S., Kino, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 193,

    2017

  39. [39]

    2005, ApJ, 632, 781,

    Isobe, N., Makishima, K., Tashiro, M., & Hong, S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 781,

    2005

  40. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 76,

    Isobe, N., Nagai, H., Kino, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 76,

    2023

  41. [41]

    2025, Journal of Astronomical

    Isobe, N., Nakagawa, T., Kino, M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical

    2025

  42. [42]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 17,

    Isobe, N., Sunada, Y ., Kino, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 17,

    2020

  43. [43]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L111,

    Isobe, N., Tashiro, M., Makishima, K., et al. 2002, ApJL, 580, L111,

    2002

  44. [44]

    Israel, F. P. 1998, A&AR, 8, 237,

    1998

  45. [45]

    2008, ApJ, 685, 828,

    Ito, H., Kino, M., Kawakatu, N., Isobe, N., & Yamada, S. 2008, ApJ, 685, 828,

    2008

  46. [46]

    Jamrozy, M., Konar, C., Machalski, J., & Saikia, D. J. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1286,

    2008

  47. [47]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017,

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017,

    2021

  48. [48]

    P., Ruszkowski, M., & Markevitch, M

    Ji, S., Oh, S. P., Ruszkowski, M., & Markevitch, M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3989,

    2016

  49. [49]

    2005, ApJ, 622, 797,

    Kataoka, J., & Stawarz, Ł. 2005, ApJ, 622, 797,

    2005

  50. [50]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 158,

    Kataoka, J., Stawarz, Ł., Aharonian, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 158,

    2006

  51. [51]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 1124,

    Kawakatu, N., Kino, M., & Takahara, F. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1124,

    2016

  52. [52]

    Kim, H. B. 2013, ApJ, 764, 121,

    2013

  53. [53]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 101,

    Kino, M., Kawakatu, N., & Takahara, F. 2012, ApJ, 751, 101,

    2012

  54. [54]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 336,

    Kino, M., & Takahara, F. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 336,

    2004

  55. [55]

    G., & Duffy, P

    Kirk, J. G., & Duffy, P. 1999, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 25, R163,

    1999

  56. [56]

    Kotera, K., & Olinto, A. V . 2011, ARA&A, 49, 119,

    2011

  57. [57]

    P., Forman, W

    Kraft, R. P., Forman, W. R., Jones, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 54,

    2002

  58. [58]

    P., Vázquez, S

    Kraft, R. P., Vázquez, S. E., Forman, W. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 129,

    2003

  59. [59]

    P., Nulsen, P

    Kraft, R. P., Nulsen, P. E. J., Birkinshaw, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1129,

    2007

  60. [60]

    H., Bell, A

    Matthews, J. H., Bell, A. R., Blundell, K. M., & Araudo, A. T. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L76,

    2018

  61. [61]

    G., & Roeser, H

    Meisenheimer, K., Yates, M. G., & Roeser, H. J. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 325, 57

    1997

  62. [62]

    1980, ARA&A, 18, 165,

    Miley, G. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 165,

    1980

  63. [63]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 62,

    Mizuno, Y ., Pohl, M., Niemiec, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 62,

    2011

  64. [64]

    2022, Phys

    Mollerach, S., & Roulet, E. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 063001, —. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063030,

    2022

  65. [65]

    V ., Stawarz, L., Porter, T

    Moskalenko, I. V ., Stawarz, L., Porter, T. A., & Cheung, C. C. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1261,

    2009

  66. [66]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources

    1970

  67. [67]

    J., Wilson, C

    Parkin, T. J., Wilson, C. D., Foyle, K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2291,

    2012

  68. [68]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, Pierre Auger Collaboration, Abraham, J., Abreu, P., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 938,

    2017

  69. [69]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2,

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2,

    2010

  70. [70]

    E., Combi, J

    Romero, G. E., Combi, J. A., Perez Bergliaffa, S. E., & Anchordoqui, L. A. 1996, Astroparticle Physics, 5, 279,

    1996

  71. [71]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 126,

    Sano, T., Nishihara, K., Matsuoka, C., & Inoue, T. 2012, ApJ, 758, 126,

    2012

  72. [72]

    S., et al

    Sunada, Y ., Isobe, N., Tashiro, M. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5995,

    2022

  73. [73]

    J., & Lenc, E

    Tingay, S. J., & Lenc, E. 2009, AJ, 138, 808,

    2009

  74. [74]

    2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 392,

    Tkachev, I., et al. 2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 392,

    2021

  75. [75]

    A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y

    Uchiyama, Y ., Aharonian, F. A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y . 2007, Nature, 449, 576,

    2007

  76. [76]

    M., Cheung, C

    Uchiyama, Y ., Urry, C. M., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 910,

    2006

  77. [77]

    Vink, J., & Laming, J. M. 2003, ApJ, 584, 758, Weiß, A., Kovács, A., Güsten, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 490, 77,

    2003

  78. [78]

    T., & Kuz’min, V

    Zatsepin, G. T., & Kuz’min, V . A. 1966, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 4, 78

    1966