Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 55 references

Examining Turbulence in Galactic Molecular Clouds -- I: A Statistical Analysis of Velocity Structures

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 60% of 167 Galactic molecular clouds have velocity structure functions with power-law scaling whose relative exponents agree with the B02 model of compressible intermittent turbulence.

desk verdict Largest direct VSF catalog of molecular clouds to date; the B02 intermittency claim is plausible but rests on unvalidated projection/density-weighting assumptions and a soft power-law classification. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11859 v1 pith:23FM43RE submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.GA

Yuehui Ma , Miaomiao Zhang , Hongchi Wang , Min Fang , Zhenyi Yue , Xuepeng Chen , Ji Yang , Fujun Du
show 9 more authors
Yang Su Suziye He Haoran Feng Yan Sun Chong Li Qing-Zeng Yan Zhiwei Chen Shaobo Zhang Xin Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords velocitystructurefunctionsmolecularcloudsinterstellarturbulenceintermittency13COemissionMWISPsurveycolumndensityweightingGalacticmid-plane
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 aims to establish that molecular clouds in the Galactic plane are, by and large, genuine turbulent flows rather than purely gravitationally collapsing structures. Using 13CO line data for 167 clouds from the MWISP survey, it computes first- to third-order velocity structure functions and reports that 60% of them show significant power-law behavior over roughly 0.1 to 10 pc. The relative scaling exponents of these power laws agree closely with the B02 model, an intermittency model for supersonic turbulence based on sheet-like shocks, which the paper interprets as evidence that turbulence in these clouds is driven by large-scale external processes. The remaining 40% of clouds deviate from power-law shapes, and the scaling coefficients scatter widely, indicating that local environments and driving sources vary from cloud to cloud.

What carries the argument

The operative quantity is the velocity structure function $S_p(l) = \langle |v_x - v_{x+l}|^p \rangle$, computed from a gradient-corrected, intensity-weighted centroid-velocity map of 13CO. The quantitative standard is the B02 scaling relation $\zeta_p = p/9 + [1 - (1/3)^{p/3}]$, an intermittency model for supersonic turbulence in which the most dissipative structures are sheet-like shocks. To decide which VSFs qualify as power laws, the paper fits straight lines in log-log space and demands that the fitted range cover at least 70% of the available logarithmic lag interval; the relative exponent $Z_p = \zeta_p/\zeta_3$ is the diagnostic that isolates the shape of the cascade from overall normalization.

What would settle it

Recompute the VSFs for the same 167 clouds using an optically thinner line such as C18O, or with a quadratic rather than linear gradient subtraction; if the significant-power-law fraction falls below roughly 40% or the relative exponents shift away from the B02 predictions, the agreement is an artifact of the tracer or the detrending.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the velocity fields of molecular clouds carry the statistical signature of developed, intermittent turbulence. For 167 clouds selected from the MWISP survey, the authors build centroid-velocity maps from 13CO emission, subtract a fitted linear gradient, and compute the first- to third-order velocity structure functions. They classify 100 clouds (60%) as having significant power-law VSFs, with median exponents $\zeta_1=0.57$, $\zeta_2=1.01$, and $\zeta_3=1.30$; the absolute values exceed all standard model predictions, but the relative exponents $Z_p=\zeta_p/\zeta_3$ stay within a few percent of the B02 predictions. Column-density-weighted VSFs are steeper and less often power-law, implying that turbulent energy is preferentially dissipated in high-density regions. All clouds show small-scale intermittency, with slightly stronger intermittency among clouds whose VSFs deviate from power laws, and no negative VSF exponents or correlations with virial parameters are found.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the intensity-weighted centroid velocity of 13CO, after subtracting only a linear gradient, faithfully represents the true turbulent velocity field, so that the measured VSF exponents can be compared quantitatively with a model of three-dimensional velocity statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 60% power-law fraction is a lower bound on turbulence-dominated clouds; the remaining 40% implies that local environments measurably disturb the velocity field.
  • The steepening of column-density-weighted VSFs implies that turbulent energy is reduced in dense clumps and cores, which bears on how turbulence supports these regions against gravity.
  • The absence of negative VSF exponents and the null correlation with virial parameters imply that gravity-dominated scales are not resolved or not dominant at cloud scales, directing future work to sub-parsec studies.
  • Consistent relative exponents across clouds support large-scale external driving, while the roughly 59% scatter in the scaling coefficient suggests different energy injection rates among clouds.
  • Universal small-scale intermittency, quantified by velocity-increment kurtosis, connects cloud turbulence to shock-dominated dissipation in the interstellar medium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to measure the same VSFs using C18O or an optically thin tracer; a shift in exponents would show that the 13CO centroid-velocity proxy, rather than the turbulence itself, produces part of the deviation from the B02 absolute exponents.
  • The anti-correlation between $\zeta_3$ and small-scale kurtosis hints that some of the exponent spread is an observational sampling effect, so higher-resolution maps of the same clouds should pull $\zeta_3$ closer to the model's $\zeta_3=1$.
  • The classification scheme could be calibrated by running the identical pipeline on synthetic 13CO observations of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence simulations; matching the 60% fraction would validate the criterion.
  • Separating the sample by star-formation activity, since the Rosette, Sh2-152, and W3-W4-W5 complexes appear among the non-power-law clouds, could test whether stellar feedback is the local driver that breaks power-law scaling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical analysis of first- to third-order velocity structure functions (VSFs) for 167 molecular clouds identified in 13CO MWISP data across three Galactic mid-plane sectors. The authors compute VSFs from intensity-weighted centroid velocity maps after subtracting a fitted linear gradient, classify each cloud's VSF as having significant, moderate, or no power-law behavior, and compare fitted exponents to the Kolmogorov (K41), She-Leveque (SL94), and Boldyrev (B02) predictions. They also compute column-density-weighted VSFs, characterize small-scale intermittency via velocity-increment kurtosis, and examine correlations with cloud distance, mass, radius, and virial parameter. The headline claims are that about 60% of the unweighted VSFs show significant power laws, that the relative exponents Zp = ζp/ζ3 are consistent with the B02 intermittency model, and that the lack of negative slopes and the lack of correlation with virial parameter suggest gravity-dominated scales are not detected in this sample, favoring large-scale external driving with non-universal energy sources.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be one of the largest direct VSF analyses of Galactic molecular clouds, providing a statistical test of intermittency models on a sample far larger than earlier direct studies. Strengths of the paper include a transparent, reproducible algorithmic pipeline; a per-cloud table of physical and VSF parameters (Table 2); and a parameter-free comparison of measured exponents with fixed theoretical predictions rather than fitting model parameters to the data. The main weaknesses are that the observed VSF observable (a line-of-sight, density-weighted centroid velocity) is compared directly to 3D turbulence models without synthetic-observation validation, and that the power-law classification relies on arbitrary thresholds with no null tests. These issues affect the force of the headline consistency claim but are addressable with additional analysis rather than being irreparable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (4)–(6); §4.2; Table 1] The central comparison to the B02 model (Eq. 3) treats the gradient-subtracted, intensity-weighted centroid velocity of 13CO as a faithful proxy for the 3D turbulent velocity field, but B02 predicts scaling exponents for 3D velocity increments. The quantity defined in Eq. (4) is a line-of-sight, density-weighted projection, and the paper does not present synthetic observations or radiative-transfer tests showing that this observable recovers the 3D scaling, especially for the ratio ζp/ζ3. The absolute mismatch is large: the mean ζ3 = 1.34 in Table 1 is roughly 34% above the B02 prediction of 1.00. Section 4.1 argues from Fig. 9 that undersampling inflates ζ3, but that is only a correlation with kurtosis and pixel number, not a quantitative correction; if the bias is not a pure multiplicative factor, the relative exponents are also biased. The claim that the observed relative exponents are consistent with B02 is therefore not yet established without an explicit validation of the projection/density-weighting step.
  2. [§2.4 and §3.1] The power-law classification uses R^2 > 0.99 as the threshold for a candidate fitting range and the broadest-range selection per order, with significance defined by the fraction of the logarithmic lag range (≥0.7 for 'S'). These thresholds are ad hoc, and no null tests are provided: it is not shown what fraction of noise-dominated or non-turbulent velocity fields would be classified as 'S' by this procedure. For clouds with small pixel numbers, short fitting ranges can achieve R^2 > 0.99 trivially, so the reported 60% fraction may be optimistic. The paper should include synthetic velocity fields or bootstrap resampling to calibrate the false-positive rate and to propagate uncertainties in ζp into the classification.
  3. [§3.2, Table 1] The discrimination among intermittency models is weaker than implied by the text. For p = 1 and 2, the B02 predictions (Z1 = 0.42, Z2 = 0.74) are close to the SL94 predictions (0.36, 0.70) and even to K41 (0.33, 0.67). The observed means Z1 = 0.43 ± 0.07 and Z2 = 0.77 ± 0.06 are within roughly one standard deviation of all three models, so the data do not uniquely select B02. The conclusion that the velocity fields specifically support sheet-like shocks (B02) over other intermittency models is overstated; a more conservative statement would be consistency with a range of intermittent turbulence models.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.2] The text reports "median values" of ζ1, ζ2, ζ3 as 0.57, 1.01, and 1.30, while Table 1 lists the means as 0.57, 1.02, and 1.34; please clarify which statistic is being reported.
  2. [§3.2] The sentence stating that Z1 and Z2 differ from B02 by 12% and 7% is inconsistent with Table 1, which gives differences of about 2% and 4%; please check the calculation or the table.
  3. [§2.4, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) uses the column density NH2 without specifying how it is derived; please state the conversion from 13CO integrated intensity and any assumptions about excitation temperature and optical depth.
  4. [§2.4] The description of the VSF computation ("selects all possible data pairs") does not state how pixels outside the cloud footprint or edge effects are treated; please specify the masking procedure.
  5. [Figure 2] Panel (e) shows an N-category VSF with no fitted exponents listed, while other panels list them; add a note that N-category VSFs are not fitted.
  6. [§3.2] The manuscript acknowledges in §3.2 that higher-order structure functions are needed for a robust intermittency exponent; this is an appropriate limitation but should be reflected in the abstract and conclusion wording, which currently state the B02 consistency more strongly than the order of the data supports.
  7. [Abstract and §2.2] The abstract says the sample has angular sizes greater than ~176 arcmin^2, while §2.2 says projected angular radii greater than 15 pixels; please verify the equivalence or explain the conversion.
  8. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent for the same author (e.g., "Mac Low, M.-M. 2004" in the reference list vs. "MacLow (2004)" in the text); please unify the author name style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VSF exponents are compared to fixed external turbulence predictions, with no model parameter fitted to the data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: centroid velocity maps (Eq. 4), gradient subtraction (Eqs. 5-6), VSF moments (Eq. 1), power-law fitting over a common range, and comparison of the resulting exponents (and ratios Zp = zeta_p/zeta_3) with the fixed K41, SL94, and B02 predictions. No step defines the measured quantity in terms of the model prediction, and no model parameter is fitted to the data. Equations (2) and (3) are external analytic formulas with fixed constants; the relative exponents are constructed from the measured zeta_p and zeta_3, not from the model. The self-citations (Yan et al. 2021 for the 12CO cloud catalog; Ma et al. 2021, 2022 for column-density PDFs and physical parameters) supply inputs for sample selection and contextual correlations, but they are not fitted to the VSF exponents and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The projection and density-weighting concern noted for Eqs. 4-6 is an assumption about tracer fidelity; even if it weakens the physical interpretation, it is a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction. The paper also explicitly flags sampling and high-order VSF limitations (Sections 3.2 and 4.1) without using those limitations to define the result. No equation was found that reduces to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-chosen classification thresholds and on the observational proxy assumption that centroid velocity faithful to 3D turbulence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law significance thresholds = 0.7 and 0.5 fractional log-lag coverage
    The fraction of the log-lag range covered by the broadest R^2 > 0.99 power-law fit is used to classify VSF as significant (>=0.7), moderate (>=0.5), or none (<0.5). These thresholds are chosen by hand and directly determine the reported 60% / 24% / 16% fractions. A different threshold would change the headline percentages.
  • R^2 threshold for power-law fit selection = 0.99
    Only fitting ranges with R^2 > 0.99 are considered when selecting the broadest power-law range. This choice affects which clouds are classified as power-law and the fitted exponents. It is chosen by hand and not justified statistically.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Centroid velocity from 13CO emission traces the turbulent velocity field of molecular gas
    The paper defines the centroid velocity (Eq. 4) as the expectation of radial velocity along the line of sight and treats it as the turbulent velocity. Projection and line-of-sight averaging can modify the scaling statistics. Invoked in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Subtracting a linear gradient removes all large-scale non-turbulent motions, leaving a turbulence-only velocity field
    The paper fits a plane (Eq. 5) and subtracts it (Eq. 6) to obtain fluctuation velocities, assuming no higher-order gradients remain or affect the VSF. Non-linear gradients could bias the VSF at large lags. Invoked in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The B02 intermittency model, derived for 3D compressible turbulence, is directly applicable to observed line-of-sight centroid velocity statistics
    The comparison of measured ζ_p/ζ_3 to B02 predictions assumes that projection, opacity, and density weighting do not systematically alter the scaling exponents. This is not validated with synthetic observations. Used in Sections 3.2 and 4.3.
  • domain assumption 13CO is optically thin enough that centroid velocities are not significantly biased by opacity
    The paper uses 13CO as a tracer and argues in Section 4.2 that opacity broadening does not significantly impact centroid velocity measurements. This is essential for the interpretation of the VSF exponents.
  • domain assumption Kinematic distances with the Reid et al. (2019) rotation curve are accurate enough for physical scale conversions
    Distances are used to convert angular lags to physical pc scales and to compute cloud masses and radii. Distance uncertainties directly propagate into the VSF exponents and the comparison ranges. Invoked in Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examining Turbulence in Galactic Molecular Clouds -- I: A Statistical Analysis of Velocity Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23FM43RE

@misc{pith2026250111859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examining Turbulence in Galactic Molecular Clouds -- I: A Statistical Analysis of Velocity Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23FM43RE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11859}
}
abstract

We present a systematic analysis of the velocity structure functions (VSFs) of 167 molecular clouds with angular sizes greater than $\sim$176 arcmin$^2$ in three sectors of the Galactic mid-plane. We calculated the 1st- to 3rd-order VSFs and found that 60\% of the VSFs exhibit power-law distributions. The relative power-law exponents are consistent with predictions from intermittent turbulence models. Column density weighting reduces the proportion of power-law VSFs and steepens the VSF slopes, implying a reduction of turbulent energy in high-density regions. All clouds show small-scale intermittency, with slightly stronger intermittency in those molecular clouds showing none power-law VSFs. Negative VSF exponents that may indicate gravitational collapse are not observed in our sample. The scaling exponents of the observed VSFs do not correlate with the virial parameters of the molecular clouds. These two observations suggest that gravity-dominated scales in molecular clouds still need further investigation. Consistent VSF scaling exponents for the molecular clouds with significant power-law VSFs suggest large-scale external driving of turbulence in these molecular clouds. However, the driving mechanisms are likely not universal, as the power-law scaling coefficients in our results show relatively large scatter. The fact that nearly 40\% of the VSFs deviate to some extent from power-law distributions suggests that the influence of local environments on the internal turbulence of molecular clouds may not be negligible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Intensity-weighted centroid velocity map of the 13CO structures identified within the boundary of the G133.616+00.783-045.13 molecular cloud. Middle: Fitted velocity plane of the centroid velocity map, representing large-scale global velocity gradients fitted through Eq. 5. Right: Gradient corrected velocity map used for VSF calculation. map. Then, the fluctuation velocity field is v ′ = ¯v − v¯fit. (6) Althou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of VSFs in the “S” (a, b), “M” (c, d), and “N” (e, f) categories, respectively. The dashed lines overlaid on the VSFs in each panel represent the power-law fittings of the VSFs. The range of the fitted lines covers the common fitting range of the 1st-3rd order VSFs. The orders and the fitted power-law exponents of the VSFs are labeled in each panel. The vertical grey dashed line and blue dashed line show th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VSFs of the 167 molecular clouds, with the first to third rows corresponding to the first to third orders, respectively. From left to right, each column represents the S, M, and N categories, respectively. The colors of the VSFs are random, representing different molecular clouds, but within the first to third-order panels in each column, the VSF of the same molecular cloud is represented by the same color. The VSF … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of the fitted power-law exponents of the VSFs in the “S” category, with the top to bottom panels corresponding to the first to third order VSFs, respectively. The theoretical predictions on the exponents are marked as vertical solid lines. The vertical dashe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of (a) ζp and (b) Zp as a function of spatial lags for the VSFs in the S category. The markers show the average ζp of the power-law exponents of the VSFs within the lag interval shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PDFs of the velocity increments at different lags of example molecular clouds in the “S” (a, b), “M” (c, d), and “N” (e, f) categories, respectively. The example molecular clouds are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Histogram of the kurtosis at the smallest lag of the 167 molecular clouds, overlaid with the cumulative distribution function of the distribution. (b) Complementary cumulative distribution function of the kurtosis for molecular clouds in the S, M, and N categories,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Violin plots of the (a) kinematic distance, (b) mass, (c) effective radius for molecular clouds in different VSF categories. The shaded areas represent the probability distribution of the corresponding physical quantity. White dots indicate the median values, thick bla…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relationship between the power-law exponents of the third-order VSFs and the kurtosis of velocity increments at smallest lags. The markers are weighted by the number of spatial pixels of the molecular clouds. tions. Our inference is consistent with the numerical simula…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relationship between the power-law exponents of the first- to third-order VSFs and the virial parameters of the molecular clouds in the S category. ing relations for hundreds of Galactic molecular clouds, suggesting that large-scale external forces drive turbu￾lence a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relationship between (a) kurtosis (κ) and the kinematic distance for the three categories of molecu￾lar clouds and between (b) the power-law exponents of the first- to third-order VSFs and the kinematic distances for molecular clouds in the S category. The Pearson cor…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., & Antonia, R

    Anselmet, F., Gagne, Y., Hopfinger, E. J., & Antonia, R. A. 1984, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 140, 63, doi: 10.1017/S0022112084000513

    doi:10.1017/s0022112084000513 1984

  2. [2]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 63, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603357

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603357 2007

  3. [3]

    Klessen, R. S. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1082, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15115.x

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    K., & Townsend, A

    Batchelor, G. K., & Townsend, A. A. 1949, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 199, 238, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1949.0136

    arXiv 1949

  5. [5]

    2002, ApJ, 569, 841, doi: 10.1086/339403

    Boldyrev, S. 2002, ApJ, 569, 841, doi: 10.1086/339403

    doi:10.1086/339403 2002

  6. [6]

    2002, ApJ, 573, 678, doi: 10.1086/340758

    Boldyrev, S., Nordlund, ˚A., & Padoan, P. 2002, ApJ, 573, 678, doi: 10.1086/340758

    work page doi:10.1086/340758 2002

  7. [7]

    M., Heyer, M

    Brunt, C. M., Heyer, M. H., & Mac Low, M. M. 2009, A&A, 504, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911797

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911797 2009

  8. [8]

    2021, PASP, 133, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac25cf

    Burkhart, B. 2021, PASP, 133, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac25cf

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac25cf 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 304, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/12/304

    Cai, J.-J., Yang, J., Zheng, S., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 304, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/12/304

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, A&A, 630, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833970

    Henning, T. 2019, A&A, 630, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833970

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    W., & Basu, S

    DeMarco, A. W., & Basu, S. 2017, PhRvE, 95, 052114, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.052114 Dudok de Wit, T. 2004, PhRvE, 70, 055302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.055302

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    1996, in

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., Xu, X., et al. 1996, in

    1996

  5. [13]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M. M. 2010, A&A, 512, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139170666

    1995 doi

  7. [15]

    L., & Nelkin, M

    Frisch, U., Sulem, P. L., & Nelkin, M. 1978, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 87, 719, doi: 10.1017/S0022112078001846

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    G., & Henriksen, R

    Gill, A. G., & Henriksen, R. N. 1990, ApJL, 365, L27, doi: 10.1086/185880

    1990 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Pineda, J

    Goodman, A. A., Pineda, J. E., & Schnee, S. L. 2009, ApJ, 692, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/91

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Kruijssen, J

    Henshaw, J. D., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1064, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1126-z

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    H., & Brunt, C

    Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M. 2004, ApJL, 615, L45, doi: 10.1086/425978

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    H., & Peter Schloerb, F

    Heyer, M. H., & Peter Schloerb, F. 1997, ApJ, 475, 173, doi: 10.1086/303514

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, A&A, 481, 367, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078423

    Hily-Blant, P., Falgarone, E., & Pety, J. 2008, A&A, 481, 367, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078423

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Hu, Y., Federrath, C., Xu, S., & Mathew, S. S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac972 Jim´ enez, J. 1998, European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids, 17, 405, doi: 10.1016/S0997-7546(98)80002-2

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Joung, M. K. R., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1266, doi: 10.1086/508795

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941b, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 32, 16 —. 1962, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 13, 82, doi: 10.1017/S0022112062000518

    1962 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Norman, M

    Kritsuk, A. G., Norman, M. L., Padoan, P., & Wagner, R. 2007, ApJ, 665, 416, doi: 10.1086/519443

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad963

    Li, C., Wang, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad963

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Pety, J., Phillips, T

    Lis, D. C., Pety, J., Phillips, T. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 463, 623, doi: 10.1086/177276

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe85c

    Ma, Y., Wang, H., Li, C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe85c

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7797 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R

    Ma, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7797 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of modern physics, 76, 125 Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., Burkert, A., & Smith, M. D. 1998, PhRvL, 80, 2754, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2754

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2004, Ap&SS, 289, 323, doi: 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014961.72318.7c

    MacLow, M.-M. 2004, Ap&SS, 289, 323, doi: 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014961.72318.7c

    2004

  23. [31]

    Meneveau, C., & Sreenivasan, K. R. 1991, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 224, 429, doi: 10.1017/S0022112091001830

    1991 doi

  24. [32]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/67

    Moeckel, N., & Burkert, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/67

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2008a, A&A, 485, 917, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079106 —

    Ossenkopf, V., Krips, M., & Stutzki, J. 2008a, A&A, 485, 917, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079106 —. 2008b, A&A, 485, 719, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079107

    doi

  26. [34]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 308, doi: 10.1086/345351

    Padoan, P., Boldyrev, S., Langer, W., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2003, ApJ, 583, 308, doi: 10.1086/345351

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    2004, PhRvL, 92, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.191102

    Padoan, P., Jimenez, R., Nordlund, ˚A., & Boldyrev, S. 2004, PhRvL, 92, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.191102

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40 26 Ma et al

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40 26 Ma et al

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    2003, A&A, 412, 417, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031474

    Pety, J., & Falgarone, E. 2003, A&A, 412, 417, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031474

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    Pope, S. B. 2001, Measurement Science and Technology, 12, 2020, doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/12/11/705

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Richardson, L. F. 1922, Weather prediction by numerical process (University Press)

    1922

  33. [41]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/120

    Roman-Duval, J., Federrath, C., Brunt, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/120

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Schertzer, D., & Lovejoy, S. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 9693, doi: 10.1029/JD092iD08p09693

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    Niemeyer, J. C. 2009, A&A, 494, 127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809967

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, 2, 593, doi: 10.1109/TTHZ.2012.2213818

    Shan, W., Yang, J., Shi, S., et al. 2012, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, 2, 593, doi: 10.1109/TTHZ.2012.2213818

    2012

  37. [45]

    1994, PhRvL, 72, 336, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.336

    She, Z.-S., & Leveque, E. 1994, PhRvL, 72, 336, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.336

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    S., & Swinney, H

    She, Z.-S., Ren, K., Lewis, G. S., & Swinney, H. L. 2001, PhRvE, 64, 016308, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016308

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    She, Z.-S., & Waymire, E. C. 1995, PhRvL, 74, 262, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.262

    1995 doi

  40. [48]

    2009, Acta Mechanica Sinica, 25, 279, doi: 10.1007/s10409-009-0257-3

    She, Z.-S., & Zhang, Z.-X. 2009, Acta Mechanica Sinica, 25, 279, doi: 10.1007/s10409-009-0257-3

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3313

    Stewart, M., & Federrath, C. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3313

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    Su, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    1994, ApJ, 423, 681, doi: 10.1086/173847 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Klessen, R

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1994, ApJ, 423, 681, doi: 10.1086/173847 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Klessen, R. S. 2003, ApJL, 585, L131, doi: 10.1086/374325 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., G´ omez, G. C., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2019, MN...

    1994 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    1991, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 225, 1, doi: 10.1017/S0022112091001957

    Vincent, A., & Meneguzzi, M. 1991, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 225, 1, doi: 10.1017/S0022112091001957

    1991 doi

  45. [53]

    V., Balser, D

    Wenger, T. V., Balser, D. S., Anderson, L. D., & Bania, T. M. 2018, ApJ, 856, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaec8

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9c

    Yan, Q.-Z., Yang, J., Su, Y., Sun, Y., & Wang, C. 2020, ApJ, 898, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9c

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214f

    Yan, Q.-Z., Yang, J., Su, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214f

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.