Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Magnetic fields in the Eos Cloud: dynamically important fields in the interface between atomic and molecular gas

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the magnetic field in the nearby starless Eos cloud is dynamically important: it is aligned with the cloud's structure, sub-Alfvénic, and magnetically subcritical, with field strengths of about 6 µG in Eos and 12 µG…

desk verdict First magnetic-field study of the new Eos cloud: the qualitative claim that B is dynamically important holds up, but the quantitative DCF numbers depend on an adopted linewidth, not a measured one. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17855 v3 pith:FYC4N5AL submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.GA

Janik Karoly , Kate Pattle , Blakesley Burkhart , Thavisha Dharmawardena , B-G Andersson , Thomas J. Haworth This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords magneticfieldsmolecularcloudsdustpolarimetrycoldneutralmediuminterstellarstarformationDavis-Chandrasekhar-FermimethodEoscloud
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that magnetic fields are dynamically important throughout the Eos cloud, a nearby (94 pc), CO-dark, starless molecular cloud at the atomic-to-molecular interface. Using Planck dust-emission polarimetry and optical starlight polarization, the authors find a well-ordered magnetic field aligned with the cloud's major axis, with a plane-of-sky strength of about 6±3 µG across Eos and 12±4 µG in the denser MBM 40 clump. They show that the cloud is sub-Alfvénic and magnetically subcritical by several independent diagnostics. If the result holds, it supports the view that low-density clouds can form from a magnetically subcritical cold neutral medium and that magnetic fields can keep such clouds from forming stars.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi (DCF) method, which estimates the plane-of-sky magnetic field strength from the dispersion of polarization position angles, the gas density, and the non-thermal velocity dispersion, after a structure-function fit separates turbulent from large-scale field variation. A histogram of relative orientation (HRO) quantifies whether the magnetic field runs parallel or perpendicular to contours of column density, and the mass-to-flux ratio and Alfvénic Mach number turn the field strength and alignment into statements about dynamical support against gravity and turbulence.

What would settle it

Measure the velocity dispersion of molecular gas directly within the Eos cloud, for example with deep CO (1-0) or OH emission/absorption observations, along with an accurate gas temperature. If the derived non-thermal linewidth is well below 2.5 km/s, the DCF field strength falls below ~3 µG and the cloud would no longer be sub-Alfvénic or magnetically subcritical, contradicting the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic field in Eos and MBM 40 is dynamically important by every metric the authors apply: the field is preferentially parallel to the cloud's density structure, the gas is sub-Alfvénic, the mass-to-flux ratio is strongly subcritical, and the inferred field strength does not vary with gas density. The histogram of relative orientation shows a parallel alignment across nearly all column densities, with the mean field angle (163.5° east of north) matching the cloud's major axis (≈165°). The Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi analysis yields plane-of-sky field strengths of 6.0±3.4 µG for Eos and 12.0±4.3 µG for MBM 40, giving Alfvénic Mach numbers of 0.38±0.17 and 0.3±0.1 and mass-to-flux ratios of 0.10±0.07 and 0.10±0.05, respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the non-thermal velocity dispersion of the molecular gas in Eos is about 2.5 km/s, because the DCF field strength scales linearly with that linewidth and the authors adopt it from H I observations toward MBM 40 and extend it to the entire cloud; if the true linewidth or the assumed 350 K temperature differs, the field strength and the subcritical mass-to-flux ratio change directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the field is as strong as measured, the Eos cloud is magnetically supported against gravitational collapse, explaining its lack of star formation.
  • Magnetic fields can dominate the dynamics of low-density, non-self-gravitating gas at the CNM-to-molecular transition, not just in star-forming cores.
  • The field strength being consistent between Eos and the denser MBM 40 clump supports the picture that B remains roughly constant below the density threshold where collapse begins.
  • A sub-Alfvénic, field-aligned cloud implies that gas flows along field lines, which would shape the cloud's elongated morphology and may slow its evaporation by hot surrounding gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the magnetic field is as strong as inferred, the magnetic pressure in the Local Bubble could account for the pressure balance implied by C I fine-structure lines, independent of the X-ray emitting gas.
  • A direct test would be to measure the velocity dispersion of molecular gas in Eos (for example with deep CO or OH observations); if the non-thermal linewidth is much smaller than the adopted 2.5 km/s, the DCF field strength would drop below the subcritical threshold.
  • The Eos cloud is a clean case of the parallel-alignment regime; mapping the HRO across other CO-dark clouds could test whether the transition to perpendicular alignment occurs at a universal column density.
  • The field's role in slowing cloud evaporation could be tested by comparing magnetic field morphology and temperature structure at the cloud's boundary with the hot Loop I gas.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the magnetic field of the nearby CO-dark Eos molecular cloud using Planck 353 GHz dust polarization, starlight polarization from Berdyugin et al. (2014), and GALFA-H I data. It reports a plane-of-sky field strength of B_DCF = 6.0 ± 3.4 µG for Eos and 12.0 ± 4.3 µG for the MBM 40 subregion, and finds that the field is aligned with the cloud major axis via a histogram of relative orientation analysis. The authors conclude that the magnetic field is dynamically important in every metric they consider: it is aligned with the cloud structure, magnetically subcritical (λ ≈ 0.1), sub-Alfvénic (M_A ≈ 0.3–0.4), and roughly constant with gas density, consistent with a magnetized CNM origin for the cloud. The central claim is the dynamical importance of the field at the CNM/molecular interface, with the quantitative DCF strengths used to support the subcritical and constant-field conclusions.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable addition to the small set of magnetic field measurements in CO-dark, non-star-forming clouds at the atomic-to-molecular transition. The paper has several strengths: it uses a newly identified, very nearby cloud; it combines independent starlight and dust-emission polarimetry; and it is unusually transparent about its caveats, explicitly acknowledging the absence of Planck Q/U uncertainties, the use of a uniform-sphere density estimate, and the upper-limit nature of the MBM 40 density. The HRO analysis and the consistency between optical and submillimeter polarization angles provide genuine, partially independent support for an ordered field aligned with the cloud. However, the quantitative field strengths and the sub-Alfvénic and constant-field claims rest on assumptions that are either unmeasured or degenerate with the DCF formalism, so the quantitative conclusions need substantial additional justification before the strongest claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Eq. (6)] The DCF field strength for the entire Eos cloud is not based on a measured non-thermal linewidth in Eos; the authors adopt an H I CNM linewidth of 3 ± 1 km/s from Verschuur & Magnani (1994) toward MBM 40 and extend it to the whole cloud after visual inspection of GALFA-H I cubes. Because B_DCF ∝ Δv_NT in Eq. (6), the quoted 6.0 ± 3.4 µG, the mass-to-flux ratio in Eq. (11), and the comparison with MBM 40 all scale directly with this assumed linewidth. Please provide a quantitative fit to GALFA-H I spectra within the Eos boundary, or failing that, a sensitivity analysis over a plausible range of Δv_NT and CNM temperature; without this, the formal uncertainty bars in Table 1 do not capture the dominant systematic error.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (10)] The sub-Alfvénic Mach number is not an independent diagnostic of field significance. Substituting the DCF relation into the definition of M_A cancels the density and velocity dispersion, leaving M_A proportional to σθ/Q (up to the √2 projection factor), so the result M_A ≈ 0.3–0.4 follows algebraically from the small angle dispersion used to derive B. The paper should state this degeneracy explicitly and, if possible, compute M_A directly from the measured Δv and B, or present the HRO and M_A results as mutually reinforcing but not independent.
  3. [§3.3.1 and Table 1] The claim that the magnetic field strength does not vary with gas density (Section 4.2) rests on comparing Eos at n(H2) = 0.71 cm^-3 with MBM 40 at n(H2) = 140 cm^-3, but the latter is an upper limit from an arcminute-scale PGCC clump while the DCF analysis of MBM 40 is performed over a degree-scale region. The density contrast between the two DCF measurements is therefore not established, and the constancy-with-density conclusion should be presented as tentative unless the mean density of the region actually analyzed is measured.
  4. [§3.1.1] The absence of Planck Commander Q/U uncertainties means the polarization fractions are not debiased and the position-angle dispersion σθ is formally an upper limit. Because B_DCF ∝ 1/σθ, this could bias the field strengths low. The authors acknowledge the issue, but since the paper's quantitative conclusions depend on B, the potential impact on the central results should be estimated or bounded rather than only noted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] 'One of the nearest molecular cloud' should be 'one of the nearest molecular clouds'.
  2. [§5 vs §3.1.1] The power-law index for the S–p_frac relation is reported as '-0.82 ± 0.02' in Section 3.1.1 but as '0.82' in Section 5; the sign should be consistent.
  3. [§5] 'Consistent with a picture of magnetic pressure support within the Local.' is incomplete; it should end 'Local Bubble'.
  4. [§3.1.1] The text refers to a 'linear fit of log(S) versus log(p_frac)' but then quotes a power-law index; please clarify the fitted functional form and the sign conventions used.
  5. [References] Cabral & Leedom (2023) is cited for line integral convolution; the original method is Cabral & Leedom (1993), and the citation and reference entry should be updated accordingly.
  6. [General] There are several typographical issues, including 'logarithimically' in §3.1, 'the the' in §5, and 'T able' in the Table 1 caption; these should be corrected in a final proofread.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Sub-Alfvénic Mach number is an algebraic restatement of the DCF angle dispersion, not an independent dynamical metric; the rest of the analysis is self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Eq. (10) (and Table 1)]
    "We calculate the Alfvénic Mach number as M_A = 1.74×10^{-2}√2 σθ(degree)/Q, (10) ... We find Alfvénic Mach numbers for Eos and MBM 40 of 0.38±0.17 and 0.3±0.1 respectively. In both cases M_A < 1 which suggests the clouds are sub-Alfvénic, in line with the results of the HRO analysis."

    Equation (10) is obtained by substituting the DCF field strength (Eq. 6) into the definition M_A = σ_v/v_A and cancelling n(H2) and Δv_NT; with v_A ∝ B/√ρ this leaves M_A ∝ σθ/Q (up to the quoted √2 factor). Thus M_A<1 is not an independent constraint on the dynamics: it is the small measured angle dispersion σθ=7.6° reprocessed through the DCF/Alfvén-wave relation δB/B=δv/v_A. The same σθ also enters B_DCF, which is used for the subcritical λ (Eq. 11) and for the B-vs-n comparison, so three of the four 'every metric' conclusions share the same input and model assumption. The HRO is a separate statistic, and λ retains the external linewidth assumption, so the central claim does not reduce entirely; but the sub-Alfvénic metric should not be counted as an independent confirmation.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The Eos cloud boundary, mass, distance, and non-star-forming status are taken from companion papers with overlapping authors (Burkhart et al. 2025; Saxena et al. 2025); these are observational inputs, not uniqueness theorems or unverified ansätze, and the magnetic-field analysis does not rest on them for its internal logic. The DCF field strengths (Eq. 6) use external Planck polarization, Berdyugin et al. (2014) starlight polarization, Verschuur & Magnani (1994) H i linewidths, and Dame & Thaddeus (2022) CO linewidths; no parameter is fitted to the 'dynamically important' conclusion, and the extension of the MBM 40 H i linewidth to the whole Eos cloud is an external assumption, not a fit. The one genuine circular dependency is the Alfvénic Mach number: Eq. (10) is algebraically equivalent to Eq. (6) with density and linewidth cancelled, so the sub-Alfvénic result is a restatement of the DCF angle dispersion rather than an independent dynamical metric. The HRO alignment and the subcritical mass-to-flux ratio (with its external column density) provide independent support, so the paper's central claim is not forced by the circular step. Score 3 reflects one partial, non-fatal reducible metric; the rest of the analysis is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All inputs to the DCF calculation are standard or literature-adopted; the paper fits power-law indices only as diagnostics of grain alignment, not as parameters of the central B-field claim. The central claim therefore rests on the external validity of DCF and on the adopted density and linewidth values.

free parameters (4)
  • DCF correction factor Q = 0.5
    Standard factor for line-of-sight and beam averaging in the DCF method, adopted from Ostriker et al. (2001) and Crutcher et al. (2004); B scales linearly with Q and the Alfvenic Mach number scales inversely with Q.
  • Eos volume density n(H2) = 0.71 cm^-3
    Computed from adopted mass 3.4e3 Msun and radius 25.5 pc assuming a uniform sphere; enters DCF as sqrt(n), so a sheet-like geometry would change B.
  • MBM 40 volume density n(H2) = 140 cm^-3 (upper limit)
    Taken from the PGCC clump PGCC G37.52+44.57, which is arcminute-scale, while the analyzed CO cloud is degree-scale; authors note it is an upper limit.
  • CNM temperature for H i velocity decomposition = 350 K
    Assumed for MBM 40 CNM based on Verschuur & Magnani (1994); used to subtract thermal broadening from the 3 km/s linewidth, yielding non-thermal FWHM 5.8 km/s.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DCF equipartition between turbulent kinetic energy and magnetic field perturbations, traced by polarization angle dispersion.
    Eq. 6 (Section 3.3) assumes the standard DCF relation; it breaks down for super-Alfvenic turbulence, but the HRO result suggests sub-Alfvenic conditions.
  • domain assumption Radiative alignment of dust grains with magnetic field, so polarization angle rotated by 90 degrees gives B orientation.
    Section 2.1; supported by power-law fits to p/A0 and agreement between starlight and Planck angles, but remains a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The H i CNM linewidth measured toward MBM 40 by Verschuur & Magnani (1994) represents the non-thermal velocity dispersion of the magnetized gas across the entire Eos cloud.
    Section 3.3.2: the authors extend MBM 40 linewidths to all of Eos after visual inspection of GALFA-Hi; DCF B scales linearly with this linewidth.
  • domain assumption Planck 353 GHz Stokes I is proportional to column density.
    Section 3: valid for isothermal optically thin dust emission; reasonable for Eos because of low density and no internal heating, but not exact.
  • domain assumption Distance, mass, and boundary of Eos are taken from Burkhart et al. (2025).
    Used for n(H2) and defining the cloud; these companion-paper values are not independently re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic fields in the Eos Cloud: dynamically important fields in the interface between atomic and molecular gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYC4N5AL

@misc{pith2026250417855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic fields in the Eos Cloud: dynamically important fields in the interface between atomic and molecular gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYC4N5AL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17855}
}
abstract

The recently-discovered Eos molecular cloud, is a CO-dark, low-density cloud located at a distance of approximately 94 pc from the Sun which does not appear to have formed stars at any point in its history. In this paper we investigate the magnetic fields in the Eos cloud, near the interface between the atomic Cold Neutral Medium (CNM) and molecular gas, using dust emission and extinction polarimetry. A Histogram of Relative Orientation analysis shows that the magnetic field is preferentially parallel to the density structure of the cloud, while a Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi analysis finds magnetic field strengths of 6$\pm$3 $\mu$G across the Eos cloud and 12$\pm$4 $\mu$G in the somewhat denser MBM 40 sub-region. These results are consistent with a previous estimate of magnetic field strength in the Local Bubble and suggest that the fields in the Eos cloud are dynamically important compared to both gravity and turbulence. Our findings are fully consistent with the expected behavior of magnetized, non-self-gravitating gas near the CNM/molecular cloud boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Eos cloud. Left: FIMS/SPEAR FUV H2 fluorescence emission map, in log line units (LU: photons cm−2 sr−1 s −1 ), first presented by Jo et al. (2017). Right: Map of the ratio of H2 intensity to total FUV intensity, in percentage points (%). The location of the Eos cloud is outlined and appears as a bright fluorescent feature. The on-sky boundary for the Eos cloud is based on the magenta contours, which outline the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic fields in the Eos cloud. The image shows Stokes I dust emission observed by Planck at 353 GHz, with overlaid texture showing a line integral convolution (LIC; Cabral & Leedom 2023) visualization of the magnetic field observed by Planck. Optical vectors are overlaid as white lines. The gray contour marks the bounds of the Eos cloud as defined using FUV H2 observations (Burkhart et al. 2025). The white contou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper Left: Optical polarization angle versus submillimeter Planck magnetic field angle (polarization angle rotated by 90◦ ). A one-to-one dashed line is plotted. Most of the position angles agree well. Upper Center: Polarization efficiency (p/A0) versus A0 for the optical polarization vectors. A power law fit gives an index of −0.61, indicating good grain alignment (Andersson et al. 2015). Upper Right: Non-debiased… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An assessment of the relationship between mag￾netic field and intensity structure (as a proxy for column density) in the Eos cloud. Upper: Planck magnetic field vec￾tors plotted on the Planck Stokes I map. Vectors used in the HRO analysis are shown in black and bold. O…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CO Structures with Narrow Lines in Nearby Quiescent Regions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic MWISP survey finds 57 narrow-line CO structures, mostly nearby diffuse 'veil clouds' with subsonic turbulence, likely shaped by the Local Bubble and ion-neutral friction.

  2. Searching for star formation towards the Eos molecular cloud

    astro-ph.GA 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No young stellar population or kinematic clustering is found toward the Eos cloud, indicating it has not recently formed stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., Knauth, D

    Andersson, B. G., Knauth, D. C., Snowden, S. L., Shelton, R. L., & Wannier, P. G. 2004, ApJ, 606, 341, doi: 10.1086/382861

    work page doi:10.1086/382861 2004

  2. [2]

    G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J

    Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  3. [3]

    G., & Potter, S

    Andersson, B. G., & Potter, S. B. 2006, ApJL, 640, L51, doi: 10.1086/503199 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

    doi:10.1086/503199 2006

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2014, A&A, 561, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322604

    Berdyugin, A., Piirola, V., & Teerikorpi, P. 2014, A&A, 561, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322604

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322604 2014

  6. [6]

    S., Field, G

    Bowyer, C. S., Field, G. B., & Mack, J. E. 1968, Nature, 217, 32, doi: 10.1038/217032a0

    work page doi:10.1038/217032a0 1968

  7. [7]

    D., Lampton, M., & Knude, J

    Bowyer, S., Lieu, R., Sidher, S. D., Lampton, M., & Knude, J. 1995, Nature, 375, 212, doi: 10.1038/375212a0

    work page doi:10.1038/375212a0 1995

  8. [8]

    1994, Nature, 371, 774, doi: 10.1038/371774a0

    Breitschwerdt, D., & Schmutzler, T. 1994, Nature, 371, 774, doi: 10.1038/371774a0

    doi:10.1038/371774a0 1994

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    E., & Stanimirovi´ c, S

    Burkhart, B., Lee, M.-Y., Murray, C. E., & Stanimirovi´ c, S. 2015, ApJL, 811, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L28

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Bialy, S., et al

    Burkhart, B., Dharmawardena, T. E., Bialy, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17843. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17843

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cabral, B., & Leedom, L. C. 2023, Imaging Vector Fields Using Line Integral Convolution, 1st edn. (New York,

    2023

  4. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3596711.3596752

    NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery). https://doi.org/10.1145/3596711.3596752

  5. [13]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 116, doi: 10.1086/145732

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953, ApJ, 118, 116, doi: 10.1086/145732

    1953 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Peek, J

    Clark, S. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Putman, M. E. 2014, ApJ, 789, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/82 14

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Misselt, K. A. 2003, ApJ, 588, 871, doi: 10.1086/374316

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    M., & Kemball, A

    Crutcher, R. M., & Kemball, A. J. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 66, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00066

    2019

  10. [18]

    Kirk, J. M. 2004, ApJ, 600, 279, doi: 10.1086/379705

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    Troland, T. H. 2010, ApJ, 725, 466, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., & Thaddeus, P. 2022, ApJS, 262, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e53

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    1951, PhRv, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    Davis, L. 1951, PhRv, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    1951 doi

  14. [22]

    Z., & Mitrofanov, I

    Dolginov, A. Z., & Mitrofanov, I. G. 1976, Ap&SS, 43, 291, doi: 10.1007/BF00640010

    1976 doi

  15. [23]

    Sembach, K. R. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 348, Astrophysics in the Far Ultraviolet: Five Years of Discovery with FUSE, ed. G. Sonneborn, H. W. Moos, & B. G. Andersson, 385 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023...

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 773, doi: 10.1086/428896

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    D., & Burkhart, B

    Heyer, M., Soler, J. D., & Burkhart, B. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1760

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  19. [27]

    Vaillancourt, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 567, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/567

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x —

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x —. 2016, ApJ, 831, 159, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/159

    2008

  21. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/102

    Imara, N., & Burkhart, B. 2016, ApJ, 829, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/102

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2002, ApJ, 580, 938, doi: 10.1086/343796

    2002 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, ApJS, 231, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8091

    Jo, Y.-S., Seon, K.-I., Min, K.-W., Edelstein, J., & Han, W. 2017, ApJS, 231, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8091

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Jones, T. J. 1989, ApJ, 346, 728, doi: 10.1086/168054

    1989 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbe

    Kwon, W., Pattle, K., Sadavoy, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbe

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2008, ApJL, 676, L25, doi: 10.1086/586706 Le Gouellec, V

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2008, ApJL, 676, L25, doi: 10.1086/586706 Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Maury, A. J., Guillet, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038404

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    A., et al

    Lee, M.-Y., Stanimirovi´ c, S., Douglas, K. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/75

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    Magnani, L., Blitz, L., & Mundy, L. 1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    1985 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    1977 doi

  30. [38]

    Kraushaar, W. L. 1983, ApJ, 269, 107, doi: 10.1086/161024

    1983 doi

  31. [39]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    1966, MNRAS, 133, 265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.2.265

    Mestel, L. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.2.265

    1966 doi

  33. [41]

    1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., J. 1956, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    1956 doi

  34. [42]

    Mouschovias, T. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 169, doi: 10.1086/170035

    1991 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Stone, J

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

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    Palmeirim, P., Andr´ e, P., Kirk, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    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

    doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab286f

    Pattle, K., Lai, S.-P., Hasegawa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab286f

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Peek, J. E. G., Heiles, C., Douglas, K. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/20

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Lee, M.-Y., Burkhart, B., & Stanimirovi´ c, S

    Pingel, N. M., Lee, M.-Y., Burkhart, B., & Stanimirovi´ c, S. 2018, ApJ, 856, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34b Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015a, A&A, 576, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424082 —. 2015b, A&A, 576, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/20...

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Burkhart, B., et al

    Saxena, S., Haworth, T. J., Burkhart, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17850. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17850

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N., Magnani, L., LaRosa, T

    Shore, S. N., Magnani, L., LaRosa, T. N., & McCarthy, M. N. 2003, ApJ, 593, 413, doi: 10.1086/376355

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, A&A, 647, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039779

    Skalidis, R., & Tassis, K. 2021, A&A, 647, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039779

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    K., & Cox, D

    Smith, R. K., & Cox, D. P. 2001, ApJS, 134, 283, doi: 10.1086/320850

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    L., Egger, R., Finkbeiner, D

    Snowden, S. L., Egger, R., Finkbeiner, D. P., Freyberg, M. J., & Plucinsky, P. P. 1998, ApJ, 493, 715, doi: 10.1086/305135

    1998 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Bracco, A., & Pon, A

    Soler, J. D., Bracco, A., & Pon, A. 2018, A&A, 609, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732203

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    D., & Hennebelle, P

    Soler, J. D., & Hennebelle, P. 2017, A&A, 607, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731049

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/128

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Ade, P

    Soler, J. D., Ade, P. A. R., Angil` e, F. E., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730608

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac167b

    Sternberg, A., Gurman, A., & Bialy, S. 2021, ApJ, 920, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac167b

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, ApJS, 256, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1601

    Sun, M., Jiang, B., Zhao, H., & Ren, Y. 2021, ApJS, 256, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1601

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    L., & Magnani, L

    Verschuur, G. L., & Magnani, L. 1994, AJ, 107, 287, doi: 10.1086/116853

    1994 doi

  54. [62]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Alves, J., et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.