Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Low-velocity precessing jets can explain observed morphologies in the Twin Radio Galaxy TRG J104454+354055

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the radio morphology of the twin radio galaxy TRG J104454+354055 is produced by two mutually tilted, low-velocity bipolar jets precessing with periods of 28 and 49 million years, and that precession is required to…

desk verdict First simulation of this twin radio galaxy with mutually tilted precessing jets; the no-precession control is clean, but the specific jet parameters rest on a visual match and the orbital-motion alternative is not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01428 v1 pith:3JVCK7ZQ submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Santanu Mondal , Gourab Giri , Ravi Joshi , Paul J. Wiita , Gopal-Krishna , Luis C. Ho This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords twinradiogalaxyjetprecessionhydrodynamicsimulationslow-velocityjetsLense-ThirringmorphologydualAGNTRGJ104454+354055
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 argues that the unusual wiggling, bending, and lobed radio morphology of the twin radio galaxy TRG J104454+354055 is produced by two mutually tilted, low-velocity bipolar jets that precess as they propagate through the surrounding gas. In three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, jets injected at about 15 percent of the speed of light with tilt angles of -45 and 40 degrees and precession periods of 28 and 49 million years reproduce the observed radio map, whereas jets launched without precession simply drill straight through the medium and fail completely. If the claim is right, it establishes that precession, not a fast relativistic flow or an environmental cross-wind, shapes this system's kiloparsec-scale structure, and that the inferred precession timescales are consistent with Lense-Thirring warping of the accretion disks around the two black holes. This matters because only three twin radio galaxies are known, and the result offers a template for decoding the jet dynamics of similar merger systems expected from next-generation radio surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a geometric precession prescription in which each bipolar jet's velocity components are modulated by a tilt angle and a precession frequency around a common axis, with independent tilt, cone half-angle, and period for each jet. The 3D hydrodynamic simulations inject these precessing jets into a King-profile ambient medium and generate mock synchrotron maps by integrating the emissivity along the line of sight; comparing these maps to the observed radio image is what carries the argument that precession with periods of 28 and 49 Myr reproduces the morphology. A Lense-Thirring disk-warping estimate for the precession period, giving roughly 7 to 50 Myr, supplies the proposed physical origin for those timescales.

What would settle it

A quantitative comparison between the simulated S1 synchrotron map and the uGMRT 1.4 GHz map using a model-independent metric, such as normalized cross-correlation or structural similarity, would settle the claim: if alternative setups S2-S7 and AS1-AS15 score as well as or better than S1, the assertion that low-velocity precessing jets specifically explain the morphology loses its support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that low-velocity jets with different inclination angles and precessional periods can satisfactorily reproduce the observed morphology of TRG J104454. The preferred simulation, setup S1, uses two bipolar jets whose origins are separated by 30 kiloparsecs, tilted at -45 degrees (left) and 40 degrees (right) relative to the jet axis, each precessing with a cone half-angle of 20 degrees and periods of 28 and 49 Myr; after roughly 190 Myr of evolution the simulated synchrotron intensity map closely resembles the uGMRT 1.4 GHz image. The paper further claims that precession is necessary, because the same setup without precession produces straight jets that cannot form the observed wiggles and lobes, and that the precession periods are much shorter than both the system's dynamical timescale and its orbital timescale, consistent with a Lense-Thirring origin in warped accretion disks.

Load-bearing premise

The selection of setup S1 as the best match to the observed morphology rests on a visual comparison of simulated and observed radio maps, with no quantitative goodness-of-fit measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the jets of TRG J104454 are sub-relativistic, moving at about 0.15 times the speed of light, rather than fast relativistic flows.
  • Precession is a required ingredient: without it the simulated jets propagate straight and cannot form the observed wiggling paths and lobes.
  • The inferred precession periods of 28-49 Myr are shorter than the system's orbital timescale and align with Lense-Thirring warp timescales, linking a kiloparsec-scale radio morphology to accretion-disk physics.
  • The same approach can classify future twin radio galaxies found by next-generation surveys, distinguishing precession-driven shapes from those caused by cluster winds or buoyancy.
  • The successful match implies that jet-ambient interaction, not just the central engine, determines the large-scale morphology in relatively undisturbed merger environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative similarity measure between the simulated S1 map and the observed uGMRT map would turn the visual S1 selection into a testable ranking; without one, alternative parameter combinations may remain under-explored.
  • The model predicts specific helical pitch and lobe asymmetries that deeper, higher-resolution radio observations could measure directly, giving an independent check on the 28 and 49 Myr periods.
  • Because magnetic fields are omitted, whether the simulated jets stay collimated long enough to match the observations may be optimistic; including ordered fields would test their role in prolonging the helical structures.
  • If Lense-Thirring precession is truly the cause, the inferred periods constrain black hole spin and disk viscosity, connecting a single radio image to the accretion state of each nucleus.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D hydrodynamic simulations of two mutually tilted, precessing bipolar jets launched from two supermassive black holes separated by 30 kpc, aiming to reproduce the uGMRT 1.4 GHz morphology of the recently discovered Twin Radio Galaxy J104454+354055. Among seven main and fifteen additional parameter setups, setup S1 (left tilt -45 deg, right tilt 40 deg, precession periods 49 and 28 Myr, Mach number 65.2, jet radius 4 kpc) is claimed to provide the closest match to the observed radio lobes and wiggles. The authors argue that precession is required because a no-precession control produces straight jets, and they estimate a Lense-Thirring precession timescale of 7-50 Myr, which they claim is consistent with their adopted periods. The paper concludes that low-velocity precessing jets with independent parameters can explain the TRG morphology.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper offers a physically plausible scenario for the morphology of a rare class of sources, showing that sub-relativistic precessing jets can produce the observed wiggles and lobes without invoking cross-winds. Strengths include the no-precession control, a resolution test (Appendix A), and a non-trivial exploration of parameter space (S1-S7 and AS1-AS15). The paper also gives concrete, falsifiable predictions: specific precession periods and jet velocities for TRG J104454. However, the entire inference rests on a qualitative visual comparison between simulated and observed maps; no quantitative similarity metric is given, and the parameter search is too sparse to establish uniqueness. The Lense-Thirring timescale estimate is partly circular because the accretion rates are derived from the same simulated jet powers used in the model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 2] The claim that setup S1 'most closely reproduces the observed TRG morphology' is based solely on visual inspection of convolved synchrotron maps. With at least six free parameters per jet (Table 1) and only seven principal plus fifteen additional simulations, the comparison cannot distinguish S1 from many other combinations. The paper should provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit (e.g., a surface-brightness residual map, a morphological similarity index, or a chi-square statistic based on the observed and synthetic maps) and demonstrate that S1 is statistically consistent with the observation while the rejected setups are inconsistent at some level.
  2. [Section 3.4, Appendix B] The search over parameter space is too narrow to support the conclusion that precession with P_r=49 Myr and P_l=28 Myr is the unique (or even preferred) explanation. The paper admits 'they cannot provide unique solutions' (Section 3.4). A systematic exploration or an automated fitting procedure (even with a coarse grid) would be needed to show that the result is not dominated by degeneracy among tilt angles, precession periods, and Mach numbers.
  3. [Section 3.3] The Lense-Thirring precession period estimate of 7-50 Myr is derived using mass accretion rates (Section 3.2) that are themselves inferred from the kinetic jet powers adopted in the simulations. Since those jet powers were chosen (in part) to match the observed morphology, the agreement between the LT estimate and the simulated periods (28-49 Myr) is partly built in. Please use accretion rates from independent data (e.g., X-ray or SED constraints) or discuss how the LT estimate depends on the assumed accretion efficiency.
  4. [Section 3.3] The alternative of orbital motion as the cause of jet bending is dismissed in a single sentence ('We note that orbital motion alone is unlikely to be able to produce the observed small-scale bends and lobes in the jets'). Given that orbital motion is a leading explanation for WAT/TRG morphologies (e.g., 3C 75), the paper should either perform a control simulation with a binary orbital motion or provide a quantitative timescale/amplitude argument to rule it out, to make the case that precession is specifically required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The symbol T_j is not defined in the text; please define the jet temperature explicitly.
  2. [Title/Abstract] The manuscript title contains 'T win' (typo) in the draft version; please correct to 'Twin'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The Eddington accretion rates are quoted as 5×10^-4 and 4.2×10^-3 mdot_Edd, but the text does not explain how mdot_Edd is normalized; please clarify.
  4. [References] Musoke et al. 2020a and 2020b are identical; please correct or differentiate the entries.
  5. [Keywords] The keyword 'method: numericals' should be 'methods: numerical'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward simulation with freely chosen input parameters; the LT consistency check is independent of the fitted precession periods.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward-modeling fit, not a circular reduction. Observed morphology is compared by eye to synthetic synchrotron maps generated from 3D hydrodynamic simulations with specified jet parameters; the match is a feasibility demonstration with admitted non-uniqueness, not a quantity derived from itself. The precession periods and tilt angles in Table 1 are input parameters chosen to reproduce the data, and the paper does not claim they were independently predicted. The Lense-Thirring discussion in Sec. 3.3 is a consistency check: the accretion rates are estimated from the adopted jet kinetic powers, which are calibrated to observed source estimates, not from the fitted precession periods. Therefore the fact that the LT range (7-50 Myr) brackets the adopted periods (28 and 49 Myr) is an independent, albeit broad, check. Self-citations such as Gopal-Krishna et al. (2022) supply the observational discovery data and are not load-bearing as evidence for the model. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on a set of hand-tuned simulation parameters (tilt angles, precession periods, Mach numbers, jet radius) chosen to reproduce the observed morphology, and on standard domain assumptions about the ambient medium and jet physics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Jet tilt angles theta_l, theta_r (S1) = -45 deg, +40 deg
    Chosen by hand to match the observed orientation of the two jet pairs in the uGMRT map.
  • Jet precession periods P_r, P_l (S1) = 49 Myr, 28 Myr
    Tuned to reproduce the wiggling and lobe widths; later argued to be consistent with LT precession timescales.
  • Precession cone half-angle Psi_j (S1) = 20 deg
    Adopted to control the opening of the helical pattern; selected to match observed lobe spread.
  • Jet Mach number M_j (S1) = 65.2 (both jets)
    Set to give v_j=0.15c, chosen to mimic a low jet power consistent with the source; higher/lower values in S2-S7.
  • Jet injection radius R_j (S1) = 4 kpc
    Large radius needed to resolve the jet with sufficient grid points and to generate enough mechanical power.
  • LT estimate parameters: BH spin a_k, viscosity alpha, warp radius R_warp, disk temperature = 0.8, 0.2, 150-1000 r_g, 3e4 K
    Used to estimate precession period range 7-50 Myr as a consistency check; not directly fitted to morphology.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ambient medium is a spherical King density profile with core radius 125 kpc and beta=0.55, centered midway between the two nuclei
    Adopted to mimic a rich galaxy group environment (Eq. 1, Sec 2), following prior jet simulations.
  • domain assumption Jet plasma is an ideal gas with constant pressure initial condition and sub-relativistic bulk velocity; magnetic fields are neglected
    Sec 2 and Sec 3.1; simplified for computational tractability; magnetic fields argued to be dynamically less significant but acknowledged as potentially important for stability.
  • standard math Precession follows the geometric model of Hjellming and Johnston (1981), with precession axes parallel to the y-axis for both jets
    Eq. (2) in Sec 2; a standard kinematic description of precessing jets.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron intensity is approximated by Eq. (4) with spectral index alpha=0.6, and emissivity is integrated along the line of sight
    Sec 3; common approximation for producing mock radio maps from simulation data.
  • domain assumption The uGMRT 1.4 GHz map of TRG J104454 is an accurate representation of the true radio morphology
    The comparison target; any error in the observed map would change the conclusions. The map is reproduced from the discovery paper by the same group.
  • domain assumption The black hole masses and separation (1.6e10 and 2.0e9 M_sun, 30 kpc) are taken from Gopal-Krishna et al. 2022
    Used for scaling and for the LT period estimate (Sec 3.2, 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-velocity precessing jets can explain observed morphologies in the Twin Radio Galaxy TRG J104454+354055." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JVCK7ZQ

@misc{pith2026250601428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-velocity precessing jets can explain observed morphologies in the Twin Radio Galaxy TRG J104454+354055},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JVCK7ZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01428}
}
read the original abstract

Our understanding of large-scale radio jets in merger systems has been drastically improved in the era of VLA, VLBA/EVN, uGMRT, and MeerKAT. Twin Radio Galaxies (TRGs) are the rare interacting galaxy pairs where both supermassive black holes host kiloparsec-scale bipolar radio jets. Only recently was a third TRG discovered and it shows significantly different jet morphologies than the previous two. Due to both the extreme paucity and complexity of such systems, the launching of their jets as well as their mutual interaction during the propagation through the ambient medium are not well understood. We have performed 3D hydrodynamic simulations to study the bipolar jets in the third TRG, J104454+354055. Our study indicates that the precession of mutually tilted bipolar jets originating from the two galactic nuclei separated by tens of kiloparsecs and propagating at low velocities can explain the observed morphologies. The simulated jet precession timescales are short compared to the overall dynamical timescale of the jets and could originate from Lense-Thirring effects in the accretion disks. This approach to understanding the TRG jet dynamics could also be applied to other TRG systems with similar helical morphologies that may be discovered in the upcoming era of the SKA and its pathfinder surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D illustration of the injection of a bipolar jet (similar to G. Giri et al. 2022b) based on our simulation configuration. The bipolar jet precesses around the y-axis at an angle Ψ𝑗 with a precession period 𝑃𝑗 , resulting in an angular velocity Ω𝑗 = 2𝜋/𝑃𝑗 in the x-z plane. Also sketched here is the line of sight position (𝜃, 𝜑), along which the mock emission maps were generated. note that the jet nozzles (through wh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The leftmost panel reproduces the color-coded uGMRT map of the TRG J104454 at 1.4 GHz ( Gopal-Krishna et al. 2022); (the image is used with authors’ permission and does not violate copyright). The remaining three panels display the normalized synchrotron intensity maps of the simulated TRG at 1.4 GHz for the model S1, obtained using emissivity data-cubes of both jets. To produce the mock-intensity maps we use values… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the jet head for all four jets in the 𝑥 − 𝑦 plane, for the setup S1. The left and right panels show approximate ±𝑦 (linear) and ±𝑥 (lateral) positions of the jet heads. Both panels follow the same color conventions to indicate the four jets. is dominated by the synchrotron plasma in sub-relativistic bulk motion does not exclude the possibility that the primary source of the jet power lies in a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D gray-scale map of the tracer value (tracer values > 0.5) illustrating the primary jet structure, as well as its transition and decollimation into broader plumes. All axes are in the code unit. wobbly structures after a certain spatial extent. The evolution of the no…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dynamics and geometry of the inner sub-parsec-scale jet in 3C 279 observed with the Event Horizon Telescope

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EHT 2021 images of 3C 279 reveal an intrinsic, sideways-elongated jet base whose components move at apparent speeds up to 10c, implying a sub-parsec bend toward the observer and viewing angles below one degree.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 10Mondal et al. 168 Myr 168 Myr ; Figure A1.Comparison of the emissivity maps for two different resolutions for the setup S6. The left and middle panels respectively show the nominal{336×720×336}and high-resolution{504×1080×504}maps. A comparison of t...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  3. [3]

    P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  4. [4]

    Souza, G. S. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1846

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1846 2024

  5. [5]

    B., Peck, A

    Bansal, K., Taylor, G. B., Peck, A. B., Zavala, R. T., & Romani, R. W. 2017, ApJ, 843, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1 2017

  6. [6]

    M., & Petterson, J

    Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 195, L65, doi: 10.1086/181711

    doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  7. [7]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  8. [8]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7466

    Breiding, P., Burke-Spolaor, S., An, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7466

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 631, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936240

    Bruno, L., Gitti, M., Zanichelli, A., & Gregorini, L. 2019, A&A, 631, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936240

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1402.0548, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1402.0548

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Brazier, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1402.0548, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1402.0548

    2014 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    O., & Balonek, T

    Burns, J. O., & Balonek, T. J. 1982, ApJ, 263, 546, doi: 10.1086/160525

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´c, T., et al

    Cui, Y., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´c, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    2023

  7. [15]

    P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B

    Dubey, R. P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B. 2023, ApJ, 952, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0bf

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Dunn, R. J. H., Fabian, A. C., & Sanders, J. S. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 758, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09928.x Falceta-Gonc ¸alves, D., Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Teixeira, D. M., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2010, ApJL, 713, L74, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/1/L74 Simulating TRGs11

    2006

  9. [18]

    C., Blaes, O

    Fragile, P. C., Blaes, O. M., Anninos, P., & Salmonson, J. D. 2007, ApJ, 668, 417, doi: 10.1086/521092

    2007 doi

  10. [19]

    D., et al

    Fu, H., Yan, L., Myers, A. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/67

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10864

    Giri, G., Bagchi, J., Thorat, K., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10864

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    P., Rubinur, K., Vaidya, B., & Kharb, P

    Giri, G., Dubey, R. P., Rubinur, K., Vaidya, B., & Kharb, P. 2022a, MNRAS, 514, 5625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1628

    doi

  14. [23]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acebca

    Giri, G., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2023, ApJS, 268, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acebca

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    2022b, A&A, 662, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142546

    Giri, G., Vaidya, B., Rossi, P., et al. 2022b, A&A, 662, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142546

    doi

  16. [25]

    L., & Wiita, P

    Gopal-Krishna, Biermann, P. L., & Wiita, P. J. 2003, ApJL, 594, L103, doi: 10.1086/378766

    2003 doi

  17. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac055 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P

    Gopal-Krishna, Joshi, R., Patra, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac055 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/226.3.531

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    C., Gregory, P

    Gower, A. C., Gregory, P. C., Unruh, W. G., & Hutchings, J. B. 1982, ApJ, 262, 478, doi: 10.1086/160442

    1982 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 74, doi: 10.1038/nature14143

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    2008, A&A, 483, 699, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078576

    Guidetti, D., Murgia, M., Govoni, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, 699, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078576

    2008 doi

  21. [30]

    Hardcastle, M. J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3358

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    J., & Krause, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts564

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    J., & Krause, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1229

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981, ApJL, 246, L141, doi: 10.1086/183571

    1981 doi

  25. [34]

    F., Hernquist, L., Hayward, C

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Hayward, C. C., & Narayanan, D. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1121, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21449.x

    2012

  26. [35]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Thomson, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz556

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536f

    Joshi, R., Krishna, G., Yang, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536f

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    V., & Merritt, D

    Kharb, P., Lal, D. V., & Merritt, D. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 727, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0256-4

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad7

    Kharb, P., Vaddi, S., Sebastian, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad7

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    1995

  32. [41]

    V., & Rao, A

    Lal, D. V., & Rao, A. P. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 232, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08442.x

    2005

  33. [42]

    V., Sebastian, B., Cheung, C

    Lal, D. V., Sebastian, B., Cheung, C. C., & Pramesh Rao, A. 2019, AJ, 157, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1419

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    2015, ApJL, 803, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L16

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., Heinis, S., et al. 2015, ApJL, 803, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L16

    2015 doi

  36. [45]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    1998 doi

  37. [46]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  38. [47]

    J., Hughes, P

    Mioduszewski, A. J., Hughes, P. A., & Duncan, G. C. 1997, ApJ, 476, 649, doi: 10.1086/303652

    1997 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Schive, H

    Molnar, S. M., Schive, H. Y., Birkinshaw, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/57

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    C., & Gurwich, I

    Mondal, S., Keshet, U., Sarkar, K. C., & Gurwich, I. 2022a, MNRAS, 514, 2581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1084

    doi

  41. [50]

    S., Chakrabarti, S

    Mondal, S., Rani, P., Stalin, C. S., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Rakshit, S. 2022b, A&A, 663, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141990

    doi

  42. [51]

    R., et al

    Murgia, M., Parma, P., de Ruiter, H. R., et al. 2001, A&A, 380, 102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011436

    2001 doi

  43. [53]

    J., Molnar, S

    Musoke, G., Young, A. J., Molnar, S. M., & Birkinshaw, M. 2020b, MNRAS, 494, 5207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1071

    doi

  44. [54]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, L56, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw256

    Nandi, S., Jamrozy, M., Roy, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, L56, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw256

    2017 doi

  45. [55]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  46. [56]

    McNamara, B. R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw330

    2016 doi

  47. [57]

    Nolting, C., Ball, J., & Nguyen, T. M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc652

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    N., O’Dea, C

    Owen, F. N., O’Dea, C. P., Inoue, M., & Eilek, J. A. 1985, ApJL, 294, L85, doi: 10.1086/184514

    1985 doi

  49. [59]

    R., & Cameron, R

    Parma, P., de Ruiter, H. R., & Cameron, R. A. 1991, AJ, 102, 1960, doi: 10.1086/116018

    1991 doi

  50. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1997

    Patra, D., Joshi, R., & Gopal-Krishna. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1997

    2023 doi

  51. [61]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 762, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.02.020

    Pizzolato, F., & Soker, N. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 762, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.02.020

    2005 doi

  52. [62]

    Pringle, J. E. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.4.811

    1992 doi

  53. [63]

    B., Zavala, R

    Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 49, doi: 10.1086/504825

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    2017, A&A, 606, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594 12Mondal et al

    Rossi, P., Bodo, G., Capetti, A., & Massaglia, S. 2017, A&A, 606, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594 12Mondal et al

    2017 doi

  55. [65]

    2001, PhD thesis, -

    Rottmann, H. 2001, PhD thesis, -

    2001

  56. [66]

    2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 8, doi: 10.1007/s12036-018-9512-y

    Rubinur, K., Das, M., & Kharb, P. 2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 8, doi: 10.1007/s12036-018-9512-y

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz334

    Rubinur, K., Das, M., & Kharb, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz334

    2019 doi

  58. [68]

    Scheuer, P. A. G., & Feiler, R. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.1.291

    1996 doi

  59. [69]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  60. [70]

    M., et al

    Silpa, S., Kharb, P., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1044

    2022 doi

  61. [71]

    J., & Shabala, S

    Turner, R. J., & Shabala, S. S. 2015, ApJ, 806, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/59 von Fellenberg, S. D., Janssen, M., Davelaar, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245506

    2015 doi

  62. [72]

    Wirth, A., Smarr, L., & Gallagher, J. S. 1982, AJ, 87, 401, doi: 10.1086/113135

    1982 doi

  63. [73]

    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

  64. [74]

    H., Ma, L., Zhang, X., et al

    Xie, Z. H., Ma, L., Zhang, X., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 866, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/866

    2009 doi

  65. [75]

    2019, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.