Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Dynamics of Multiphase Carbon in the Turbulent Circumgalactic Medium

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

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

Pith's one-line read Turbulence sets where carbon sits in the circumgalactic medium; radiation sets what charge it carries.

desk verdict Useful species-resolved turbulence study, but the central spatial/ionization decomposition is overstated: radiation reshapes C IV clustering almost as much as turbulence does. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17554 v1 pith:SWLDCT62 submitted 2025-06-21 astro-ph.GA

Yue Hu , Evan Scannapieco , Edward Buie II , Siyao Xu , Samuel T Sebastian , Om Biswal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumturbulencenon-equilibriumchemistrycarbonionizationCIIabsorptionIVBurgersdensitypowerspectrum
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 sets out to explain why carbon absorption lines in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) look the way they do, and argues that two physical agents do two different jobs. Turbulence is the primary driver of the spatial distribution of carbon species: it compresses gas into filaments, creates shocks, and concentrates C II and C IV near regions of strong viscous dissipation, while the kinetic energy spectrum steepens from Kolmogorov to Burgers scaling as turbulent velocity rises. Background radiation, in contrast, sets the ionization balance: adding a UV background shifts the bulk of carbon from C I to C II and boosts C IV by roughly sixteen orders of magnitude, while pushing C IV into lower-density regions where recombination is slow. The upshot is that observed C II and C IV absorption can be decomposed into a turbulence-dominated spatial term and a radiation-dominated ionization term.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a suite of three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of a $512^3$ periodic box, $10\,\mathrm{kpc}$ on a side, filled with gas at uniform density and driven by solenoidal turbulence. The simulations evolve a 65-ion non-equilibrium chemistry network for hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, sodium, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, calcium, and iron, including photoionization by a UV background, and are run with and without the background to isolate its effect. The load-bearing diagnostics are power spectra: the kinetic energy spectrum $E_v(k)$ and the density spectrum $P_n(k)$ for the total gas and for C I, C II, and C IV separately, together with two-dimensional probability distributions of species density versus total density and versus the squared viscous dissipation rate $\Phi = \Phi_c + \Phi_s$. Because the hydrodynamics and chemistry are invariant under the rescaling $x\to\lambda x$, $t\to\lambda t$, $\rho\to\rho/\lambda$, the results depend only on $nL$, $\sigma_{1D}$, and the ionization parameter $U$, so the box can stand in for CGM gas of different density.

What would settle it

In quasar absorption-line data, measure whether C IV absorption is less spatially clustered than C II at fixed column density, as the model predicts when a UV background is present; if C IV is found to be as clustered as C II in dense gas, the predicted recombination-driven anti-correlation at high density is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a clean division of labor. In the turbulent CGM, turbulence controls where each carbon species is found: at velocity dispersions from 30 to 100 km/s, the gas becomes more filamentary, small-scale density fluctuations grow, and the total kinetic energy spectrum shifts from a Kolmogorov slope near $-5/3$ to a Burgers slope near $-2$, signaling shock-dominated dissipation. C II and C IV form preferentially in shock-heated, high-dissipation regions, and their density fields track the filamentary total-density field. Radiation then controls what fraction of carbon is in each ionization state: with an ionization parameter $U=10^{-3}$, most carbon becomes C II, C IV abundance rises enormously (about $10^{16}$ times relative to the no-radiation case), and C IV is biased toward low-density gas because recombination destroys it more rapidly in dense regions. The combination produces a bimodal density-C IV relation that is the paper's most distinctive signature of the turbulence-radiation interplay.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the CGM behaves as a uniform gas cube in which turbulence is driven only by vortex motion, with no magnetic fields, gravity, or galactic outflows; if real CGM turbulence is driven by compression or affected by magnetic fields, the predicted patterns may not hold in actual halos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high turbulent velocity dispersion, the CGM density field becomes filamentary and its power spectrum flattens, so absorption-line components should appear more clustered on small scales as turbulence strengthens.
  • Without a UV background, C IV is essentially absent ($\lesssim 10^{-20}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ even at 100 km/s), so any strong C IV detection implies either a substantial ionizing background or additional heating beyond solenoidal turbulence.
  • With a UV background, C IV traces low-density gas, so the ratio of C IV to C II column density is not a simple density tracer; it encodes the local competition between photoionization and recombination.
  • The kinetic energy spectrum's transition from Kolmogorov to Burgers scaling marks shock-dominated dissipation as a key heating mechanism, meaning turbulence itself can create ionized carbon even when radiation is weak.
  • The density correlation function steepens from roughly $\xi_n\propto r^{-2}$ toward $r^{-2.5}$ or steeper as turbulence rises, quantifying how much more clumpy the CGM becomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the turbulence-radiation decomposition holds, the C II/C IV column-density ratio along a quasar sightline could be inverted to recover the local ionization parameter, while line-width differences between the two ions could recover the turbulent Mach number, effectively turning absorption spectra into two independent physical maps.
  • The same simulation machinery should apply to other ions in the 65-ion network, such as O VI or Si IV; if their density spectra show the same turbulence-versus-radiation split, the framework becomes a general tool for interpreting UV metal-line absorbers.
  • The bimodal density-C IV relation suggests an observational diagnostic: the density at which C IV switches from tracking to anti-tracking total density is a direct measure of the local UV background strength, so mapping that turnover across different halo environments could calibrate the metagalactic background.
  • Magnetic fields are the most likely disruptor: if small-scale turbulent dynamo action makes the density structures anisotropic, the isotropic spectral slopes reported here would need to be replaced by orientation-dependent ones, but the turbulence-radiation decomposition itself may survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of a turbulent, uniformly filled periodic box, using the MAIHEM non-equilibrium chemistry package, to study the spatial distribution and ionization balance of carbon species (C I, C II, C IV) in the circumgalactic medium. The simulations vary the turbulent velocity dispersion (σ_3D = 30, 60, and 100 km/s) and the ionizing background (U = 0 and U = 10^-3), and the authors analyze density and kinetic-energy power spectra, species density distributions, and correlations between density, species abundance, and viscous dissipation. The central claim is that turbulence is the primary driver of the spatial distribution of carbon species, while the background radiation mainly sets the relative ionization fractions, leading to a proposed decomposition of observed C II/C IV absorption into a turbulence-dominated spatial term and a radiation-dominated ionization term.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a useful physically motivated framework for interpreting CGM absorption-line observations of carbon ions, and it extends earlier non-equilibrium chemistry work by the same group to a systematic study of how turbulent driving and ionizing background jointly set carbon structure. The use of a 65-ion non-equilibrium network and the comparison of solenoidal turbulence cases across three velocity dispersions are valuable, and the tabulated spectral slopes provide a compact summary of trends that can be compared with future simulations and observations. However, the significance is moderated by the idealized setup (uniform-density box, no magnetic fields, gravity, or outflows, as acknowledged in Section 3.5) and by the quantitative inconsistency between the paper's own Table 1 and the claimed separation of turbulence and radiation effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 3.3] The claim in Conclusion item 1 that turbulence is the primary driver of the spatial distribution of carbon species is not supported for C IV by the paper's own spectral slope measurements. At fixed σ_3D = 100 km/s, adding radiation changes the C IV density power-spectrum slope from +0.87 (U = 0) to -0.79 (U = 10^-3), a shift of 1.66 in slope units. By comparison, changing σ_3D from 30 to 100 km/s at U = 0 shifts the C IV slope by only 1.80 units (-0.93 to +0.87). Thus radiation has an effect on the spatial clustering of C IV comparable to a factor-of-three change in turbulent velocity. The bimodal density dependence shown in Figure 8, where n_C IV first rises and then falls with increasing density when radiation is present, is a radiation-induced spatial bias, not merely a change in the overall ionization fraction. The proposed decomposition of observed C II/C IV absorption into a turbulence-dominated spatial term and a radiation-dominated ionization term therefore overstates the separation, at least for C IV.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The spectral slopes in Table 1 and Figures 3, 6, and 7 are presented without uncertainties and without a stated fitting procedure or fitting range. Since the central quantitative comparisons (Kolmogorov versus Burgers scaling, effects of radiation on clustering) rest on these slopes, the absence of error bars or a defined fit interval makes it difficult to judge whether the reported differences, such as the total density slope changing from -1.02 to -0.50 across the three velocity dispersions, are numerically robust. I request a description of the fitting method, the wavenumber range used, and the associated uncertainties, as well as a convergence test at different grid resolutions.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.5] The simulations use a uniform-density, periodic box with purely solenoidal driving, no magnetic fields, no gravity, and no galactic outflows, and the limitations are acknowledged in Section 3.5. This is a legitimate modeling premise, but the paper does not provide any test of whether the conclusions are robust to the most basic deviations from it. In particular, because the results emphasize power-spectrum slopes and spatial clustering of trace ions, a resolution study and at least one run with a different driving geometry or with a compressive component would be needed to establish that the claimed turbulence-radiation decomposition is not an artifact of the chosen forcing and numerical dissipation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text refers to 'redshift zero HM2012 EUVB' but the reference for HM2012 is not included in the reference list; please add the citation (e.g., Haardt & Madau 2012).
  2. [Equation (2)] The definition of ΔX_i/X_i in Equation (2) is ambiguous: the superscripts a and b are not defined, and it is unclear whether the quantity is a fractional change per timestep or a convergence criterion evaluated over a fixed interval. Please clarify in the text.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption contains the phrase 'taken our simulations' which appears to be a typo for 'taken from our simulations' or 'from our simulations.'
  4. [Section 3.2 and Equations (6)-(8)] The choice μ = -1 g cm^-1 s^-1 makes Φ a squared rate with units s^-2, but the text calls it 'energy loss per unit volume per unit time.' Since the magnitude of Φ is arbitrary and set by the numerical viscosity convention, correlations with Φ should be described as qualitative; the current wording may be misleading.
  5. [References] The entries for Pan & Scannapieco 2010a and 2010b both list page 1765 and appear nearly identical; please verify that these are distinct papers and cite them accurately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported carbon ion distributions are emergent outputs of the non-equilibrium chemistry simulation, not fitted inputs or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The carbon ion number-density fields, their power-spectrum slopes, and the 2D PDFs are outputs of the MAIHEM 65-ion non-equilibrium chemistry network evolved in the FLASH hydrodynamics code, not quantities imposed as initial conditions or fit parameters. The model inputs are the driving velocity dispersion, mean density, box size, and the HM2012 UV background amplitude; none of these is tuned to reproduce the reported carbon statistics. The methodological self-citations (Gray & Scannapieco 2016, 2017; Buie et al. 2018) supply the equations and code, and the scaling invariance invoked in Section 2 is a parameter-free property of those equations that does not encode the target conclusion about carbon's spatial distribution; therefore it does not constitute load-bearing circularity. The consistency check against Kim & Ryu (2005) for density-spectrum slopes versus Mach number is an external benchmark, and the Kolmogorov-to-Burgers spectral transition is compared with independent isothermal-turbulence studies. The closest thing to a definitional statement is the qualitative point that radiation preferentially affects low-density gas, which is consistent with the definition of the ionization parameter U = Phi/(n_H c), but the quantitative species abundances and clustering statistics are emergent, and the paper's own Table 1 shows radiation can change C IV spatial slopes, which is a physical result of the simulation rather than a fitted or definitional outcome. The skeptical concern that radiation strongly alters C IV clustering is a correctness or interpretation issue about the strength of the central claim, not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on a set of simulation parameters (velocities, ionization parameter, box size, forcing, viscosity normalization, steady-state threshold) and assumptions about the chemistry network and idealized geometry. No new physical entities are introduced; the dissipation field Phi is a derived diagnostic, not an invented entity.

free parameters (6)
  • 3D turbulent velocity dispersion (sigma_3D) = 30, 60, and 100 km/s
    Chosen to sample weak to strong turbulence; not fitted to data. Corresponds to sonic Mach numbers 2.4-11.7 in the runs.
  • Ionization parameter U = 0 and 1e-3
    Chosen as two bounding cases: no UV background and a strong metagalactic background. U=1e-3 gives radiation energy density about 8e-11 erg/cm3.
  • Box size and mean density (n L product) = L_box=10 kpc, rho=1e-26 g/cm3, nL=3e20 cm^-2
    Chosen for convenience; scale-free invariance is claimed to allow rescaling to other CGM densities, but all shown results use this one combination.
  • Solenoidal driving wavenumber range = 1 <= L_box |k| / 2pi <= 3
    Large-scale forcing choice; only solenoidal modes are used, which may not cover compressible driving relevant to CGM.
  • Numerical viscosity normalization (mu) = -1 g cm^-1 s^-1
    Set to -1 for simplicity so that Phi equals the sum of compressible and solenoidal squared rates; the constant is arbitrary and affects the absolute magnitude of the dissipation diagnostic.
  • Steady-state cutoff = 0.03 fractional abundance change
    Simulations are advanced until every ion abundance changes by less than 3% globally; looser than typical convergence criteria and judged on global averages.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Scale-free invariance of the MAIHEM equations under (x,t,rho) to (lambda x, lambda t, rho/lambda) leaves abundances unchanged
    Used to claim results transfer to other CGM densities and box sizes; Section 2.
  • domain assumption The 65-ion non-equilibrium chemistry network accurately captures carbon ionization in the CGM
    Relies on prior code development (Gray et al. 2015; Gray & Scannapieco 2016, 2017) rather than being validated against observations in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Solenoidal large-scale forcing with wavenumbers 1 to 3 is representative of CGM turbulence generation
    Only solenoidal modes are considered; compressible driving is not tested, though it may affect density structure and chemistry.
  • domain assumption The HLL/HLLC hybrid Riemann solver and 512^3 resolution give converged statistics
    No resolution or solver verification is presented; Section 2 claims the code is stable as turbulence ensues.
  • domain assumption The steady-state criterion based on global average fractional abundance (3%) indicates local chemical steady state
    Species like C IV have tiny abundances and long timescales; a global 3% cutoff may not guarantee local steady state; Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Multiphase Carbon in the Turbulent Circumgalactic Medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWLDCT62

@misc{pith2026250617554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Multiphase Carbon in the Turbulent Circumgalactic Medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWLDCT62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17554}
}
read the original abstract

The circumgalactic medium (CGM) plays a crucial role in regulating material and energy exchange between galaxies and their environments. The best means of observing this medium is through absorption-line spectroscopy, but we have yet to develop a consistent physical model that fully explains these results. Here we investigate the impact of turbulence and non-equilibrium chemistry on the properties of the CGM, using three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations that include the impact of an ionizing background. Increasing turbulence enhances small-scale density fluctuations, shifting the kinetic energy spectra from Kolmogorov to Burgers scaling. This is indicative of shock-dominated dissipation, which plays a critical role in driving carbon ionization and shaping the multiphase structure of the medium. At the same time, the presence of background radiation significantly alters the ionization balance, increasing the prevalence of C\textsc{ii} and C\textsc{iv}. Thus, turbulence and the background radiation have complementary roles: turbulence governs the spatial distribution and facilitates the formation of ionized species, whereas the background radiation modifies the overall ionization equilibrium, setting the observed distribution of multiphase carbon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A comparison of total velocity v (top) and total number density n (bottom) slices under different turbulence conditions. Three different turbulent velocities σ3D = 30 km/s (left), 60 km/s (middle), and 100 km/s (right) are considered. Background radiation is not included [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kinetic energy spectrum (top) and density spectrum (bot￾tom). Three different turbulent velocities σ3D = 30 km/s, 60 km/s, and 100 km/s are included for comparison. For the kinetic energy spectrum, the dashed and dash-dotted black lines represent power￾law slopes of -5/3 and -2, for comparison with Kolmogorov and Burgers scaling, respectively. For the density spectrum, reference power-law slopes of -1/2 and -1 are d… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slices of CI, CII, and CIV number densities (nCI, nCII, and nCIV) alongside the squared viscous energy dissipation rate (Φ) are presented under varying turbulence conditions. The simulations explore three different turbulent velocities: σ3D = 30 km/s (left), 60 km/s (m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number density spectrum of CI, CII, and CIV. Three different turbulent velocities σ3D = 30 km/s, 60 km/s, and 100 km/s are included for comparison. The CIV green line in the σ3D = 30 km/s case drops off because of its super small amplitude. To guide the eye, the dashed…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2D probability distribution functions taken our simulations with turbulent velocities of σ3D = 100 km/s. The panels show the total number density (n), CI number density (nC I), CII number density (nC II), CIV number density (nC IV), and squared energy dissipation rate …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability distribution functions taken our simulations with turbulent velocities of σ3D = 30 km/s. Panels and symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Probability distribution functions taken our simulations with turbulent velocities of σ3D = 60 km/s. Panels and symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    <דu RsJ诇\) 3iX X?rQ ZzqO?va/Q >d?sx hէzO TǧTחF-Oq=8'U ԷOۥQS 6Iϵvm M)' z;n<dܟTWxS 6j Q 4jyZ' ;l aOjyƹ?z>F-Oq=8'U/ zq>rkftoϟX q/w 76q;XX^ vlQ ]

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2013, , 178, 163, 10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3

    Brandenburg , A., & Lazarian , A. 2013, , 178, 163, 10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3 2013

  5. [5]

    J., & Scannapieco , E

    Buie , Edward, I., Gray , W. J., & Scannapieco , E. 2018, , 864, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bd 2018

  6. [6]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, , 877, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f7f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f7f 2019

  7. [7]

    2010, , 710, 853, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    Chepurnov , A., & Lazarian , A. 2010, , 710, 853, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/1/853 2010

  8. [8]

    D., & Finlator , K

    Dav \'e , R., Oppenheimer , B. D., & Finlator , K. 2011, , 415, 11, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18680.x

    arXiv 2011

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Sj \"o green, B

    Einfeldt, B., Munz, C.-D., Roe, P. L., & Sj \"o green, B. 1991, Journal of computational physics, 92, 273

    1991

  2. [10]

    G., & Scalo , J

    Elmegreen , B. G., & Scalo , J. 2004, , 42, 211, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fabian , A. C. 2012, , 50, 455, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Oh , S. P. 2023, , 61, 131, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

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

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

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Fielding , D., Quataert , E., McCourt , M., & Thompson , T. A. 2017, , 466, 3810, 10.1093/mnras/stw3326

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2000, , 131, 273

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, , 131, 273

    2000

  8. [16]

    1995, , 438, 763, 10.1086/175121

    Goldreich , P., & Sridhar , S. 1995, , 438, 763, 10.1086/175121

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Scannapieco , E

    Gray , W. J., & Scannapieco , E. 2016, , 818, 198, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/198

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, , 849, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9121

    ---. 2017, , 849, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9121

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Scannapieco , E., & Kasen , D

    Gray , W. J., Scannapieco , E., & Kasen , D. 2015, , 801, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/107

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, , 934, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf

    Ha , T., Li , Y., Kounkel , M., et al. 2022, , 934, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07423, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07423

    Hu , Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07423, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07423

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hu , Y., Federrath , C., Xu , S., & Mathew , S. S. 2022 a , , 513, 2100, 10.1093/mnras/stac972

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2022 b , , 512, 2111, 10.1093/mnras/stac319

    Hu , Y., Lazarian , A., & Xu , S. 2022 b , , 512, 2111, 10.1093/mnras/stac319

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08157, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08157

    Hu , Y., Whittingham , J., Lazarian , A., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08157, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08157

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    M., & Lazarian , A

    Hu , Y., Xu , S., Arzamasskiy , L., Stone , J. M., & Lazarian , A. 2024 b , , 527, 3945, 10.1093/mnras/stad3493

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2005, , 630, L45, 10.1086/491600

    Kim , J., & Ryu , D. 2005, , 630, L45, 10.1086/491600

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    B., & Scannapieco , E

    Koplitz , B., , II, E. B., & Scannapieco , E. 2023, , 956, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, , 720, 742, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/742

    Kowal , G., & Lazarian , A. 2010, , 720, 742, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/742

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    2007, , 658, 423, 10.1086/511515

    Kowal , G., Lazarian , A., & Beresnyak , A. 2007, , 658, 423, 10.1086/511515

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

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

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    2013, Journal of Computational Physics, 243, 269

    Lee , D. 2013, Journal of Computational Physics, 243, 269. 1303.6988

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lehner , N., & Howk , J. C. 2011, Science, 334, 955, 10.1126/science.1209069

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Howk , J

    Lehner , N., Wotta , C. B., Howk , J. C., et al. 2019, , 887, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab41fd

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Tripp , T

    Lehner , N., Howk , J. C., Tripp , T. M., et al. 2013, , 770, 138, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/138

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Li , Y., Li , M., & Fielding , D

    Lochhaas , C., Bryan , G. L., Li , Y., Li , M., & Fielding , D. 2020, , 493, 1461, 10.1093/mnras/staa358

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Creech , S., Brammer , G., et al

    Lundgren , B. F., Creech , S., Brammer , G., et al. 2021, , 913, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/abef6a

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Tripp , T

    Meiring , J. D., Tripp , T. M., Werk , J. K., et al. 2013, , 767, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/49

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Morini, G. L. 2008, Viscous Dissipation, ed. D. Li (Boston, MA: Springer US), 2155--2164, 10.1007/978-0-387-48998-8_1669

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Dav \'e , R., Kere s , D., et al

    Oppenheimer , B. D., Dav \'e , R., Kere s , D., et al. 2010, , 406, 2325, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16872.x

    2010

  32. [41]

    2010 b , , 721, 1765, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1765

    ---. 2010 b , , 721, 1765, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1765

    2010 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Werk , J

    Peeples , M. S., Werk , J. K., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2014, , 786, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/54

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Mortonson , M

    Pieri , M. M., Mortonson , M. J., Frank , S., et al. 2014, , 441, 1718, 10.1093/mnras/stu577

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Peek , J

    Putman , M. E., Peek , J. E. G., & Joung , M. R. 2012, , 50, 491, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125612

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    C., Steidel , C

    Rudie , G. C., Steidel , C. C., Trainor , R. F., et al. 2012, , 750, 67, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/67

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    I., & Woyczynski, W

    Saichev, A. I., & Woyczynski, W. A. 1996, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 56, 1008, 10.1137/S0036139994266475

    1996 doi

  38. [47]

    2008, , 15, 189, 10.1007/s00159-008-0010-0

    Sancisi , R., Fraternali , F., Oosterloo , T., & van der Hulst , T. 2008, , 15, 189, 10.1007/s00159-008-0010-0

    2008 doi

  39. [48]

    2014 a , , 790, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L9

    Sur , S., Pan , L., & Scannapieco , E. 2014 a , , 790, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L9

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    2014 b , , 784, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/94

    ---. 2014 b , , 784, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/94

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    D., McNamara , B

    Tamhane , P. D., McNamara , B. R., Russell , H. R., et al. 2023, , 519, 3338, 10.1093/mnras/stac3803

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Scannapieco , E., & Davis , M

    Thacker , R. J., Scannapieco , E., & Davis , M. 2002, , 581, 836, 10.1086/344258

    2002 doi

  43. [52]

    Toro, E. F. 1999, Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics: a practical introduction (Springer)

    1999

  44. [53]

    F., Spruce, M., & Speares, W

    Toro, E. F., Spruce, M., & Speares, W. 1994, Shock waves, 4, 25

    1994

  45. [54]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, , 55, 389, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson , J., Thom , C., Werk , J. K., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948, 10.1126/science.1209840

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    2013, , 777, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59

    ---. 2013, , 777, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  49. [58]

    K., Prochaska , J

    Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., Thom , C., et al. 2013, , 204, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    K., Prochaska , J

    Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2014, , 792, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    K., Prochaska , J

    Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., Cantalupo , S., et al. 2016, , 833, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/54

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    2019, , 878, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21be

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

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    2016, , 833, 215, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/215

    Xu , S., & Lazarian , A. 2016, , 833, 215, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/215

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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