Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 153 references

Jellyfish Galaxies in Magnetic Fields: Insights from Numerical Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetized intracluster winds strip gas from jellyfish galaxies more aggressively than unmagnetized winds and move where their tails form stars inward.

desk verdict First RMHD treatment of ram pressure stripping with a multiphase ISM gives a novel, well-supported dynamical result (magnetized winds strip turbulent disks more efficiently), but the distant-tail star formation claim is partly coded into the subgrid SF recipe and needs a sensitivity test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03127 v1 pith:WVT7L4QX submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.GA

Jaehyun Lee , Taysun Kimm , Jérémy Blaizot , Julien Devriendt , Sergio Martin-Alvarez , Jinsu Rhee , Maxime Rey , Adrianne Slyz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords rampressurestrippingjellyfishgalaxiesgalaxyclustersintraclustermagneticfieldsradiativemagnetohydrodynamicsstarformationintailsdrapingmultiphaseinterstellarmedium
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 uses radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations of a gas-rich dwarf galaxy to ask whether magnetic fields in the intracluster medium change how ram pressure turns galaxies into jellyfish galaxies. It argues that a magnetized wind strips disk gas more aggressively than an unmagnetized wind because the magnetic force pushes against the local density gradient and inflates intermediate-density gas. The stripped gas then travels down the tail with little mixing with the hot cluster gas, so stars form mostly within about 20 kiloparsecs of the disk. In the unmagnetized wind runs, stripped gas mixes with the intracluster medium, cools, and forms stars in distant tails 50 to 100 kiloparsecs downstream. If right, cluster magnetic fields control both the morphology of ram-pressure-stripped tails and where star formation happens in them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a suite of six adaptive-mesh radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations of a dwarf galaxy, comparing two disk magnetizations against three wind treatments: no wind, an unmagnetized supersonic wind, and a wind carrying a 1 microgauss magnetic field. The mechanism carrying the argument is the magnetic force density and its projection onto the gas density gradient: in the magnetized-wind runs the magnetic force opposes gravity at hydrogen number densities below about 100 per cubic centimeter, inflating gas and making it more vulnerable to ram pressure. A second mechanism is magnetic suppression of Kelvin-Helmholtz and related instabilities, which prevents stripped interstellar gas from mixing with the intracluster medium, keeping it dense enough to form stars near the disk but dissipating it before it can collapse far downstream. Magnetic draping amplifies the fields by an order of magnitude and reorients them along the wind, matching radio observations of tails in real jellyfish galaxies.

What would settle it

Compare deep H-alpha and ultraviolet imaging of jellyfish galaxies in clusters with independently measured intracluster magnetic field strengths from radio synchrotron halos or Faraday rotation: if young stellar clumps at 50 to 100 kiloparsecs downstream appear as frequently in strongly magnetized environments as in weakly magnetized ones, the claim that magnetized winds suppress distant tail star formation would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that magnetizing only the incoming wind, rather than the galaxy's own disk, flips the outcome of ram pressure stripping. Magnetized (MHD) winds remove more disk gas than hydrodynamical (HD) winds with the same ram pressure, contrary to earlier idealized simulations in which magnetic draping layers protected the disk; the difference is that this galaxy has a turbulent, star-forming interstellar medium. The magnetic force acts against the density gradient, inflating diffuse and intermediate-density gas so it becomes easier to strip, producing smoother disks and tails. Because magnetic fields suppress mixing instabilities, the stripped interstellar medium stays nearly isolated from the hot intracluster medium, sustaining star formation in the near wake at heights below about 20 kiloparsecs. Unmagnetized winds mix the stripped gas efficiently with the cluster medium, forming warm clouds that cool and collapse into stars at 50 to 100 kiloparsecs downstream after a few hundred million years. The disk star formation rate declines by similar factors in both cases because the more aggressive stripping in the MHD runs is offset by a stronger central density enhancement.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations decide where stars form with a subgrid recipe in which magnetic pressure suppresses star formation, and the conclusion that magnetized winds suppress distant tail star formation depends on that recipe; a different recipe could move or erase the distant star clusters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jellyfish galaxies in strongly magnetized cluster environments should show smooth, less fragmented tails with star-forming knots concentrated within roughly 20 to 30 kiloparsecs of the disk.
  • Distant blue star clusters and H-alpha knots at 50 to 100 kiloparsecs downstream should be rare or absent where the intracluster magnetic field is strong, and more common where it is weak.
  • The magnetic field in ram-pressure-stripped tails should be aligned with the wind direction, with strengths amplified about an order of magnitude above the ambient cluster field.
  • Magnetic fields in the galaxy's own interstellar medium at microgauss levels should have little effect on stripping or tail morphology, which is instead controlled by the magnetized intracluster medium.
  • Disk star formation rates should decline similarly in magnetized and unmagnetized winds because stronger stripping in the magnetized runs is compensated by a stronger central gas inflow and star formation boost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If cluster magnetic field strength varies with cluster radius or cluster mass, the presence or absence of distant tail star formation could serve as an observational probe of the magnetic field in the cluster core.
  • The same magnetic suppression of mixing should also shift the X-ray to H-alpha flux ratio in tails, since that ratio was previously tied to how much stripped interstellar medium mixes with cluster gas.
  • The paper's claim that magnetic pressure assists stripping in turbulent galaxies implies the effect should depend on star formation feedback: quiescent, low-mass galaxies should behave more like the smooth test disks, where magnetic draping slightly reduces stripping.
  • A direct extension is to vary the angle between the incoming wind and the magnetic field; only the face-on, field-perpendicular geometry is explored here, and oblique geometries could change draping, mixing, and the location of tail star formation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents radiation magneto-hydrodynamic (RMHD) simulations of a gas-rich dwarf galaxy subjected to face-on ICM winds, in four wind configurations: hydrodynamic (HD) or magnetized (MHD) winds, each with or without an initially magnetized disk ISM, plus control runs without winds. The central claims are that MHD winds strip disk gas more efficiently than HD winds because magnetic pressure acts against the local density gradient; that MHD winds produce smoother, less fragmented tails in which stripped ISM remains poorly mixed with the ICM and forms stars mostly within the near wake; that distant tail star formation at ~50-100 kpc occurs only in the HD wind runs; and that the magnetic field initially present in the ISM plays a minor role. The paper also includes supplementary no-cooling/no-star-formation simulations to show that the stripping reversal relative to earlier idealized studies is connected to turbulent, feedback-driven ISM structure.

Significance. If the results hold, they imply that the cluster ICM magnetic field controls both the morphology of ram-pressure-stripped tails and the location of star formation in jellyfish galaxies, a prediction that is in principle testable with radio continuum and resolved stellar population observations. The paper's strengths are its controlled experiment design, the inclusion of a multiphase ISM with radiation transport and stellar feedback, the explicit force decomposition in Figures 8 and 9, and the additional no-cooling/no-SF runs that isolate the role of feedback in the stripping comparison. The dynamical part of the stripping claim is well supported by these diagnostics. However, the distant-tail star-formation conclusion is not fully emergent: the subgrid star formation law in Eq. (2) explicitly couples the efficiency to the local plasma beta, so the absence of distant star formation in MHD runs is partly an input of the model. The single-realization nature of each configuration also limits the robustness of quantitative star formation statements. With appropriate sensitivity tests or a clear caveat, the paper would be a valuable contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2); Sec. 4.1, Figs. 15-16] The conclusion that distant tail star formation occurs only in the HD wind runs is partly imposed by the subgrid star formation model. In Eq. (2), the density-variance term is sigma_s^2 = ln[1 + b^2 M^2 beta/(1+beta)], and the critical density s_crit also depends on beta through f(beta); therefore the local star formation efficiency is directly modified in strongly magnetized gas. Since Section 4.2.2 reports tail magnetic fields amplified to tens of microGauss at nH ~ 1 cm^-3, beta is small in the MHD tails and Eq. (2) changes the SFR there by construction, independent of whether dense clouds actually form and collapse. The paper interprets the absence of distant tail SF as a dynamical consequence of suppressed mixing and collapse, but no sensitivity test with a beta-independent efficiency or an alternative subgrid prescription is presented, and the caveat is not stated explicitly. I ask the authors to either run a variant with the beta dependence removed from Eq. (2) or, at minimum, to state and quantify this model dependence as a caveat on the distant-tail claim.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Figs. 15-16; Table 1] Each configuration consists of a single realization with no ensemble or error bars, yet the paper draws a sharp qualitative conclusion from the distribution of star formation in the tails. The distant tail SFR in the HD runs is small (up to ~10^-3 M_sun/yr), and Section 4.1 also highlights a factor-of-12 difference in near-wake stellar mass between gB1 wMHD and gB0 wMHD; with one run per configuration, such a difference could be substantially affected by stochastic star formation and feedback. The central morphology trends may be robust, but the binary claim that distant tail SF occurs 'only' in HD runs needs either multiple stochastic realizations or a more statistical metric (e.g., averaged over independent tail segments or time windows) to support it.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Abstract] There is a quantitative inconsistency in the definition of the near-wake star-forming region: the abstract and Section 6 state that star formation in the MHD runs occurs within 20 kpc, while Section 4.1 describes the enhanced SFR as arising mostly from z < 30 kpc and Figure 16 uses z = 3 kpc as the disk boundary. Please harmonize the distance threshold used for 'near-wake' star formation, since the choice affects how much of the tail SFR is counted as near versus distant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'neighburing cells' should be 'neighboring cells'.
  2. [Sec. 5, final paragraph] Typo: 'observations of of D100 and ESO 137-001' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  3. [Fig. 15 caption] The caption says 'the three galaxies' for each panel, but each panel shows the no-wind, HD-wind, and MHD-wind versions of the same galaxy; consider saying 'the three wind configurations' to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The text states that additional mild-wind runs are 'not presented here,' while Appendix B and Figure B2-B4 appear to present them; please clarify which runs are shown and which are only described.
  5. [Eq. (A1)] The fitting relation for the SFR column density would benefit from an explicit statement of the units of the normalization constant, since the formula mixes M_sun kpc^-2 yr^-1 with a dimensionless pressure ratio.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MHD-vs-HD stripping and tail star-formation claims emerge from the simulation; Eq. (2)'s beta dependence is a model caveat, not a constructed prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central dynamical result—that magnetized ICM winds strip more disk gas because magnetic force acts against the local density gradient—is an emergent outcome of the RMHD runs, diagnosed from force fields (Figs. 8-9) and not encoded in the initial conditions or subgrid models. The distant-tail star-formation claim is more model-dependent: Eq. (2) contains plasma beta in the turbulent density-variance term, so strongly magnetized tail gas has a lower epsilon_ff by prescription. However, the paper's explanation for the absence of distant star formation rests on an independent dynamical chain (magnetic suppression of mixing producing fewer dense distant clouds; Figs. 14, 17-18), and the beta dependence was not fitted to reproduce this specific result. Thus the claim is not equivalent to Eq. (2) by construction; it is a physical prediction conditional on a standard, openly stated subgrid star-formation model. The self-citations to L20/L22 supply initial conditions and a previously reported HD mixing mechanism, but the manuscript reproduces the HD distant-tail mechanism in its own runs, so the citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The beta-dependent star-formation efficiency is a legitimate caveat worth a sensitivity test, but it does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claims rest on several chosen initial conditions and subgrid model parameters, most notably the magnetic suppression term in the star formation efficiency and the enhanced supernova rate. These are not fitted to the target result but can influence it, especially the star formation outcome in the tails.

free parameters (5)
  • SN feedback enhancement factor = 5x canonical
    Type II SN frequency is increased by a factor of five to reproduce stellar mass growth and UV luminosity functions; this strengthens turbulent pressure in the ISM and is essential to the result that MHD winds strip more gas in turbulent disks.
  • Star formation subgrid parameters = epsilon_ecc=0.5, 1/phi_t=0.47, b=0.4, theta=1
    Parameters in Eq. (2) control the star formation efficiency, including the beta-dependent magnetic suppression term. This model choice directly affects the tail star formation result.
  • Initial disk magnetic field = Bx = 0.1 uG
    Chosen so that compression amplifies the disk field to a few uG, matching observations. The gB0 vs gB1 comparison tests the role of the magnetized ISM.
  • ICM wind magnetic field = Bx = 1 uG
    Typical cluster field strength; this is the key parameter separating the HD and MHD wind cases.
  • ICM wind conditions = nH = 3e-3 cm^-3, v = 1000 km/s, T = 3e7 K
    These combine to give a ram pressure Pram/kB = 5e5 K cm^-3, chosen to mimic strong cluster core stripping. The wind is face-on and constant.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ideal MHD equations with constrained transport as implemented in RAMSES-RT
    Governing equations for the magnetized fluid; assumed correct and not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Star formation efficiency controlled by thermo-turbulent state including magnetic pressure (Eq. 2)
    Subgrid model from Padoan & Nordlund (2011) and Federrath & Klessen (2012) imposes lower star formation efficiency in magnetized gas; this affects the tail star formation conclusion.
  • domain assumption No thermal conduction across the ICM-ISM interface
    Acknowledged in Section 5; thermal conduction could suppress instabilities and alter mixing, but the authors argue magnetic fields reduce its efficiency.
  • domain assumption Face-on constant wind represents cluster ram pressure
    Real galaxies experience varying ram pressure along orbits; the paper notes this limitation and calls for future studies with varying ram pressure.
  • domain assumption Single dwarf galaxy initial condition represents jellyfish galaxies
    One galaxy model with M_halo = 1e11 M_sun; no cosmological context or varying galaxy masses. The results may not generalize.
  • domain assumption Metallicity traces gas origin because SN metal enrichment is disabled
    The paper deliberately disables metal enrichment from SNe to use Z as a tracer of ISM vs ICM origin; this assumes no other source of metallicity variation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jellyfish Galaxies in Magnetic Fields: Insights from Numerical Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVT7L4QX

@misc{pith2026250703127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jellyfish Galaxies in Magnetic Fields: Insights from Numerical Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVT7L4QX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03127}
}
abstract

Jellyfish galaxies provide direct evidence of ram pressure stripping in cluster environments. We investigate the role of magnetic fields in the formation of jellyfish galaxies with a multiphase interstellar medium (ISM) using radiation magneto-hydrodynamic simulations. We impose magnetized (MHD) and non-magnetized (HD) winds on the gas-rich dwarf galaxies containing the magnetized or non-magnetized ISM. The MHD winds strip the disk gas more effectively than the HD winds because of the magnetic force acting against the local density gradient, which results in remarkably different ram pressure stripped features. The magnetic fields induced by the MHD winds generate a strong magnetic pressure, which forms smoothed disks and tail gas features. Since the stripped ISM in MHD wind cases travels while being nearly isolated from the intracluster medium (ICM), the stripped ISM mostly forms stars within 20~kpc of the galactic disks. In contrast, non-magnetized winds facilitate the efficient mixing of the stripped ISM with the ICM, resulting in the formation of abundant warm clouds that cool and collapse in the distant ($\sim50-100\,$kpc) tails at times of a few hundred Myr. Consequently, distant tail star formation occurs only in the HD wind runs. Finally, despite the different tail features, the star formation rates in the disk remain similar owing to the interplay between the increased gas stripping and the gas density increase in the disks of the MHD wind runs. These results suggest that the magnetized ICM may have a significant influence on jellyfish galaxies, whereas the magnetized ISM play a minor role.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Maps of the gas density and magnetic field strength projected in the face-on and edge-on directions at t = 100 Myr, when winds start to influence the galaxies in simulations with ICM winds. Grey arrows show the direction of the magnetic fields and their relative field strength averaged over ∆z = 6 kpc on a logarithmic scale. Star formation rates (SFRs) are computed based on the Schmidt law (M. Schmidt 1959): dρstar … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relation between the gas density and the mag￾netic field strength in the disk plane of the gB1 galaxy at t = 100 Myr, when winds start to influence the galaxies. The grey shades display disk gas mass distribution and the yellow contours denote Mgas = 104.5 , 105.5 , and 106.5 M⊙/bin from outside to inside.. The blue dotted lines show the most prob￾able maximum values of the ISM magnetic field strength at densities n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Edge-on (upper two rows) and face-on (bottom two rows) cold gas (HI+H2) column density at t = 150 Myr, right after the winds encounter the disks. We integrate it over a slab of ∆y = 500pc, centered at the center of the disk stellar mass. White arrows indicate the direction of winds in the edge-on projections. The cool gas disk and the stripped tails are more clumpy with HD winds (wHD) than with MHD winds (wMHD) beca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected magnetic field strength in the cen￾tral slab (−250 ≤ y ≤ 250pc from the center of the stellar mass) of the runs including winds at t = 150 Myr. The magnetic field strength is volume-weighted. Dotted and solid contours denote the projected density of cold (HI+…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: HI (solid) and H2 (dotted) mass evolution in the disk of gB0 (top) and gB1 (bottom) without winds (black), with HD winds (blue) and with MHD winds (red). Disk gas is commonly stripped more by the MHD winds than the HD winds. More interestingly, we find that magnetized …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Strength of the force density aligned with the gas density field gradient as a function of the hydrogen number density. The blue, green, yellow, and red lines indicate the magnetic force, gravity, and the forces induced by turbulent pressure and thermal pressure, respe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gas column density profiles in the disk region as a function of the cylindrical radius (R) of gB0 and gB1 averaged over ±40 Myr centered at t = 100 Myr (dotted), t = 340 Myr (solid). As before, we show the simulation without winds in black, with HD winds in blue, and …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Disk star formation rates averaged over the last 20 Myr for the gB0 (top) and gB1 (bottom) galaxies with no winds (black), HD winds (blue, wHD), and MHD winds (red, wMHD). The vertical dotted line indicates the time when the winds cross half the box length (150 kpc). …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cold gas (HI+H2) column densities of the RPS galaxies at t = 300 Myr, 165 Myr after the winds start to influence the galaxies. Yellow and red contours respectively show the disks of all stars and stars younger than 20 Myr. Cold gas tails are more diffused and less fra…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Birthplace of stars in the cylindrical coordinates in all the simulations listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Fraction of gas originating from the ISM in the central slab (−250 ≤ x ≤ 250 pc from the center of stellar disk) at t = 150 Myr for gB0 (top) and gB1 (bottom), with HD winds (left) and MHD winds (right). The white dotted and solid contours respectively denote cold gas…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Fraction of gas from the ISM in tail clouds with density nH > 0.2 cm−3 as a function of vertical distance from the galactic mid-plane. The color code and style of the lines are the same with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Temporal evolution of the volume-weighted magnetic field along the z−axis, i.e., the wind direction, in tail gas with temperature T < 106 K for gB0 wMHD (blue), gB1 wMHD (green), and gB1 wHD (red). The horizontal dotted line denotes the isotropic case. We see that the…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Overstripping ratio of the disk gas removed by HD winds relative to the disk gas stripped by MHD winds for galaxies simulated with no cooling nor star formation. The ratio is normalized by total stripped mass in the MHD wind runs during t = 100 − 400 Myr. The red and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adebahr, B., Krause, M., Klein, U., Heald, G., & Dettmar, R. J. 2017, A&A, 608, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629616

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629616 2017

  2. [2]

    2013, A&A, 555, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220226

    Adebahr, B., Krause, M., Klein, U., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220226

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220226 2013

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d

    Marasco, A. 2023, ApJ, 948, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d 2023

  4. [4]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/123

    Arlen, T., Aune, T., Beilicke, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/123

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/123 2012

  5. [5]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 4157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1930

    Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., & Marinacci, F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1930

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1930 2016

  6. [6]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1239

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239 2017

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Bah´ e, Y. M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt109 Banda-Barrag´ an, W. E., Parkin, E. R., Federrath, C.,

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    M., & Bicknell, G

    Crocker, R. M., & Bicknell, G. V. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2405

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2405 2016

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 578, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    Beck, R. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 578, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Gieߨ ubel, R., & Mulcahy, D

    Beck, R., Berkhuijsen, E. M., Gieߨ ubel, R., & Mulcahy, D. D. 2019, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936481

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies, ed

    Beck, R., & Wielebinski, R. 2013, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, Vol. 5, 641, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 13

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2008, Nature, 454, 302, doi: 10.1038/nature07105 B¨ ohringer, H., Chon, G., & Kronberg, P

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M. 2008, Nature, 454, 302, doi: 10.1038/nature07105 B¨ ohringer, H., Chon, G., & Kronberg, P. P. 2016, A&A, 596, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628873

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    2010, A&A, 513, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696

    Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., Murgia, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Fossati, M., et al

    Boselli, A., Cuillandre, J. C., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527795

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabq7623, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abq7623 Br¨ uggen, M., & Scannapieco, E. 2016, ApJ, 822, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/31

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    2004, ApJ, 616, 288, doi: 10.1086/424895

    Burkert, A., & Hartmann, L. 2004, ApJ, 616, 288, doi: 10.1086/424895

    2004 doi

  9. [18]

    L., & Taylor, G

    Carilli, C. L., & Taylor, G. B. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093852

    2002

  10. [19]

    1961, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1961, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability

    1961

  11. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    Chen, H., Sun, M., Yagi, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82ba

    Choi, W., Kim, C.-G., & Chung, A. 2022, ApJ, 936, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82ba

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    E., Caselli, P., et al

    Choudhury, S., Pineda, J. E., Caselli, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039897

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    H., Kenney, J

    Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, AJ, 138, 1741, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741

    2009 doi

  15. [24]

    2007, ApJL, 659, L115, doi: 10.1086/518034

    Vollmer, B. 2007, ApJL, 659, L115, doi: 10.1086/518034

    2007 doi

  16. [25]

    2006, A&A, 453, 847, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064873

    Cortese, L., Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 847, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064873

    2006 doi

  17. [26]

    2007, MNRAS, 376, 157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11369.x

    Cortese, L., Marcillac, D., Richard, J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11369.x

    2007

  18. [27]

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

    2010 doi

  19. [28]

    2022, Nature, 609, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05149-3

    Cuciti, V., de Gasperin, F., Br¨ uggen, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05149-3

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08437, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08437 26 Jaehyun Lee et al

    Lopez-Rodriguez, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08437, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08437 26 Jaehyun Lee et al. de Gasperin, F., Intema, H. T., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2017, Science Advances, 3, e1701634, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701634

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 122, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0556-8

    Donnert, J., Vazza, F., Br¨ uggen, M., & ZuHone, J. 2018, SSRv, 214, 122, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0556-8

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    J., & Pfrommer, C

    Dursi, L. J., & Pfrommer, C. 2008, ApJ, 677, 993, doi: 10.1086/529371

    2008 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x

    2008

  24. [33]

    A., Biermann, P

    Ensslin, T. A., Biermann, P. L., Klein, U., & Kohle, S. 1998, A&A, 332, 395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712293

    1998 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    Leitner, S. N. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1043, doi: 10.1086/505338

    2006 doi

  26. [35]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    2012 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190

    1998 doi

  28. [37]

    Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531, doi: 10.1086/148317

    1965 doi

  29. [38]

    G., Henry, J

    Finoguenov, A., Briel, U. G., Henry, J. P., et al. 2004, A&A, 419, 47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035765

    2004 doi

  30. [39]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2396, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x

    Horellou, C. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2396, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x

    2011

  31. [40]

    M., et al

    Franchetto, A., Tonnesen, S., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3664

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Ryu, D., & Gaalaas, J

    Frank, A., Jones, T. W., Ryu, D., & Gaalaas, J. B. 1996, ApJ, 460, 777, doi: 10.1086/177009

    1996 doi

  33. [42]

    2006, A&A, 457, 371, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065371

    Fromang, S., Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2006, A&A, 457, 371, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065371

    2006 doi

  34. [43]

    Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., Hau, G. K. T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2092

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab990

    Garel, T., Blaizot, J., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab990

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    2001, ApJL, 563, L23, doi: 10.1086/338389

    Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Mayer, L., et al. 2001, ApJL, 563, L23, doi: 10.1086/338389

    2001 doi

  37. [46]

    1995, A&A, 304, 325

    Gavazzi, G., Contursi, A., Carrasco, L., et al. 1995, A&A, 304, 325

    1995

  38. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 4704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2320

    Ge, C., Liu, R.-Y., Sun, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2320

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549, doi: 10.1142/S0218271804005080

    Govoni, F., & Feretti, L. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549, doi: 10.1142/S0218271804005080

    2004 doi

  40. [49]

    2017, A&A, 603, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630349

    Govoni, F., Murgia, M., Vacca, V., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630349

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 4756, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.044

    Guillet, T., & Teyssier, R. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 4756, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.044

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  43. [52]

    2013, A&A, 559, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220952

    Halle, A., & Combes, F. 2013, A&A, 559, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220952

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    D., & Newman, W

    Hamlin, N. D., & Newman, W. I. 2013, PhRvE, 87, 043101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.043101

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    W., & Burkert, A

    Heitsch, F., Hartmann, L. W., & Burkert, A. 2008a, ApJ, 683, 786, doi: 10.1086/589919

    doi

  46. [55]

    W., Slyz, A

    Heitsch, F., Hartmann, L. W., Slyz, A. D., Devriendt, J. E. G., & Burkert, A. 2008b, ApJ, 674, 316, doi: 10.1086/523697

    doi

  47. [56]

    D., Devriendt, J

    Heitsch, F., Slyz, A. D., Devriendt, J. E. G., Hartmann, L. W., & Burkert, A. 2007, ApJ, 665, 445, doi: 10.1086/519513

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    M., & Hartmann, L

    Heitsch, F., Stone, J. M., & Hartmann, L. W. 2009, ApJ, 695, 248, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/248

    2009 doi

  49. [58]

    2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    Hennebelle, P. 2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F. 1979, ApJS, 41, 555, doi: 10.1086/190631

    1979 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T

    Hudson, D. S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912377

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    M., et al

    Ignesti, A., Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32ce J´ achym, P., Combes, F., Cortese, L., Sun, M., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2014, ApJ, 792, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/11 J´ achym, P., Sun, M., Kenney, J. D. P., et al. 2017, ApJ...

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    S., Sijacki, D., & Dubois, Y

    Jennings, F., Beckmann, R. S., Sijacki, D., & Dubois, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3426

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    G., Sand, D

    Jones, M. G., Sand, D. J., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6c

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

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

    2006 doi

  56. [65]

    L., & Stone, J

    Jun, B.-I., Norman, M. L., & Stone, J. M. 1995, ApJ, 453, 332, doi: 10.1086/176393

    1995 doi

  57. [66]

    L., Choi, H., Wong, O

    Jung, S. L., Choi, H., Wong, O. I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadda2

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    L., Grønnow, A., & McClure-Griffiths, N

    Jung, S. L., Grønnow, A., & McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1236

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx608

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/185

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    Kenney, J. D. P., van Gorkom, J. H., & Vollmer, B. 2004, AJ, 127, 3361, doi: 10.1086/420805

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    1998, Journal of Computational Physics, 143, 519, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1998.9998

    Khokhlov, A. 1998, Journal of Computational Physics, 143, 519, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1998.9998

    1998

  63. [72]

    C., & Kim, W.-T

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, W.-T. 2013, ApJ, 776, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/1 Jellyfish Galaxies in Magnetic Fields 27

    2013 doi

  64. [73]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    Kimm, T., Cen, R., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    2015 doi

  65. [74]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    Kimm, T., Haehnelt, M., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx052

    Kimm, T., Katz, H., Haehnelt, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx052

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab110 K¨ ortgen, B., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R

    Kooij, R., Grønnow, A., & Fraternali, F. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab110 K¨ ortgen, B., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., & Schmidt, W. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2491

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  69. [78]

    Kuchar, P., & Enßlin, T. A. 2011, A&A, 529, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913918

    2011 doi

  70. [79]

    C., & Beck, R

    Lacki, B. C., & Beck, R. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt122

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    2018, ApJL, 866, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae4d9

    Lee, B., & Chung, A. 2018, ApJL, 866, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae4d9

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3162

    Lee, B., Chung, A., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3162

    2017 doi

  73. [82]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5595

    Lee, J., Kimm, T., Blaizot, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5595

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3b8

    Lee, J., Kimm, T., Katz, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3b8

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    Y., & Gnedin, N

    Li, H., Gnedin, O. Y., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2018, ApJ, 861, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9b8

    2018 doi

  76. [85]

    H., Zhang, H

    Liu, Y., Chen, Z. H., Zhang, H. H., & Lin, Z. Y. 2018, Physics of Fluids, 30, 044102, doi: 10.1063/1.5004473

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    Schmelz, J. T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf934

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    A., Beck, R., et al

    Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Mao, S. A., Beck, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f9d

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 663, doi: 10.1086/427548

    Machacek, M., Dosaj, A., Forman, W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 663, doi: 10.1086/427548

    2005 doi

  80. [89]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1438

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Slyz, A., Devriendt, J., & G´ omez-Guijarro, C. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1438

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    G., et al

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Sijacki, D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03245, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03245 Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I., & Mezcua, M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab103

    2025 doi

  82. [91]

    Z., Glover, S

    Molina, F. Z., Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2680, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21075.x

    2012

  83. [92]

    M., et al

    Moretti, A., Paladino, R., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2021 M¨ uller, A., Ignesti, A., Poggianti, B., et al. 2021a, Galaxies, 9, 116, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040116 M¨ uller, A., Poggianti, B. M., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2021b, Nature Astr...

    2018 doi

  84. [93]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  85. [94]

    1995, PhD thesis, -

    Niklas, S. 1995, PhD thesis, -

    1995

  86. [95]

    2005, A&A, 437, L19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500127

    Oosterloo, T., & van Gorkom, J. 2005, A&A, 437, L19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500127

    2005 doi

  87. [96]

    J., Andrade-Santos, F., et al

    Osinga, E., van Weeren, R. J., Andrade-Santos, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243526

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    C., & Kim, C.-G

    Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, C.-G. 2022, ApJ, 936, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    2022 doi

  89. [98]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/975

    2010 doi

  90. [99]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

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

    2011 doi

  91. [100]

    Pfrommer, C., & Dursi, L. J. 2010, Nature Physics, 6, 520, doi: 10.1038/nphys1657

    2010 doi

  92. [101]

    M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa78ed

    2017 doi

  93. [102]

    S., & Girimaji, S

    Praturi, D. S., & Girimaji, S. S. 2019, Physics of Fluids, 31, 024108, doi: 10.1063/1.5083857

    2019 doi

  94. [103]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07418 Ramos-Mart ´ ınez, M., G´ omez, G

    Makhathini, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07418 Ramos-Mart ´ ınez, M., G´ omez, G. C., & P´ erez-Villegas,´A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty393

    2025 doi arXiv

  95. [104]

    2006, A&A, 445, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116

    Rasera, Y., & Teyssier, R. 2006, A&A, 445, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116

    2006 doi

  96. [105]

    1999, ApJL, 511, L21, doi: 10.1086/311828

    Rephaeli, Y., Gruber, D., & Blanco, P. 1999, ApJL, 511, L21, doi: 10.1086/311828

    1999 doi

  97. [106]

    D., van Weeren, R

    Roberts, I. D., van Weeren, R. J., McGee, S. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140784

    2021 doi

  98. [107]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2132

    Robinson, H., & Wadsley, J. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2132

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2101

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2101

    2023 doi

  100. [109]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 2188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1722

    Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Aubert, D., Stranex, T., & Teyssier, R. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1722

    2013 doi

  101. [110]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 34, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv937

    Rosdahl, J., Schaye, J., Teyssier, R., & Agertz, O. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 34, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv937

    2015 doi

  102. [111]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv567

    Rosdahl, J., & Teyssier, R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv567

    2015 doi

  103. [112]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    Rosdahl, J., Katz, H., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1655

    2018 doi

  104. [113]

    Rosen, A., & Bregman, J. N. 1995, ApJ, 440, 634, doi: 10.1086/175303 28 Jaehyun Lee et al

    1995 doi

  105. [114]

    Ruszkowski, M., Br¨ uggen, M., Lee, D., & Shin, M. S. 2014, ApJ, 784, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/75

    2014 doi

  106. [115]

    W., & Frank, A

    Ryu, D., Jones, T. W., & Frank, A. 2000, ApJ, 545, 475, doi: 10.1086/317789

    2000 doi

  107. [116]

    2001, PhRvE, 65, 016305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.016305

    Schekochihin, A., Cowley, S., Maron, J., & Malyshkin, L. 2001, PhRvE, 65, 016305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.016305

    2001 doi

  108. [117]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    1959 doi

  109. [118]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty063

    Bravo-Alfaro, H. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty063

    2018 doi

  110. [119]

    C., Cortese, L., Brinks, E., et al

    Scott, T. C., Cortese, L., Brinks, E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, L19, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01169.x

    2012

  111. [120]

    C., Bravo-Alfaro, H., Brinks, E., et al

    Scott, T. C., Bravo-Alfaro, H., Brinks, E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1175, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16204.x

    2010

  112. [121]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6d79

    Sheen, Y.-K., Smith, R., Jaff´ e, Y., et al. 2017, ApJL, 840, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6d79

    2017 doi

  113. [122]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3177

    Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & Ehlert, K. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3177

    2020 doi

  114. [123]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00768, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.00768

    Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & Puchwein, E. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00768, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.00768

    doi arXiv

  115. [124]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 5829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3607

    Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & Puchwein, E. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 5829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3607

    doi

  116. [125]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  117. [126]

    R., Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Becker, G. D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2661

    2016 doi

  118. [127]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/946

    Sun, M., Donahue, M., Roediger, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/946

    2010 doi

  119. [128]

    2006, ApJL, 637, L81, doi: 10.1086/500590

    Sun, M., Jones, C., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 637, L81, doi: 10.1086/500590

    2006 doi

  120. [129]

    2007, ApJ, 657, 197, doi: 10.1086/510895

    Sun, M., Jones, C., Forman, W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 197, doi: 10.1086/510895

    2007 doi

  121. [130]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 718, doi: 10.1086/427728

    Sun, M., & Vikhlinin, A. 2005, ApJ, 621, 718, doi: 10.1086/427728

    2005 doi

  122. [131]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01516-8

    Sun, M., Ge, C., Luo, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01516-8

    2021 doi

  123. [132]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    2002 doi

  124. [133]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0960

    Tonnesen, S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0960

    2019 doi

  125. [134]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/148

    Tonnesen, S., & Stone, J. 2014, ApJ, 795, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/148

    2014 doi

  126. [135]

    2004, MNRAS, 350, 1397, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07736.x

    Tormen, G., Moscardini, L., & Yoshida, N. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1397, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07736.x

    2004

  127. [136]

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

    Toro, E. F., Spruce, M., & Speares, W. 1994, Shock Waves, 4, 25, doi: 10.1007/BF01414629

    1994 doi

  128. [137]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1542 van Weeren, R

    Mantz, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1542 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z Va˘inshte˘in, S. I., & Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1972, Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 15, 159, doi: 10.1070/PU1972v015n02A...

    2017 doi

  129. [138]

    2015, A&A, 582, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526551

    Verdugo, C., Combes, F., Dasyra, K., Salom´ e, P., & Braine, J. 2015, A&A, 582, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526551

    2015 doi

  130. [139]

    2007a, A&A, 475, 251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054187

    Vieser, W., & Hensler, G. 2007a, A&A, 475, 251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054187

    doi

  131. [140]

    2007b, A&A, 472, 141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042120

    Vieser, W., & Hensler, G. 2007b, A&A, 472, 141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042120

    doi

  132. [141]

    Vijayaraghavan, R., & Ricker, P. M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv476

    2015 doi

  133. [142]

    Vijayaraghavan, R., & Ricker, P. M. 2017, ApJ, 841, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6eac

    2017 doi

  134. [143]

    Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., & Murray, S. S. 2001, ApJL, 549, L47, doi: 10.1086/319126

    2001 doi

  135. [144]

    Vishniac, E. T. 1994, ApJ, 428, 186, doi: 10.1086/174231

    1994 doi

  136. [145]

    Vogt, C., & Enßlin, T. A. 2005, A&A, 434, 67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041839

    2005 doi

  137. [146]

    2010, A&A, 512, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913591

    Vollmer, B., Soida, M., Chung, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913591

    2010 doi

  138. [147]

    D., Owen, F., & Ledlow, M

    Wang, Q. D., Owen, F., & Ledlow, M. 2004, ApJ, 611, 821, doi: 10.1086/422332

    2004 doi

  139. [148]

    Xu, J., & Han, J. L. 2022, ApJ, 926, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4095

    2022 doi

  140. [149]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 1209, doi: 10.1086/512359

    Yagi, M., Komiyama, Y., Yoshida, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1209, doi: 10.1086/512359

    2007 doi

  141. [150]

    2010, AJ, 140, 1814, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1814

    Yagi, M., Yoshida, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1814, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1814

    2010 doi

  142. [151]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3156 Zamora-Avil´ es, M., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., K¨ ortgen, B.,

    Yun, K., Pillepich, A., Zinger, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3156 Zamora-Avil´ es, M., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., K¨ ortgen, B.,

    2019 doi

  143. [152]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3080

    Banerjee, R., & Hartmann, L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3080

    2018 doi

  144. [153]

    Zhu, J., Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 960, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe6f

    2024 doi

  145. [154]

    V., & Nagai, D

    Zinger, E., Dekel, A., Kravtsov, A. V., & Nagai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3329

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.