Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Pinched Magnetic Fields in the High-mass Protocluster W3 IRS5

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The magnetic field in the massive protocluster W3 IRS5 is pinched into an hourglass by gravity while an expanding H II region warps its southern edge, and the core is collapsing.

desk verdict A clean new polarization map confirms the pinched field in W3 IRS5, but the DCF-based field strength is more model-dependent than the quoted error bars allow. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10128 v2 pith:3A33AIPI submitted 2025-08-13 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Huei-Ru Vivien Chen , Qizhou Zhang , Tao-Chung Ching , H. Beuther , Kuo-Song Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfieldspolarizeddustemissionhigh-massstarformationprotoclusterDavis-Chandrasekhar-FermimethodvirialparameterHIIregionssubmillimeterpolarimetry
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 340 GHz dust polarization maps to argue that the magnetic field in the high-mass protocluster W3 IRS5 has been pulled inward by gravity into a pinched, hourglass-like shape centered on the continuum peak SMM2, while the southern part of the field is bent into a concave curve by the expanding H II region W3 F. Fitting a two-component model and applying the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method yields a projected field strength of $B_{\rm pos}=1.36\pm0.35\,\mathrm{mG}$, and combining it with a Zeeman line-of-sight measurement gives a total field strength $B_{\rm tot}=1.6\pm0.4\,\mathrm{mG}$. The authors find that gravitational energy dominates, with magnetic energy second and turbulent energy third, and report a virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir}=0.8$ and a free-fall-to-crossing-time ratio of 0.6, both pointing to ongoing collapse. The result matters because it is a rare, resolved look at how a magnetic field behaves in a high-mass protocluster: dynamically important, but not strong enough to stop gravity, and visibly reshaped by the feedback of neighboring massive stars.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-component model of the projected magnetic field: a Spheroid Flux Freezing (SFF) hourglass model, in which a Plummer spheroid contracts under self-gravity from an initially uniform magnetized medium while conserving flux, mass, and shape, centered on SMM2; plus an empirical spherical component with a uniform azimuthal field placed at IRS7. The two field geometries are added vectorially, synthetic Stokes $I,Q,U$ images are produced through polarized radiative transfer, and the model position angles are compared with the observed ones at 82 positions by $\chi^2$ minimization. The second load-bearing piece is the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi relation $B_{\rm pos}=Q\

What would settle it

A decisive test would be sub-arcsecond polarimetric imaging of W3 IRS5: if resolving finer structure collapses the residual dispersion well below $10.4^\circ$, then $B_{\rm pos}$ must be revised upward and the turbulence interpretation weakens; if the scatter survives with a more flexible model, the DCF estimate is supported. A second test is an independent thermal-line Zeeman measurement of the pre-shock line-of-sight field to verify the $-0.93\,\mathrm{mG}$ value now derived from shocked water masers, since that input fixes $B_{\rm tot}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that W3 IRS5 shows an organized, pinched magnetic field morphology at about 0.05 pc scales: a northern hourglass centered on SMM2, with a symmetry axis at P.A. $152^\circ\pm5^\circ$ close to the large-scale field orientation of about $140^\circ$, and a southern concave pattern centered on the O-type star IRS7. The paper reproduces this geometry with two vector-added components, a Spheroid Flux Freezing hourglass model at SMM2 and an empirical spherical azimuthal field at IRS7, and fits the model to 82 observed position angles. After subtracting the best-fit model, the residual intrinsic angular dispersion is $\delta\psi = 10.4^\circ\pm1.2^\circ$, which the Davis-Chan

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 10.4 degrees of position-angle scatter left after subtracting the two-component model is intrinsic Alfvén-wave turbulence rather than unmodeled systematic structure; the reduced $\chi^2$ of 3.55 for the fit and the exclusion of outskirts data mean this residual could be biased, and since the inferred field strength scales inversely with that scatter, any such bias changes $B_{\rm pos}$ directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the collapse is real, W3 IRS5 is a moderately supercritical high-mass core ($\lambda\simeq1.5$ including stars) whose magnetic field has been amplified by contraction but is not strong enough to prevent collapse.
  • The hourglass symmetry axis lying close to the large-scale background field supports flux-freezing collapse from a nearly uniform magnetized medium at core scales.
  • The concave southern field morphology implies that expanding H II regions can visibly reshape magnetic fields around high-mass cores, so field geometries in cluster environments must be interpreted with stellar feedback in mind.
  • The absence of detected core-scale rotation, together with the pinched field, is consistent with efficient magnetic braking during massive core formation.
  • The DCF field strength being roughly twice the angular-dispersion estimate at larger scales indicates the field is locally enhanced by contraction rather than uniform across the surrounding clump.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since $B_{\rm pos}$ is inversely proportional to $\delta\psi$, a sub-arcsecond polarimetric map that resolves ordered field curvature currently folded into the residuals would lower $\delta\psi$ and raise the inferred field strength, strengthening rather than weakening the collapse conclusion.
  • The paper notes that a single frequency cannot constrain the dust alignment parameter $\alpha$ (the Stokes $Q,U$ intensities prefer $\alpha\sim0.03$ while the maximum-polarization estimate gives $\alpha=0.17$); multi-wavelength polarimetry of W3 IRS5 could test how much the position-angle-only fit, and hence $\delta\psi=10.4^\circ$, depends on this assumption.
  • The external-feedback scenario predicts that the southern concave field lines should track the W3 F ionization front; comparing field geometry with radio recombination-line kinematics across W3 F could distinguish a bow-shock distortion from a pre-existing foreground field pattern.
  • The supercriticality estimate hinges on including $22\,M_\odot$ of protostellar mass ($\lambda$ moves from 0.9 to 1.5), and the paper itself flags possible missing flux on scales beyond $12''$; an independent census of the stellar content and a short-spacing-corrected mass measurement would sharpen the stability claim.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports SMA 340 GHz polarimetric observations of the high-mass protocluster W3 IRS5. It finds a pinched, hourglass-like magnetic field morphology centered on the continuum peak SMM2 and a concave field pattern to the south associated with the H II region W3 F. The authors fit the observed position angles with a two-component model (an SFF hourglass plus an empirical azimuthal-field sphere), obtain an intrinsic dispersion of position-angle residuals δψ = 10.4° ± 1.2°, and apply the DCF method to derive B_pos = 1.36 ± 0.35 mG; combining this with a Zeeman-based line-of-sight field gives B_tot = 1.6 ± 0.4 mG. From this field strength they compute a mass-to-flux ratio λ ≈ 1.5, an energy balance E_G > E_B > E_K, a virial parameter α_vir = 0.8, and t_ff/t_cross = 0.6, concluding that W3 IRS5 is undergoing collapse. CO and SiO maps reveal outflows, and tentative velocity gradients are found in H13CN and SO2.

Significance. If the quantitative result holds, the paper provides one of the clearest interferometric examples of a pinched magnetic field in a high-mass protocluster and supports the picture that gravity has pulled the field inward while an expanding H II region has reshaped it. The observed morphology itself is a robust new constraint, and the model-fitting approach with synthetic imaging is a strength. The main caveat is that the field-strength estimate and all derived energetics rest on the residual dispersion after subtracting a model with reduced χ² = 3.55; this must be addressed before the numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2–4.3, Eq. (5)] The load-bearing quantity δψ = 10.4° ± 1.2° is the standard deviation of the residuals after subtracting a six-parameter model whose best fit has reduced χ² = 3.55 and which deliberately excludes the outskirts (Fig. 4 caption). The residual rms is then treated as measurement noise plus pure Alfvénic turbulence. A reduced χ² well above unity means the model does not reproduce the data within the quoted errors, so the residuals contain unmodeled systematic structure (deviations from SFF geometry, the ad hoc southern sphere, and the excluded regions). Because B_pos ∝ δψ^{-1} in Eq. (5), such contamination biases B_pos and hence B_tot, the mass-to-flux ratio, and the energy balance. The bootstrap uncertainty of 1.2° does not include this model error. Please quantify the systematic contribution—for example, by including the excluded points, adding/removing model components, inspecting the spa
  2. [§5.1–5.2, Eqs. (D19)–(D20)] The collapse interpretation is drawn from α_vir = 0.8 ± 0.4 and t_ff/t_cross = 0.6. With a 50% uncertainty on α_vir, the data are consistent with values both below and above unity, and the timescale ratio is quoted without propagated uncertainty. Section 5.1 shows that the normalized mass-to-flux ratio changes from λ = 0.9 (gas only) to λ = 1.5 (including 22 M_sun of protostars), so the supercriticality and collapse claims depend sensitively on the assumed stellar mass and on the uncertain B_tot. The central claim of ongoing collapse should be expressed with a systematic error budget, or the conclusions should be softened accordingly.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The DCF correction factor Q = 0.33 is taken from Liu et al. (2021) for ordered fields in spherical clumps, but the observed field is a superposition of an SFF hourglass and an empirical spherical component. After subtracting the fitted model, the residuals are assumed to be isotropic Alfvénic fluctuations. No validation is provided that the residual field in this complex geometry satisfies the DCF assumptions. A test using synthetic polarization images with known input field and turbulence, or an independent structure-function/ADF analysis of the observed position angles, would substantiate the calibration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §6] The quantity t_ff/t_cross is misspelled as 'tff/tcorss' in the abstract and in Section 6. Please correct.
  2. [Eq. (5)–(6)] Eq. (5) should state explicitly that δψ is in radians; the numerical form in Eq. (6) evidently includes a degree-to-radian conversion. The units should be made explicit to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that 'data on the outskirts are excluded for optimization' but does not say how many points are excluded or by what quantitative criterion. Please state the selection rule and the number of included/excluded data points.
  4. [§4.1 and Appendix A] The mass estimate relies on T_d = 120 K and κ_ν = 0.8 cm²/g; the observed 340 GHz flux is only 18% of the SCUBA 850 μm flux, so missing extended emission may bias M_g and R. Similarly, α = 0.17 is estimated from the maximum observed polarization fraction without accounting for beam averaging. A brief discussion of these effects would help the reader judge the robustness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the magnetic-field morphology is directly observed, and the DCF/SFF field-strength estimates are derived from fitted geometric parameters without using the target field strength as an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The pinched/concave morphology is presented as a direct observational result from the SMA polarization map before any model fitting; the subsequent two-component model (SFF hourglass plus empirical sphere) is fitted to observed position angles, not to the magnetic field strength. The DCF Bpos in Eq. (5)-(6) uses the residual angular dispersion delta_psi = 10.4 deg, the observed CH3OH line width, and the density; none of these is derived from Bpos, and the subtraction of a fitted ordered-field model before computing the dispersion is standard DCF practice. The reduced chi^2 = 3.55 and the exclusion of outskirts data are legitimate concerns about systematic bias in delta_psi, but they affect accuracy, not circularity: the result is not equal to an input by construction. The SFF-based Bmax = 4.5 mG is derived from the fitted density contrast rho_p and an adopted background field, but it is used only as a consistency check, is not the central claimed Btot, and is not fed back into the fit. The Zeeman Blos uses an external shock-compression factor from Sarma et al. (2002). The energy balance and virial-parameter conclusions follow from independent estimates of mass, radius, velocity dispersion, and Btot. Self-citations to Chen et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2014), and Liu et al. (2021) are either reproduced in the appendices, based on external observations, or independent simulation calibrations; none is load-bearing in a circular sense. Appendix A explicitly acknowledges that alpha cannot be constrained at a single frequency, which is a limitation but not a circular step. Overall, the analysis contains no reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are dominated by the six-parameter magnetic field model (hourglass + sphere), plus the uncertain Zeeman amplification factor and DCF correction factor that directly set B_tot. The axioms are standard assumptions in dust polarimetry and DCF analysis, but the empirical sphere is ad hoc to this paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • SFF hourglass position angle φ_sff = 152° ± 5°
    Fit to 82 observed position angles with Levenberg-Marquardt; sets symmetry axis of hourglass.
  • SFF inclination angle i_sff = 38° ± 11°
    Fit parameter controlling projection of hourglass onto the sky.
  • SFF axis ratio A_sff = 4.1 ± 0.6
    Fit parameter for oblate spheroid shape in the SFF model.
  • SFF normalized peak density ρ_p = (9.7 ± 0.9)×10^3
    Fit parameter; determines density contrast and thus predicted B_max via flux freezing.
  • Sphere effective radius r_sph = 10.2″ ± 0.5″
    Fit parameter for empirical southern spherical field component.
  • Sphere scaling factor b_sph = 7 ± 1
    Fit parameter for strength of azimuthal field in sphere relative to hourglass.
  • Zeeman pre-shock amplification factor = 20
    Converts observed post-shock Blos = -18.6 mG to pre-shock Blos = -0.93 mG; adopted from Sarma et al. 2002, high uncertainty, directly affects B_tot.
  • DCF correction factor Q = 0.33
    Chosen from Liu et al. 2021 for uniform fields; uncertain, affects B_pos linearly.
  • Dust temperature T_d = 120 ± 14 K
    Adopted from Palau et al. 2021 SED fit; used for mass and velocity dispersion thermal correction.
  • Dust opacity κ_ν = 0.8 cm^2/g
    From Hildebrand 1983 scaling; poorly constrained, affects gas mass with 19% uncertainty.
  • Grain alignment parameter α = 0.17 (or 0.03)
    Computed from pmax=18% but Appendix A finds α~0.03 better matches Stokes Q/U intensities; internal inconsistency, though position angles unaffected.
  • Background field B_bg = 10 μG
    Assumed from Myers et al. 2018; used in SFF to predict B_max,sff=4.5 mG.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Dust polarization traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field through grain alignment (with 90° rotation)
    Standard but not proven; used throughout to interpret Q/U maps as B_pos morphology.
  • domain assumption SFF model assumptions: flux freezing, initial uniform magnetic field, self-gravitating Plummer spheroid with constant axis ratios
    Adopted from Myers et al. 2018, §4.2; if flux freezing is violated (e.g., ambipolar diffusion), the hourglass interpretation is altered.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical sphere with uniform azimuthal field represents the effect of the W3 F HII region on the magnetic field
    Introduced to fit the southern concave pattern; no physical model given; absorbs deviations, affects residual δψ.
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersion is isotropic so δv_los can be used in DCF for transverse Alfvén velocity
    Standard DCF assumption; for a collapsing core with ordered infall, anisotropy may bias B_pos.
  • domain assumption Selected CH3OH line does not trace outflows and represents quiescent gas
    They exclude outflow-affected lines; if CH3OH is also disturbed, δv_los is overestimated, biasing B_pos high.
  • domain assumption Gas and dust temperatures are equal at 120 K
    Used for sound speed and virial analysis; if decoupled, turbulence and thermal support estimates change.
  • domain assumption Core is spherical with power-law density p=1.46 from Palau et al.
    Used for energy integrals and virial mass; if density profile differs, energy balance and α_vir change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinched Magnetic Fields in the High-mass Protocluster W3 IRS5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3A33AIPI

@misc{pith2026250810128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinched Magnetic Fields in the High-mass Protocluster W3 IRS5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3A33AIPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10128}
}
abstract

We present polarization maps of dust emission at 340 GHz in the luminous high-mass protocluster, W3 IRS5, observed with the Submillimeter Array. The projected magnetic fields appear fairly organized with a pinched morphology in the northern part and a concave shape in the southern part. We fit the polarization maps with a two-component magnetic field model: an hourglass model centered at the continuum peak, SMM2, and an empirical sphere centered at the O-type star, IRS7. Using the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method, we calculate a projected field strength of $B_\mathrm{pos} = 1.4 \; \mathrm{mG}$. Along with the Zeeman measurement, a total magnetic field strength of $B_\mathrm{tot} = 1.6 \; \mathrm{mG}$ is obtained. We find that the gravitational energy is the most dominant, followed by magnetic energy, and then turbulent energy. Small values of the virial parameter, $\alpha_\mathrm{vir} = 0.8$, and the ratio of timescales, $t_\mathrm{ff}/t_\mathrm{corss} = 0.6$, suggest an ongoing collapse. We also show collimated molecular outflows in the $\mathrm{CO \; (3-2)}$ and $\mathrm{SiO \; (8-7)}$ transitions. The morphology of magnetic fields and the surrounding \HII regions put forward a scenario for W3 IRS5. A gravitationally unstable dense core formed within a neutral gas ridge plowed by the expansions of W3 A and W3 B. The core began to contract, causing gravity to pull the magnetic field lines inward, which resulted in a pinched field morphology. Subsequent expansion of W3 F, ionized by IRS7, perturbed the magnetic field, creating concave patterns. The dynamical interactions among protostars led to misalignment of their outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) SMA 340 GHz continuum map (color scale and red contours) of W3 IRS5 overlaid on VLA 6 cm continuum map (gray contours; Tieftrunk et al. 1997) with labels of the nearby H ii regions, W3 A, W3 B, and W3 F. Red contours are plotted at (−3, 3, 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, 46, 54, 62) × σ, where σ = 21 mJy beam−1 with a beam size of 2. ′′7 × 2. ′′2 (P.A. = 3◦ ). Blue crosses mark the positions of five compact continuum sources… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a-b) Integrated intensity maps of the CO (3 − 2) and SiO (8 − 7) emissions overlaid on the VLA 6 cm contin￾uum map (thin gray contours; Tieftrunk et al. 1997). The blue and red contours represent the blue-shifted and red-shifted components, respectively. Black crosses mark the peak positions of the five continuum sources (Wang et al. 2013). The thick gray contour outlines the 340 GHz continuum emission at the 3σ le… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Integrated intensity map of the H13CN (4 − 3) and SO2 (132,12 − 121,11) emissions (red contours) overlaid on intensity-weighted velocity map (color scale). The H13CN line is blended with the SO2 line, which is redshifted by 1.06 km s−1 relative to the H13CN line. Red contours are plotted at (−12, −3, 3, 20, 40, 80, 140, 220, 320) × σ, where σ = 1.4 K km s−1 . Crosses mark the peak positions of the five continuum… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Best-fit magnetic field model (cyan) overlaid on the observed magnetic field orientation (black) for models composed of an hourglass component centered at SMM2 combined with a spherical component centered at IRS 7. Data on the outskirts are excluded for optimizatio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polarization maps of the (a) Stokes-I, (b) Stokes-Q, and (c) Stokes-U parameters. The thick gray contour outlines the 340 GHz continuum emission at the 3σ level. usually assessed by multi-wavelength studies (e.g. Draine & Hensley 2021; Draine 2022). We explore the depe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthetic polarization maps of the optimized model for the (a) Stokes-I, (b) Stokes-Q, and (c) Stokes-U parameters. The thick gray contour outlines the 340 GHz continuum emission at the 3σ level. B. VELOCITY GRADIENTS IN THE SO2 343,31 − 342,32 EMISSIONS We reanalysize…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Integrated intensity map of the SO2 343,31 − 342,32 emission (red contours) overlaid on the intensity-weighted velocity map (color scale). Red contours are plotted at (−3, 3, 20, 40, 80) × σ, where σ = 2.7 K km s−1 . Crosses mark the peak positions of the five cont…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

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

  2. [2]

    G., & Goodman, A

    Arce, H. G., & Goodman, A. A. 2002, ApJ, 575, 928, doi: 10.1086/341426 18 Chen et al. Beltr´ an, M. T., Padovani, M., Girart, J. M., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935701 Beltr´ an, M. T., Rivilla, V. M., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040121 Beltr´ an, M. T., Padovani, M., Galli, D., et al. 202...

    work page doi:10.1086/341426 2002

  3. [3]

    D., Linz, H., et al

    Beuther, H., Soler, J. D., Linz, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc019

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc019 2020

  4. [4]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/87

    Bik, A., Henning, T., Stolte, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/87

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/87 2012

  5. [5]

    F., Butner, H

    Campbell, M. F., Butner, H. M., Harvey, P. M., et al. 1995, ApJ, 454, 831, doi: 10.1086/176536

    work page doi:10.1086/176536 1995

  6. [6]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 113, doi: 10.1086/145731

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953, ApJ, 118, 113, doi: 10.1086/145731

    doi:10.1086/145731 1953

  7. [7]

    V., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., et al

    Chen, H.-R. V., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/125 Commer¸ con, B., Hennebelle, P., & Henning, T. 2011, ApJL, 742, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L9

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/125 2016

  8. [8]

    Crutcher, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706, doi: 10.1086/307483

    doi:10.1086/307483 1999

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    1951, Physical Review, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

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

    1951 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Vaillancourt, J

    Dotson, J. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., Kirby, L., et al. 2010, ApJS, 186, 406, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/2/406

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Draine, B. T. 2022, ApJ, 926, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3977

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    T., & Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 919, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0050

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    G., & Lada, C

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Lada, C. J. 1977, ApJ, 214, 725, doi: 10.1086/155302

    1977 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & Townsley, L

    Feigelson, E. D., & Townsley, L. K. 2008, ApJ, 673, 354, doi: 10.1086/524031

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    D., & Pudritz, R

    Fiege, J. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, ApJ, 544, 830, doi: 10.1086/317228

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    Frau, P., Galli, D., & Girart, J. M. 2011, A&A, 535, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117813

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, Science, 324, 1408, doi: 10.1126/science.1171807 Gon¸ calves, J., Galli, D., & Walmsley, M

    Estalella, R. 2009, Science, 324, 1408, doi: 10.1126/science.1171807 Gon¸ calves, J., Galli, D., & Walmsley, M. 2005, A&A, 430, 979, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041652

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Murray, A

    Greaves, J. S., Murray, A. G., & Holland, W. S. 1994, A&A, 284, L19

    1994

  11. [19]

    M., Howarth, I

    Hanson, M. M., Howarth, I. D., & Conti, P. S. 1997, ApJ, 489, 698, doi: 10.1086/304808

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    P., & van Dishoeck, E

    Helmich, F. P., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1997, A&AS, 124, 205, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997357

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

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

    1983

  14. [22]

    Ho, P. T. P., Moran, J. M., & Lo, K. Y. 2004, ApJL, 616, L1, doi: 10.1086/423245

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

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

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x —. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1316, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1316

    2008

  16. [24]

    Houde, M., Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., & Hildebrand, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 820, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/38

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 751, doi: 10.1086/309165

    Imai, H., Kameya, O., Sasao, T., et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, 751, doi: 10.1086/309165

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    2007, JQSRT, 106, 225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    Lazarian, A. 2007, JQSRT, 106, 225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Lee, C.-F., Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 429, doi: 10.1086/321648

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Draine, B

    Lee, H. M., & Draine, B. T. 1985, ApJ, 290, 211, doi: 10.1086/162974

    1985 doi

  22. [30]

    Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 1996, ApJ, 472, 211, doi: 10.1086/178056

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commer¸ con, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Martin, P. G. 1974, ApJ, 187, 461, doi: 10.1086/152655

    1974 doi

  25. [33]

    R., & Chernin, L

    Masson, C. R., & Chernin, L. M. 1993, ApJ, 414, 230, doi: 10.1086/173071

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    C., McPhee, C

    Matthews, B. C., McPhee, C. A., Fissel, L. M., & Curran, R. L. 2009, ApJS, 182, 143, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/143

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    F., & Ostriker, E

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

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    T., Wilson, T

    Megeath, S. T., Wilson, T. L., & Corbin, M. R. 2005, ApJL, 622, L141, doi: 10.1086/429720

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, Jr., L. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    1956 doi

  30. [38]

    Mishchenko, M. I. 1991, ApJ, 367, 561, doi: 10.1086/169652

    1991 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Maillard, J

    Mitchell, G. F., Maillard, J. P., & Hasegawa, T. I. 1991, ApJ, 371, 342, doi: 10.1086/169896

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    C., & Spitzer, Jr., L

    Mouschovias, T. C., & Spitzer, Jr., L. 1976, ApJ, 210, 326, doi: 10.1086/154835

    1976 doi

  33. [41]

    T., McKee, C

    Myers, A. T., McKee, C. F., Cunningham, A. J., Klein, R. I., & Krumholz, M. R. 2013, ApJ, 766, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/97

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Basu, S., & Auddy, S

    Myers, P. C., Basu, S., & Auddy, S. 2018, ApJ, 868, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae695

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    1978, PASJ, 30, 671

    Nakano, T., & Nakamura, T. 1978, PASJ, 30, 671

    1978

  36. [44]

    C., Stone, J

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

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    T., et al

    Padoan, P., Goodman, A., Draine, B. T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 1005, doi: 10.1086/322504

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al

    Padovani, M., Brinch, C., Girart, J. M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219028 Pinched Magnetic Fields in W3 IRS5 19

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    M., et al

    Palau, A., Estalella, R., Girart, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/42

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    M., et al

    Palau, A., Zhang, Q., Girart, J. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  42. [50]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    S., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Peters, T., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/72

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing (Cambridge: University Press)

    1992

  45. [53]

    M., et al

    Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Menten, K. M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 794, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L18

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, A&A, 593, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424930

    Reissl, S., Wolf, S., & Brauer, R. 2016, A&A, 593, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424930

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    2014, A&A, 566, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323116

    Reissl, S., Wolf, S., & Seifried, D. 2014, A&A, 566, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323116

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Crutcher, R

    Roberts, D. A., Crutcher, R. M., Troland, T. H., & Goss, W. M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 675, doi: 10.1086/172953 Rod´ on, J. A., Beuther, H., Megeath, S. T., & van der Tak, F. F. S. 2008, A&A, 490, 213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810158

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJL, 972, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad660c

    Saha, P., Sanhueza, P., Padovani, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad660c

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Zhang, Q., et al

    Sanhueza, P., Jackson, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ff8

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Padovani, M., et al

    Sanhueza, P., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac081c

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    P., Troland, T

    Sarma, A. P., Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., & Roberts, D. A. 2002, ApJ, 580, 928, doi: 10.1086/343799

    2002 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    L., Huard, T

    Shirley, Y. L., Huard, T. L., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/143

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  56. [64]

    Strittmatter, P. A. 1966, MNRAS, 132, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/132.2.359

    1966 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Gaume, R

    Tieftrunk, A. R., Gaume, R. A., Claussen, M. J., Wilson, T. L., & Johnston, K. J. 1997, A&A, 318, 931

    1997

  58. [66]

    1988, ApJ, 335, 239, doi: 10.1086/166923

    Tomisaka, K., Ikeuchi, S., & Nakamura, T. 1988, ApJ, 335, 239, doi: 10.1086/166923

    1988 doi

  59. [67]

    Vaillancourt, J. E. 2006, PASP, 118, 1340, doi: 10.1086/507472 van der Tak, F. F. S., Tuthill, P. G., & Danchi, W. C. 2005, A&A, 431, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041595

    2006 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Bourke, T

    Wang, K. S., Bourke, T. L., Hogerheijde, M. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322087

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/87

    Wang, Y., Beuther, H., Zhang, Q., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/87

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    1990, ApJ, 362, 120, doi: 10.1086/169249

    Wardle, M., & Konigl, A. 1990, ApJ, 362, 120, doi: 10.1086/169249

    1990 doi

  63. [71]

    A., & Wolff, M

    Whitney, B. A., & Wolff, M. J. 2002, ApJ, 574, 205, doi: 10.1086/340901

    2002 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Boboltz, D

    Wilson, T. L., Boboltz, D. A., Gaume, R. A., & Megeath, S. T. 2003, ApJ, 597, 434, doi: 10.1086/378233

    2003 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Becklin, E

    Wynn-Williams, C. G., Becklin, E. E., & Neugebauer, G. 1972, MNRAS, 160, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/160.1.1

    1972 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., et al

    Zapata, L. A., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701d

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    M., et al

    Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., Girart, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/116

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.