Fermi bubbles: high-latitude X-ray supersonic shell
Open accessAbstract
The nature of the bipolar, γ-ray Fermi bubbles (FB) is still unclear, in part because their faint, high-latitude X-ray counterpart has until now eluded a clear detection. We stack ROSAT data at varying distances from the FB edges, thus boosting the signal and identifying an expanding shell behind the south-west, south-east, and north-west edges, albeit not in the dusty north-east sector near Loop I. A Primakoff-like model for the underlying flow is invoked to show that the signals are consistent with halo gas heated by a strong, forward shock to ∼ keV temperatures. Assuming ion–electron thermal equilibrium then implies a ∼1056 erg event near the Galactic centre ∼7 Myr ago. However, the reported high absorption-line velocities suggest a preferential shock-heating of ions, and thus more energetic (∼1057 erg), younger (≲3 Myr) FBs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The brightness drop out from the FBs in the North-West and South-East sections indicates a shock temperature of about 0.4 keV and a Mach number of about 4, higher than the values estimated for the NPS.
“The authors estimated that the brightness drop in different ROSAT bands indicates a shock temperature of ≃ 0 . 4 keV and corresponding Mach number of ≃ 4 (considering projection effects along the line of sight), relatively higher than the values estimated for the NPS.”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Keshet & Gurwich 2018
The dynamical timescale and average power for such a shock would be t_dyn ∼ 5 Myr and 6 × 10^41 erg s^-1.
“The dynamical timescale and the average power, in such a case, would be t dyn ∼ 5 Myr and 6 × 10 41 erg s -1 .”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Keshet & Gurwich 2018
Such strong shocks would imply a shock velocity ≳10^3 km/s and a shock temperature ≳1.2 keV, much higher than the temperature observed in the eROSITA bubbles or inferred from Fermi bubble edges.
“Such strong shocks would imply a shock velocity, vs ≳ 10 3 km s -1 and a shock temperature, Ts ≳ 1 . 2 keV, much higher than the temperature observed in the eROSITA bubbles (Kataoka et al. 2013) or inferred from FB-edges (Keshet & Gurwich 2018, also see section 2.1).”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Keshet & Gurwich 2018
Several authors modeled the Fermi bubbles assuming that the edges of the Fermi bubbles represent a forward shock of Mach ∼4-5 similar to the X-ray analysis of Keshet & Gurwich (2018).
“Several authors also modeled the FBs assuming that the edges of the FBs represent a forward shock of Mach ∼ 4 -5 similar to the X-ray analysis of Keshet & Gurwich (2018).”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Keshet & Gurwich 2018
In cases where the Fermi bubbles are assumed to be forward shocks, the temperature constraint is more relaxed due to an estimated higher temperature of the shock (∼0.4 keV).
“In the cases, where the FBs are assumed to be forward shocks (Zhang & Guo 2020; Mondal et al. 2022) the temperature constraint is more relaxed due to an estimated higher temperature of the shock ( ∼ 0 . 4 keV; Keshet & Gurwich 2018).”
From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Keshet & Gurwich 2018
Cites
<i>ROSAT</i>Survey Diffuse X‐Ray Background Maps. II.
Snowden, S. L., Egger, R., Freyberg, M. J., McCammon, D., Plucinsky, P. P., Sanders, W. T., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Trumper, J., & Voges, W. (1997) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/304399 · Cited by 602 · cited 2× · see citing works
“We use the ROSAT all sky survey (RASS; Snowden et al. 1997), with the Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC) of the X-ray telescope (XRT).”
MethodMicrowave Interstellar Medium Emission Observed by the<i>Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe</i>
Finkbeiner, D. P. (2004) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/423482 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
The Large‐Scale Bipolar Wind in the Galactic Center
Bland‐Hawthorn, J., & Cohen, M. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/344573 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
THE<i>FERMI</i>HAZE: A GAMMA-RAY COUNTERPART TO THE MICROWAVE HAZE
Dobler, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., Cholis, I., Slatyer, T., & Weiner, N. (2010) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/825 · Cited by 285 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This scenario was revived by the discovery (Dobler et al. 2010; Su et al. 2010, henceforth S10) of two large γ-ray, so called Fermi, bubbles (FBs), symmetrically rising far from the Milky-Way plane yet morphologically connected, at least approximately and in projection, to the intermediate scale…”
BackgroundFermi Bubbles: Giant, Multibillion-Year-Old Reservoirs of Galactic Center Cosmic Rays
Crocker, R. M., & Aharonian, F. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.101102 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Giant magnetized outflows from the centre of the Milky Way
Carretti, E., Crocker, R. M., Staveley-Smith, L., Haverkorn, M., Purcell, C., Gaensler, B. M., Bernardi, G., Kesteven, M. J., & Poppi, S. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11734 · Cited by 215 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…mechanism as either hadronic (Crocker & Aharonian 2011; Fujita et al. 2013) or leptonic (Yang et al. 2013); the underlying engine as a starburst (Carretti et al. 2013; Lacki 2014; Sarkar et al. 2015), a jet from the the central massive black hole (Cheng et al. 2011; Guo & Mathews 2012; Zubovas…”
BackgroundInfluentialFox, A. J., Bordoloi, R., Savage, B. D., Lockman, F. J., Jenkins, E. B., Wakker, B. P., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Hernandez, S., Kim, T.-S., Benjamin, R. A., et al. (2015) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/799/1/l7 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Cheng, K.-S., Chernyshov, D. O., Dogiel, V. A., Ko, C.-M., & Ip, W.-H. (2011) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/l17 · Cited by 120 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…2013); the underlying engine as a starburst (Carretti et al. 2013; Lacki 2014; Sarkar et al. 2015), a jet from the the central massive black hole (Cheng et al. 2011; Guo & Mathews 2012; Zubovas & Nayakshin 2012; Mou et al. 2014), or steady star-formation (Crocker 2012); and the cosmic-ray (CR)…”
BackgroundFermi Gamma-Ray “Bubbles” from Stochastic Acceleration of Electrons
Mertsch, P., & Sarkar, S. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.091101 · Cited by 119 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…& Nayakshin 2012; Mou et al. 2014), or steady star-formation (Crocker 2012); and the cosmic-ray (CR) acceleration mechanism as first order Fermi acceleration, second order Fermi acceleration (Mertsch & Sarkar 2011; Chernyshov et al. 2014), or injection at the GC (Guo & Mathews 2012; Thoudam 2013).”
BackgroundSofue, Y. (2000) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/309297 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
THE INTERACTION OF THE FERMI BUBBLES WITH THE MILKY WAY’S HOT GAS HALO
Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. (2016) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/9 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
The Fermi bubbles: gamma-ray, microwave and polarization signatures of leptonic AGN jets
Yang, H.-Y. K., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. (2013) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1772 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
THE FERMI BUBBLES AS A SCALED-UP VERSION OF SUPERNOVA REMNANTS
Fujita, Y., Ohira, Y., & Yamazaki, R. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l20 · Cited by 47 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Different models were proposed (S10, F14), interpreting the FB edge as an outgoing shock (Fujita et al. 2013), a termination shock of a wind (Lacki 2014; Mou et al. 2014), or a discontinuity (Crocker 2012; Guo & Mathews 2012; Sarkar et al. 2015); the γ-ray emission mechanism as either hadronic…”
BackgroundMethodFERMI BUBBLE γ-RAYS AS A RESULT OF DIFFUSIVE INJECTION OF GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS
Thoudam, S. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l20 · Cited by 24 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…& Nayakshin 2012; Mou et al. 2014), or steady star-formation (Crocker 2012); and the cosmic-ray (CR) acceleration mechanism as first order Fermi acceleration, second order Fermi acceleration (Mertsch & Sarkar 2011; Chernyshov et al. 2014), or injection at the GC (Guo & Mathews 2012; Thoudam 2013).”
BackgroundIceCube Constraints on the Fermi Bubbles
Sherf, N., Keshet, U., & Gurwich, I. (2017) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa894f · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way
Sarkar, K. C. (2024) · The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review · doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00152-1 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Several authors also modeled the FBs assuming that the edges of the FBs represent a forward shock of Mach ∼ 4 − 5 similar to the X-ray analysis of Keshet & Gurwich (2018).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPossible connection between the asymmetry of the North Polar Spur and Loop I and Fermi bubbles
Sarkar, K. C. (2019) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2944 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
IceCube Constraints on the Fermi Bubbles
Sherf, N., Keshet, U., & Gurwich, I. (2017) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa894f · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Keshet, U., & Gurwich, I.
- Affiliations
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
- Department of Physics, NRCN, POB 9001, Be’er Sheva 84190, Israel
- Corresponding author
- Keshet, Uri
- ORCID
- Keshet, Uri
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-06-11
- Volume
- 480
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 223-235
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2609872973
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (I-1362-303.7/2016)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
- Keywords
- Fermi bubbles, Loop I
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
