CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Astrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

THE INTERACTION OF THE FERMI BUBBLES WITH THE MILKY WAY’S HOT GAS HALO

Open access
Miller, Matthew J., Bregman, Joel N.·2016·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Fermi bubbles are two lobes filled with non-thermal particles that emit gamma rays, extend vertically from the Galactic center, and formed from either nuclear star formation or accretion activity on Sgr A*. Simulations predict a range of shock strengths as the bubbles expand into the surrounding hot gas halo ( K), but with significant uncertainties in the energetics, age, and thermal gas structure. The bubbles should contain thermal gas with temperatures between 10 6 and 10 8 K, with potential X-ray signatures. In this work, we constrain the bubbles’ thermal gas structure by modeling O vii and O viii emission line strengths from archival XMM-Newton and Suzaku data. Our emission model includes a hot thermal volume-filled bubble component cospatial with the gamma-ray region, and a shell of compressed material. We find that a bubble/shell model with cm−3 and with log(T) ≈ 6.60–6.70 is consistent with the observed line intensities. In the framework of a continuous Galactic outflow, we infer a bubble expansion rate, age, and energy injection rate of km s−1, Myr, and erg s−1. These estimates are consistent with the bubbles forming from a Sgr A* accretion event rather than from nuclear star formation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/9

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 expansion velocity suggests that the age of the FBs is about 12 Myr and that one would need about 10^42 erg s^-1 to inflate the FBs.

    “This expansion velocity suggests that the age of the FBs is ≃ 12 Myr and that one would need ∼ 10 42 erg s -1 to inflate the FBs (Miller & Bregman 2016).”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Miller & Bregman 2016

    Section 5.2.1 estimates an energy injection rate of 2.3 × 10^42 erg s^-1, supporting the claimed order of magnitude. But it gives a preferred bubble age of 4.3 Myr (approximately 3–5 Myr with expansion-velocity uncertainty), not about 12 Myr; its alternative dynamical timescales are 6 and 20 Myr. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The problem of the high shock temperature still remains for such blast wave bubbles since they produce a shock temperature (for the NPS) to be ≈0.4 keV compared to the observed ≈0.3 keV.

    “The problem of the high shock temperature still remains for such blast wave bubbles since they produce a shock temperature (for the NPS) to be ≈ 0 . 4 keV compared to the observed ≈ 0 . 3 keV (Kataoka et al. 2013; Miller & Bregman 2016).”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Miller & Bregman 2016

    Section 5.4.1 infers a Fermi-bubble shell temperature of approximately 0.4–0.5 keV and explains that the observed 0.3 keV temperature includes emission from both the bubbles and the cooler halo. Section 2.5 reports an NPS temperature of about 0.3 keV but excludes NPS observations from the model because its association with the Fermi bubbles is uncertain. The paper therefore does not establish a 0.4 keV blast-wave shock temperature for the NPS or present the difference as an unresolved problem. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The observed O viii/O vii line ratio implies that the temperature of the plasma is about 5 × 10^6 K, corresponding to a Mach number of about 2.3 and an expansion velocity of about 500 km s^-1.

    “The observed line ratio implies that the temperature of the plasma is ∼ 5 × 10 6 , corresponding to a Mach number of ≃ 2 . 3, and expansion velocity v exp ∼ 500 km s -1 .”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Miller & Bregman 2016

  • Emission line observations of O viii and O vii revealed that the region of the FBs has a relatively higher O viii/O vii line ratio compared to the ambient CGM.

    “Emission line observations of O viii (18 . 97 Å) and O vii (21 . 62 + 21 . 8 + 22 . 12Å triplet) revealed that the region of the FBs has a relatively higher O viii / O vii line ratio compared to the ambient CGM (Miller & Bregman 2016).”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Miller & Bregman 2016

  • Miller & Bregman (2016) did not consider the full set of data and excluded the NPS region.

    “It is also to be noted that Miller & Bregman (2016) did not consider the full set of data and excluded the NPS region since it was not clear at the time whether the NPS is related to the FBs or not.”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Miller & Bregman 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Faerman, Y., Sternberg, A., & McKee, C. F. 2016, arXiv:1602.00689 · arXiv
  2. Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y. K., & Zweibel, E. 2016, arXiv:1602.04856 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
829
Issue
1
Pages
9
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/9
OpenAlex
W2505955626
Cited by
91
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX16AF23G, NNX11AJ55G)
  • Astrophysics Division
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
Fermi bubbles, energy injection rate, galactic outflows, nuclear star formation

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