Apparent counter-rotation in the torus of NGC 1068: influence of an asymmetric wind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The recent ALMA maps together with observations of H2O maser emission seem to suggest the presence of a counter-rotation in the obscuring torus of NGC 1068. We propose to explain this phenomenon as due to the influence of a wind, considered as radiation pressure, and the effects of torus orientation. In order to test this idea: 1. we make N-body simulation of a clumpy torus taking into account mutual forces between particles (clouds); 2. we apply ray-tracing algorithm with the beams from the central engine to choose the clouds in the torus throat that can be under direct influence of the accretion disk emission; 3. we use semi-analytical model to simulate the influence of the asymmetrical radiation pressure (wind) forced on the clouds in the torus throat. An axis of such a wind is tilted with respect to the torus symmetry axis; 4. we orient the torus relative to an observer and again apply ray-tracing algorithm. In this step the beams go from an observer to the optically thick clouds that allows us to take into account the mutual obscuration of clouds; 5. after projecting on the picture plane, we impose a grid on the resulting cloud distribution and find the mean velocity of clouds in each cells to mimic the ALMA observational maps. By choosing the parameters corresponding to NGC 1068 we obtain the model velocity maps that emulate the effect of an apparent counter-rotation and can explain the discovery made by ALMA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".