The halo magnetic field of a spiral galaxy at <i>z</i> = 0.414
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. Even though magnetic fields play an important role in galaxy evolution, the redshift evolution of galactic-scale magnetic fields is not well constrained observationally. In this paper we provide an observational constraint on the timescale of the mean-field dynamo, and derive the magnetic field in a distant galaxy at z = 0.414. Methods. We obtained broadband spectro-polarimetric 1−8 GHz Very Large Array observations of the lensing system B1600+434, which is a background quasar gravitationally lensed by a foreground spiral galaxy into two images. We applied rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU fitting to derive the RM of the two lensed images, which we used to estimate the lensing galaxy’s magnetic field. Results. We measured the RM difference between the lensed images and detected Faraday dispersion caused by the magneto-ionic medium of the lensing galaxy at z = 0.414. Assuming that the RM difference is due to the large-scale regular field of the galaxy’s halo, we measured a coherent magnetic field with a strength of 0.2−3.0 μG at 0.7 kpc and 0.01−2.8 μG at 6.2 kpc vertical distance from the disk of the galaxy. We derive an upper limit on the dynamo e-folding time: τ dynamo < 2.9 × 10 8 yr. We find turbulence on scales below 50 pc and a turbulent field strength of 0.2−12.1 μG. Conclusions. We measured the magnetic field in the halo of a spiral galaxy and find turbulence on scales of < 50 pc. If the RM difference is due to large-scale fields, our result follows the expectation from mean-field dynamo theory and shows that galaxies at z ≃ 0.4 already have magnetic field strengths similar to present-day galaxies. There is one caveat, however: we note the possibility of the turbulent field of the lensing galaxy contributing to the observed RM difference.
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 | 0.001 | 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".