Entrainment in trouble: cool cloud acceleration and destruction in hot supernova-driven galactic winds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient thermalization of overlapping supernovae within star-forming galaxies may produce a supernova-heated fluid that drives galactic winds. For fiducial assumptions about the timescale for cloud shredding from high-resolution simulations (which neglect magnetic fields) we show that cool clouds with temperature from $T_{c}\sim 10^{2}-10^{4}$ K seen in emission and absorption in galactic winds cannot be accelerated to observed velocities by the ram pressure of a hot wind. Taking into account both the radial structure of the hot flow and gravity, we show that this conclusion holds over a wide range of galaxy, cloud, and hot wind properties. This finding calls into question the prevailing picture whereby the cool atomic gas seen in galactic winds is entrained and accelerated by the hot flow. Given these difficulties with ram pressure acceleration, we discuss alternative models for the origin of high velocity cool gas outflows. Another possibility is that magnetic fields in cool clouds are sufficiently important that they prolong the cloud's life. For $T_{c}=10^{3}$\,K and $10^{4}$\,K clouds, we show that if conductive evaporation can be neglected, the cloud shredding timescale must be $\sim15$ and 5 times longer, respectively, than the values from hydrodynamical simulations in order for cool cloud velocities to reach those seen in observations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".