Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no.
HelicalFieldsI c
ESO 2018
February 23, 2018
Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

A New Method to Determine the Line-of-Sight Magnetic Field Structure in
Molecular Clouds
M. Tahani1 , R. Plume1 , J. C. Brown1 and J. Kainulainen2, 3
1
Physics & Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
e-mail: mtahani@ucalgary.ca
2
Dept. of Space, Earth and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Onsala Space Observatory, 439 92 Onsala, Sweden
3
Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy, Königstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
arXiv:1802.07831v1 [astro-ph.GA] 21 Feb 2018
Received ; accepted
ABSTRACT
Context. Magnetic fields pervade in the interstellar medium (ISM) and are believed to be important in the process of star formation,
yet probing magnetic fields in star formation regions is challenging.
Aims. We propose a new method to use Faraday rotation measurements in small scale star forming regions to find the direction and
magnitude of the component of magnetic field along the line-of-sight. We test the proposed method in four relatively nearby regions
of Orion A, Orion B, Perseus, and California.
Methods. We use rotation measure data from the literature. We adopt a simple approach based on relative measurements to estimate
the rotation measure due to the molecular clouds over the Galactic contribution. We then use a chemical evolution code along with
extinction maps of each cloud to find the electron column density of the molecular cloud at the position of each rotation measure
data point. Combining the rotation measures produced by the molecular clouds and the electron column density, we calculate the
line-of-sight magnetic field strength and direction.
Results. In California and Orion A, we find clear evidence that the magnetic fields at one side of these filamentary structures are
pointing towards us and are pointing away from us at the other side. Even though the magnetic fields in Perseus might seem to
suggest the same behavior, not enough data points are available to draw such conclusions. In Orion B, as well, there are not enough
data points available to detect such behavior. This behavior is consistent with a helical magnetic field morphology. In the vicinity of
available Zeeman measurements in OMC-1, OMC-B, and the dark cloud Barnard 1, we find magnetic field values of −23 ± 38 µG,
−129 ± 28 µG, and 32 ± 101 µG, respectively, which are in agreement with the Zeeman Measurements.
Key words. methods: observational — ISM: magnetic fields — stars: formation — magnetic fields
1. Introduction of magnetic fields (BLOS ) are necessary to obtain information

about the 3D structure of magnetic fields in MCs.
While the exact role of magnetic fields in star formation is not
clearly understood, they are known to be ubiquitous in the ISM Zeeman measurements do provide BLOS , however, there are
and star forming regions. Many correlations between magnetic not enough Zeeman observations of MC available. As a conse-
fields and star forming regions or filamentary structures have quence of relatively weak magnetic fields seen in MCs (e.g., 10s
been observed in a variety of different surveys (e.g. Planck Col- of µG), the splitting happens with very small frequency varia-
laboration et al. 2016; Goldsmith et al. 2008). One of the pro- tions between the right and left circularly polarized components
posed morphologies is that of helical magnetic fields thread- (Troland & Heiles 1982), and even with very high signal to noise
ing molecular clouds/filaments (e.g. Media Relations 2006; ratios, the frequency difference might still get masked (Killeen
Heiles 1987; Shibata & Matsumoto 1991; Nakamura et al. 1993; et al. 1992). They are also very time consuming (Crutcher &
Hanawa et al. 1993; Matsumoto et al. 1994; Johnstone & Bally Troland 2008), and specifically require long telescope integra-
1999a; Hoq et al. 2017; Matthews et al. 2001; Fiege & Pudritz tion time in regions with relatively small magnetic fields (Ro-
2000a,b,c; Contreras et al. 2013; Stutz & Gould 2016; Schle- bishaw 2008).
icher & Stutz 2017), an idea which, so far, has lacked systematic The observed (e.g. Li et al. 2014; Palmeirim et al. 2013;
observational confirmation. Goldsmith et al. 2008) and theoretical (e.g. Pudritz et al. 2014;
Observations of magnetic fields in Molecular Clouds (MC) Van Loo et al. 2014; Khesali et al. 2014; Klassen et al. 2017)
have been made using the dust alignment method (Andersson links between magnetism and star formation, coupled with the
et al. 2015; Palmeirim et al. 2013; Goldsmith et al. 2008; Planck observational difficulties in measuring the magnetic field, point
Collaboration et al. 2016), and Zeeman measurements (Crutcher to a need for a new technique of detecting magnetism in star
1999, 2005; Li et al. 2015; Kirk et al. 2015). The dust alignment forming regions.
method only provides a component of the magnetic field, which We propose a new method to find BLOS in MCs based on
is projected on the plane of sky (perpendicular to the line-of- Faraday rotation measurements. We test our method in four rela-
sight). Thus, observations to obtain the line-of-sight component tively nearby MCs: the Orion Molecular Cloud A (OMC-A ; the
Article number, page 1 of 23
A&A proofs: manuscript no. HelicalFieldsI
entire southern complex), the Orion Molecular Cloud B (OMC- 1993; Hasegawa & Herbst 1993) and thus CR ionization is an
B ; the entire northern complex), the Perseus Molecular Cloud important source of producing free electrons in MCs. Calculat-
(PMC), and the California Molecular Cloud (CMC) and find ing the CR ionizing factor, ζ, is not straight forward and this
good agreement with available Zeeman measurements. We find factor may not be linear throughout the entire cloud (Padovani
that the magnetic field morphology in Orion A and California et al. 2016; Morlino et al. 2015; Padovani & Galli 2013). How-
are consistent with a helical (or toroidal) magnetic field. ever, for the resolution and the scales that we are interested in,
we assume it is constant1 . With the confirmed existence of free
electrons in MCs, we can expect that Faraday rotation occurs in
1.1. Faraday Rotation MCs, as well as in the rest of the ISM.
When propagating through a magnetized region with free elec-
trons, the plane of polarization of a linearly polarized electro-
magnetic wave will undergo Faraday rotation of Ψ [rad], given 2. Data
by Our method uses RMs of extragalactic sources with lines-of-
Z sight passing near and through individual MCs to extract the
Ψ = λ 0.812 ne B · dl = λ2 RM [rad],
2
(1) strength and direction of magnetic fields in environments local
to these MCs. Below we describe the RM data and the extinction
where B [µG] is the magnetic field, λ [m] is the wavelength of maps that we use in our method.
the electromagnetic wave, dl [pc] is the pathlength through the
magnetized region, and ne [cm−3 ] is the electron density of the 2.1. Rotation Measure Catalog
region. The integral value in brackets defines a quantity known
as the rotation measure (RM; e.g. Brown et al. 2008). We use the RM values from Taylor et al. (2009, hereafter TSS09)
Faraday rotation has been widely used to investigate the catalog. They obtain RMs for 37543 polarized radio sources by
large-Galactic-Scale magnetic field (e.g. Simard-Normandin & reanalyzing the NRAO VLA Sky Survey data (NVSS; Condon
Kronberg 1980; Han et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007; Sun et al. et al. 1998). For the regions of interest to us, within our specifi-
2008; Van Eck et al. 2011; Ordog et al. 2017), and to study the cally defined boundaries, TSS09 has 50 RMs within the OMC-A,
magnetic field of diffuse low-extinction filaments (Stil & Hry- 16 in OMC-B, 35 in PMC, and 43 in CMC. Fig. 2 shows the map
horiw 2016). Previous attempts to study magnetic fields in high- of RM data points in the PMC and CMC, and Fig. 3 shows the
extinction MCs using Faraday rotation have been performed by a map of RM data points in OMC-A and OMC-B. The diameter of
number of authors (Wolleben & Reich 2004a; Reich et al. 2002; the RM circles is proportional to the magnitude of the RM; blue
Wolleben & Reich 2004b; Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1997). For exam- (red) circles indicate positive (negative) RMs, where the aver-
ple, Wolleben & Reich (2004a) utilize the concept of a Fara- age line-of-sight magnetic field is directed towards (away from)
day screen - an object that can change the polarization angle us. The background color image represents the visual extinction
and intensity of the polarized background - to estimate the field map (see Sec. 2.2), with brighter or green color showing greater
strength within the region. However, their method relies on an extinction.
imprecise estimate of the distance to the screen, uncertainty in
the electron density, and likely an oversimplification of the shape 2.2. Extinction Map
of the screen itself.
To estimate magnetic fields in MCs, we use a slightly dif- To map the hydrogen (HI + H2 ) column density of each MC, we
ferent approach that avoids these difficulties by using extinction use visual extinction maps (in units of magnitudes of visual ex-
maps to obtain the total column density, and a chemical evolu- tinction or AV ) provided by Kainulainen et al. (2009, hereafter
tion code to determine more reasonable estimates of the electron KBHP09). They obtained near-infrared dust extinction maps us-
density within MCs. With this, we can then work backwards to ing the 2MASS data archive and the NICEST (Lombardi 2009)
determine what the magnetic field must be to create the observed color excess mapping technique. These maps have been pro-
Faraday rotation measurements. duced with an arbitrary physical resolution of 0.1 pc, which is
the Jeans length for a core at T = 15 K and mean particle den-
sity of n = 5 × 104 cm−3 . We use these extinction maps as a
1.2. Free Electrons in MCs proxy for NHI+H2 (as well as for obtaining electron abundances),
Free electrons are necessary for Faraday rotation to occur. The by applying the Bohlin et al. (1977) conversion factor.
Photodissociation Region (PDR) models (Hollenbach & Tielens
1999, 1995, 1997) predict the existence of free electrons even in
dense regions of MCs, and observations support the existence of 3. Methodology
free electrons in these regions (Harrison et al. 2013; Flower et al. The RMs in TSS09 are the result of polarized radiation passing
2007). through the entire line-of-sight of the Galaxy, from the source
Most of the ISM is not illuminated by strong UV fields and to the receiver (on Earth). Since we wish to recover the compo-
this fact led to the belief that, in high column density regions nent of the RM which is produced by only the MC, we need to
in typical MCs, the UV field is so strongly attenuated that free decouple the Faraday rotation produced by the Galaxy from that
electrons should be rare. Therefore Faraday rotation was not ex- produced within the MC itself.
pected to occur within MCs. To accomplish this, we divide the integral in equation 1 into
Cosmic Rays (CR), however, are known to be an important two parts: the contribution from the MC (RMMC ) and the con-
source of ionization in both diffuse and dense MCs (Bergin et al. tribution from everything else along the line-of-sight (Galactic
1999; Williams et al. 1998; Padovani & Galli 2013; Padovani
et al. 2009; Everett & Zweibel 2011; Morlino & Gabici 2015; 1
See Everett & Zweibel (2011) for a history of theoretical studies of
Morlino et al. 2015; Bergin et al. 1995; Willacy & Williams CR penetration into MCs.

M. Tahani et al.: Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?
contribution, RMGal ). The Galactic contribution to the RM can 3.1. Estimating RMOFF and RMref
be estimated by using RMs from positions that fall near the MC
but are far enough away that they are clearly not affiliated with it. We need to find suitable ON and OFF positions such that, when
We refer to these as OFF positions, and designate their rotation the RMs are subtracted, they isolate the effect of the MC alone.
measures as RMOFF . To find the ON positions, we search for RM measurements that
RMON refers to any rotation measure in the TSS09 catalog visually fall on the MCs of interest (i.e. in higher column density
that lies directly on or very near the MC (see Fig. 1). Since the regions). To find the OFF positions we hand pick a number of
angular separation between any RMOFF and RMON is small com- RMs that have low column densities (i.e. AV < 1) and are also
pared to the angular size of the Galaxy, we assume that RMON far enough away from the cloud that they are clearly not directly
and RMOFF are essentially sampling the same pathlength through related to it. Therefore, in terms of AV and position, the OFF
the Galaxy. positions are associated with the general Galactic background
We can then write RMON as: rather than with the MC of interest.
Since variable Galactic structure can produce different RM
RMON = RMMC + RMGal . (2) values in different OFF positions, we use a number (N) of OFF
Comparing RMOFF with RMGal in Fig. 1 shows that the path- positions to determine an “average” OFF position, which we call
length of RMOFF is larger than that of RMGal by a value equal to RMref , i.e.
the pathlength through the cloud (i.e. a cloud-sized patch of the N
ISM, which we denote as RMcloud-sized ISM ). In theory, we should
X RMOFF, i
RMref = . (7)
account for this by subtracting the effects of this patch of the ISM i=1
N
from RMOFF . We could do this by assuming that RMcloud-sized ISM
corresponds to a region with the same size as the MC but with While we could use all of the positions in our maps that obey
the characteristics of the general ISM. However, We suggest that the above criteria to produce RMref , we also wish to examine the
for dense clouds (MCs), RMcloud-sized ISM is negligible compared magnetic field in the lower column density gas that immediately
to RMMC . To compare these two RMs, we examine the average surrounds the MCs. Therefore, we develop a method to deter-
values of ne and B of a typical MC with those of general ISM. mine the optimal number of OFF positions to incorporate into
Average electron abundances for a typical MC, with density RMref . This ensures that we have a robust and useful value for
of around n = 103 cm−3 , is roughly 10−4 -10−5 (Harrison et al. RMref as well as leaving us enough RMs at the lower column
2013). The multiplication of these two yields electron densities density cloud edges to incorporate into our B field analysis.
of 10−1 cm−3 -10−2 cm−3 . The average density of the general ISM For this purpose, we investigate how the derived magnetic
is n = 1 cm−3 (McKee & Ostriker 2007), with an average elec- field strength and direction changes as we increase the number
tron abundance of ' 10−2 (Cox 2005), which together provide of OFF positions from 1 to N. We find that, with few OFF posi-
an average electron density of 10−2 cm−3 . Thus, the average elec- tions, there is a large variance in the strength and direction of the
tron density of MCs can be 1 to 10 times that of the general ISM. derived magnetic fields. However, as we continue to increase the
The magnetic field strengths within MCs are, often, at least ten number of OFF positions, the variations decrease and the B field
times higher than that of the general ISM (Planck Collaboration strengths and directions stabilize to a constant value (see Fig. 4).
et al. 2016). Therefore, the contribution of the MC to the RM We choose the optimal number of OFF positions as the point at
along the “ON” line-of-sight will be roughly 100 times larger which the variance is minimized.
than the ISM contribution of a similar size patch. Thus, for sim- From this analysis, we find the optimal number of reference
plicity, we neglect the effect of the RMcloud-sized ISM , and assume points to be 12 for OMC-A, 5 for OMC-B, 8 for CMC, and
RMOFF is equal to RMGal . Note, however, that this assumption 11 for PMC. The resultant values of RMref are 1.4 rad m−2 for
may not be valid for all Galactic clouds and, in particular, in dif- OMC-A, 32.3 rad m−2 for OMC-B, 4.0 rad m−2 for CMC, and
fuse clouds RMcloud-sized ISM may have to be specifically included. 31.1 rad m−2 for PMC. Using the “reference” positions in lieu of
We can, therefore, obtain the RM produced by just the MC a single OFF position, equation 6 becomes:
by subtracting the OFF position from the ON position, i.e.: RMON − RMref
= .

Z BLOS MC (8)
0.812Ne
RMON − RMOFF = RMMC = 0.812 ne BLOS dl , (3)
MC
where we have replaced the dot product by using the line-of- 3.2. Obtaining the Electron Column Densities
sight (LOS) component of the magnetic field within the MC
(BLOS ). Furthermore, if we assume the magnetic field through Determining the electron column density (Ne ) in MCs requires
the MC is uniform, we can extract BLOS from the integral an assessment of the total column density (N(HI + H2 )) through
Z the MC, as well as a determination of the electron abundance
RMMC = 0.812BLOS ne dl . (4) as a fraction of total column density (Xe ). The former can be
R
MC estimated from the KBHP09 extinction maps and the latter from
Since ne dl is the electron column density in the MC, Ne , a chemical model. These steps will be outlined below.
we can then write:

RMMC = 0.812BLOS Ne . (5) 3.2.1. Determining Total Column Density from the Extinction
MC Maps
Accordingly we can obtain:
The KBHP09 maps are created by interpolating the measured
RMMC
BLOS MC = . extinction values onto a regular grid with a physical spacing of

(6)
0.812Ne 0.1 pc between points. This corresponds to a different angular
To find BLOS in the MC we need to determine reasonable separation between points for different clouds due to their dis-
values for RMOFF and the electron column density (Ne ), for each tances. The RM measurements are not always at one of the pre-
observed point. This will be discussed below. cise positions where AV is tabulated. Therefore, for each RMON
position we find the closest tabulated extinction point (within a abundances are consistent with those of Glover et al. (2010) in
distance of 0.1 pc) and assign it to that RMON . This provides densities of 100 cm−3 and 1000 cm−3 . This is true even though
the extinction along the entire pathlength at each ON position their initial temperature is different than ours. They, however, in-
(AV, ON ). corporate a cooling system that allows the high extinction parts
Since each chosen OFF position also has an associated AV , of the gas to cool down to 10 K, which is close to the tem-
after finding the optimum number of OFF positions and the value peratures we have for our selected regions. Our electron abun-
of RMref for each MC, we also find the average extinction value dances are also consistent with those from a variety of estab-
of the reference position using: lished PDR/chemical models (see the comparison by Röllig et al.
(2007)). Thus, in this work, there does not seem to be much to
N
gain from applying a more sophisticated approach to the chemi-
X AV OFF, i cal modeling.
AV, ref = . (9)
N Our chemical model calculates the electron abundance in
i=1
each layer of the cloud. However, to reach any given layer, we
The values of AV, ref are 0.45, 0.46, 0.54, and 0.67 for OMC-A, pass through all overlying layers which may have different elec-
OMC-B, CMC, and PMC, respectively. To find the extinction tron abundances. Consequently, to calculate the electron col-
value of the MC itself, we once again subtract the extinction in umn density for a position in the MC with a given AV , one
OFF position from that in the ON position. i.e. : cannot naively assume that the total electron column density
is obtained directly from the electron abundance of one single
AV, MC = AV, ON − AV, ref . (10) layer multiplied by the total column density of that position (i.e,
Ne = Xe × N(HI+H2 )). We must, instead, account for the contri-
bution of each layer separately, since in each layer the electron
3.2.2. Determining the Electron Column Density
abundance may be different due to the different UV attenuation.
In order to estimate the electron abundance, one requires a chem- The total electron column density, Ne , is given by the equa-
ical model, which incorporates a number of relevant chemical tion:
reactions for particular gas conditions (density, temperature, UV
Ne = ΣNe, i , (11)
field strength, cosmic ray ionization rate, etc.) and finds the
abundance of each species as a function of time and depth (or where Ne, i is the electron column density in each layer and the
AV ) within the cloud. We use an in-house chemical evolution sum is performed over all overlying layers from the surface of
code (see Gibson et al. 2009), which has been rigorously tested the cloud to the layer of interest. Ne, i , in turn is given by:
against the results of other established codes.
We utilize the UMIST Rate 99 database to obtain the reac- Ne, i = Xe, i × Ni (HI + H2 ), (12)
tion rates (Le Teuff et al. 2000). We use a small network of 229 where Xe, i is the electron abundance in each layer, and is calcu-
gas-phase reactions coupling 28 different species including C, lated by the chemical model. Ni (HI + H2 ) is the hydrogen col-
C+ , CO, O, O2 , CH, CH+ , CO+ , H, H2 , H2 O+ , H3 O + , HCO+ , umn density in each overlaying layer. To evaluate Ni (HI + H2 )
O+ , etc. Additionally we include a simple treatment for gas-grain in each layer we first subtract the extinction of that layer (AV, i )
interactions via adsorption, thermal evaporation, CR desorption from the extinction of the layer above (AV, i-1 ) and then use the
and photodesorption in manner outlined by Bergin et al. (1995) conversion factor of 2.21 × 1021 by Bohlin et al. (1977) as fol-
and Hasegawa & Herbst (1993). It does not include any surface- lows:
grain reactions.
Our chemical code assumes that each MC has a constant den- Ni (HI + H2 ) = (AV, i − AV, i-1 ) × 2.21 × 1021 . (13)
sity and temperature, and is illuminated externally by a constant
UV field (parametrized by Go , where Go = 1 is the strength of Hence, the total electron column density along the line of sight
the average ISM radiation field) and CR ionization rate. For each from the surface of the MC to the layer of interest becomes:
of our clouds, we obtain the first three parameters from the liter- Ne = ΣNe, i = Σ Xe, i × (AV, i − AV, i - 1 ) × 2.21 × 1021 .

(14)
ature. We assume a constant CR ionization rate of 1.3 × 10−17 s−1
for all clouds. To assess which layers we must include in equation 14, we
The chemical code takes each cloud to be homogeneous and presume the cloud is symmetrical along the line-of-sight as rep-
planar in structure, and is sliced into 100 layers of equal width. resented in Fig. 1 and that the UV field is equally illuminat-
Each layer corresponds to a different depth into the cloud and ing both sides of the cloud. However, the value of AV, MC ob-
therefore, we can calculate the amount of visual extinction (AV ) tained from the extinction maps is a measure of the extinction
from the exterior (surface) of the cloud to the center of each through the entire MC (front and back). Accordingly, in a MC
layer. This controls how the external UV is attenuated as a func- with AV, MC = X, the total amount of UV attenuation from sur-
tion of depth, which, in turn, affects the importance of photo- face to center is only X/2.
reactions. In each layer, we start with standard cosmic abun- Our chemical model, however, assumes that the UV field is
dances of all species and run our code until we achieve chemical illuminating only one side of the cloud. Therefore, at a position
equilibrium. The final outcome is a list of the equilibrium abun- where we measure AV, MC from the extinction maps, we only
dance of each species (including free electrons) as a function of perform the sum in equation 14 to a layer with AV, MC /2. Subse-
extinction (depth) into the cloud. quently, we multiply the final sum by a factor of two to account
Even though we use a simple homogeneous, plane-parallel for the fact that both the front and back sides of the MC con-
chemical model rather than a more sophisticated hydrodynamic tribute an equal amount to the total Ne through the cloud. Thus,
approach (e.g. Seifried et al. 2017; Clark & Glover 2014; Smith our final solution for Ne is given by:
et al. 2014; Glover & Clark 2012), our simplified model pro- Ne =2 × ΣNe, i
vides similar electron abundances, when compared with these AV, MC (15)
more detailed models. For example, we find that our electron =2 × Σ (AV, i − AV, i - 1 ) × Xe, i × 2.2 × 1021 .

2

Using Equations 8 and 15 along with the output from our grid on which the extinction maps are produced. This mismatch
chemical models and the measured ON and reference rotation translates into a possible error in the value of AV assigned to
measures therefore, enables us to calculate the line-of-sight mag- any given RM point. Therefore, our BLOS values are a function
netic field strength and direction in MCs. of the cataloged RM values, AV (which is, itself, a function of
The following example illustrates how this is done practi- the positional coordinates), and the chemical model input den-
cally. Consider a particular point (for the purposes of this ex- sity and temperature. Thus BLOS is really parameterized by BLOS
ample, Point 22 in Fig. 6 in OMC-A, at α(J2000) = 86.31◦ , (RM, AV , n(HI+H2 ), T), and has an uncertainty of:
δ(J2000) = −5.49◦ ). In the TSS09 catalog this position has an δRM
RM value of 23.5±9.5 rad m−2 . From the KBHP09 maps, this δAV 2
δBLOS = BLOS ( )2 + ( )
position has an extinction value of AV = 2.84 mag. RM AV
(18)
Using values for density, temperature, UV field strength, etc. δn(HI + H2 ) 2 δT 2 1/2
found from the literature (see Sec. 4.1 for details) we run our +( ) +( ) .
n(HI + H2 ) T
chemical code to generate a list of abundances as a function of
extinction (or depth) into the MC. Since AV, ref for OMC-A is
0.45, AV, MC for the MC at this point is 2.84 − 0.45 = 2.39. Uncertainty In BLOS from RM In the RM catalog of TSS09,
Thus, in the output of the chemical code, we find the electron the source entries include sky position, Stokes I (total intensity),
abundances in all layers from AV, MC = 0 to 1.20. The output of linear polarized intensity, fractional polarization, and RM, with
our code contains 5 layers to reach to this extinction value. These estimated errors for each entry. Accordingly, each RM value in
layers are (AV, i , Xe, i ) = (0.16, 1.40 × 10−4 ), (0.46, 1.40 × 10−4 ), the TSS09 catalog has a corresponding RM uncertainty that we
(0.78, 1.41 × 10−4 ), (1.08, 1.41 × 10−4 ), and (1.40, 1.42 × 10−4 ). incorporate into our error bars. For the ON positions, we simply
The last layer, however, does not exactly match 1.20. Therefore, take the associated errors listed for those positions. The uncer-
we interpolate between the last two layers, to find the electron tainty in the RMref measurement, however, is the standard devi-
abundance for a layer in between with an extinction value of ation of the RM values of the chosen OFF positions. The BLOS
1.20. uncertainty from RM for each point is found as follows:
Subsequently, using equation 15 we find Ne as follows: δ(RM ) + δ(RM )
ref ON
∆BRM = BLOS , (19)
Ne = 2 × (0.16 − 0) × 1.40 × 10−4 RMON − RMref
where ∆BRM is the uncertainty in BLOS from RM, δ(RMref ) is
+ (0.46 − 0.16) × 1.40 × 10−4 the standard deviation of the OFF positions, δ(RMON ) is the tab-
+ (0.78 − 0.46) × 1.41 × 10−4 ulated uncertainty of the RM of the ON point.
(16) Considering OMC-A as an example once more, we calculate
+ (1.08 − 0.78) × 1.41 × 10−4
the standard deviation in RMref for OMC-A to be 13.7 rad m−2
+ (1.20 − 1.08) × 1.41 × 10−4 × 2.2 × 1021 (using 12 OFF positions to calculate RMref ). Thus, RMref in
OMC-A is 1.4 ± 13.7 rad m−2 .
=7.42 × 1017 cm−2 . Note that the uncertainties in the RMs tabulated in TSS09
and in the reference positions are the dominant source of error
Since the value of RMref for OMC-A is 1.4 rad m−2 (Sec. in our magnetic field calculation, and are the main reason that
3.1), RMON - RMref used in equation 8 is 23.5 - 1.4 = 22.1 the uncertainties listed in Tables 1 to 7 are as large as they are.
rad m−2 . Finally, BLOS is calculated from equation 8 as: For instance, the tabulated value of RMON of point 22 used in
the example above is 23.5 ± 9.5 rad m−2 , which results in large
22.1 rad m−2 fractional errors in the derived magnetic field values. In TSS09
7.42 × 1017 cm−2 × 3.24 × 10−19 pc cm−1 × 0.812 (17) catalog there are also points like 21 (see Table 1) with RMON
value of −0.3 ± 6.9 rad m−2 , which creates enormous relative
=113 µG. uncertainty. This will be discussed further in Sec. 5.1.
Results of this calculation for all four MCs considered in this pa-
per are provided in Tables 1, 3, 4, and 6 and Figs. 6 to 9. Details Uncertainty In BLOS From Ne Uncertainties in the electron col-
and discussion for each MC are provided in Sec. 4. umn density are caused by uncertainties in our chemical code
input parameters, since the density, temperature, and UV field
3.3. Uncertainty Analysis and Sensitivity Study strength may not be well characterized.
To investigate how changes in density affect the electron
We carry out several analyses to determine how uncertainties abundance, we hold all other input parameters constant and
in the chosen number of reference points, RM values, chemical change the input volume density, (n(HI+H2 )), by ±1%, ±2.5%,
code input parameters, positions, and extinction propagate into ±5%, ±10%, ±20%, ±30%, ±40%, ±50% from the cloud fidu-
errors in the derived BLOS . We discuss these below. cial input density, n0 . We then rerun the chemical code with the
Since our BLOS values are obtained using equation 8, to es- altered density and obtain a new value for the electron abun-
timate the uncertainties in our resultant BLOS , we need to exam- dance. Consequently, we obtain the value of BLOS for each point
ine the uncertainties induced by both the cataloged RM values with the new electron abundances. We then calculate the BLOS
and the calculated Ne . Since the uncertainty in Ne depends on differences from the original BLOS value. We denote these un-
our chemical model and its input parameters, we have to investi- certainties in BLOS as ∆Bn(HI+H2 ) .
gate the uncertainties that are caused by changing the input tem- Referring back to OMC-A as an example, Fig. 5 demon-
perature and volume density. Additionally, since we positionally strates how BLOS changes as the input density is varied. The top
overlay the RM catalog and extinction maps, we have to account panel of Fig. 5 shows BLOS deviations for a selection of data
for any possible mismatches between the RM positions and the points in OMC-A. The z-axis indicates changes in BLOS from the
fiducial value (obtained from the fiducial input density n0 ). The 4.1. The Orion Molecular Cloud
x-axis indicates the relative changes in the cloud initial (fiducial)
density, and the y-axis indicates particular data points in OMC-A The OMC is a well-studied, active star forming region with rel-
as mapped in Fig. 6. While we have performed this error analysis atively strong magnetic fields (Crutcher 1999; Crutcher et al.
for every point, we only display a few select points for clarity. 2010). Some prominent regions in OMC are the Orion Nebula
The bottom left panel of Fig. 5 represents variations in BLOS for Cluster, L1641, NGC2026, and NGC2024 with distances of 388
data points with AV > 1, and the bottom right panel shows the ± 5 pc, 428 ± 10 pc, 388 ± 10 pc, and roughly 420 pc, respec-
same for data points with AV < 1. These figures show that BLOS tively (Kounkel et al. 2017).
variations are largest in the regions with lower visual extinction. Orion A and B are the two distinct giant molecular clouds
The main reason for this behavior is that, in low AV regions, the in the OMC complex. OMC-A is located at 80◦ < α(J2000) <
electron fraction is high and so changes in density result in rel- 88◦ and −12◦ < δ(J2000) < −4◦ . OMC-B is located at 84◦ <
atively large changes in Ne which, in turn, affects BLOS . On the α(J2000) < 95◦ and −4◦ < δ(J2000) < 4◦ .
other hand, in the high AV regions, since we are looking through For both regions, we use n(HI+H2 ) = 104 cm−3 (Castets et al.
many cloud layers, changes in Ne are averaged over many layers. 1990; Dutrey et al. 1993; Johnstone & Bally 1999b,c), T = 25 K
The resultant uncertainties in BLOS caused by changes in Ne (Mitchell et al. 2001; Johnstone & Bally 2006; Bally et al. 1991;
are asymmetrical and, therefore, we report magnetic field values Castets et al. 1990; Schnee et al. 2014; Buckle et al. 2012), and
in form of B+δB a UV field strength of Go = 104 (where Go = 1 is the strength if
−δB , and in a case where the two δB are the same, in
form of B ±δB. the average interstellar UV field) as input to our chemical mod-
We carry out a similar analysis for the input temperature by els.
varying it by ±5%, ±10%, and ±20% from the cloud fiducial Using the methodology described above, we calculate BLOS
input temperature, T0 , while holding the other parameters con- for all the available RM points in OMC-A and B. These results
stant. Similarly we obtain the electron abundance and therefore are presented in Figs. 6 and 7, in which the size of each filled
the new magnetic field values for each point. Changes to the in- circle represents the strength of BLOS and the color represents
put temperature introduce fairly small variations to BLOS . We the direction (blue towards the observer and red away). Derived
denote these uncertainties as ∆BT . values of BLOS for Orion A & B are provided in Tables 1 and 3.
The reason for the large uncertainties was discussed in Sec. 3.3,
and will be explored in more detail in Sec. 5.1.
Uncertainty In BLOS From Extinction and Position Since we To examine the veracity of our method, we compare our
have an uncertainty in matching the position between the RM derived magnetic field strengths to those determined from
catalog points and the grid on which the extinction maps are cal- other well-known methods, such as Zeeman measurements. For
culated (see Sec. 3.2.1), this translates into an error, ∆Bext, coord , these two regions several Zeeman measurements are available
in the assumed AV . This arises because, while we take the AV (Troland et al. 1986, 1989; Crutcher et al. 1999a; Crutcher 1999;
value that lies closest to the RM position, there may be more Crutcher et al. 1999b, 1996; Verschuur 1996; Crutcher et al.
than one value of AV in a 0.1 pc radius surrounding the RM 2010), and are graphically represented on Figs. 6 and 7 as black
point. To estimate the influence that this has on our derived mag- squares.
netic fields, we calculate BLOS for the maximum and minimum Note that conventionally the negative sign represents mag-
AV that falls within a 0.1 pc radius around each RM position. netic field towards us in Zeeman measurements and away from
us in RM studies. For consistency between discussions of RM
Total BLOS Uncertainty After finding the individual uncertain- and Zeeman measurements, we adopt the convention that –BLOS
ties, we can find the total uncertainty, using equation 18, by (Tay- indicates a magnetic field directed away from the observer and a
lor 1997): +BLOS indicates a magnetic field toward the observer.

δBLOS = (∆BRM )2 + (∆Bext, coord )2 4.1.1. Strength and Morphology of BLOS in Orion A & B
1/2 (20)
There are a number of Zeeman measurements in OMC-A, most
+(∆Bn(HI+H2 ))2 + (∆BT )2 , of which fall in vicinity of a high extinction region with approx-
imate coordinates of α(J2000) ' 83.81◦ , δ(J2000) ' −5.37◦ .
where ∆BRM is the error in B produced by the RM uncertainties The magnetic fields inferred from these different studies have
for each data point in the TSS09 catalog along with the reference wildly different values and, often, large error bars e.g. +360 ±
RM, ∆Bext,coord is the error in B produced by the uncertainty in 80 µG (Falgarone et al. 2008; Crutcher 1999; Crutcher et al.
the assumed extinction value, ∆Bn(HI+H2 ) is the error in B pro- 2010), −79 ± 99 µG (Crutcher et al. 1996), −40 ± 240 µG
duced by the uncertainties in the chemical code input density, (Crutcher et al. 1999b, 2010), +190 ± 90 µG (Crutcher et al.
and ∆BT is the same due to uncertainties in the input tempera- 1999b), and −80 ± 100 µG (Crutcher et al. 2010). These stud-
ture. We believe that we have been quite conservative in estimat- ies suggest that the magnetic field in this region (including error
ing the total BLOS error and, therefore, the true error may indeed bars) might have any strength from +440 µG to −280 µG.
be smaller than those quoted in Tables 1, 3, 4, and 6 . In comparison, using our technique we have two data points
in this area (sources 13 and 14 in Table 1 and Fig. 6) with mag-
4. Results netic field values of −23 ± 38 µG and +15 ± 36 µG, respectively.
Given the large error bars in both our technique and the Zeeman
We used the method described above for each of the four MCs measurements, as well as the large dispersion in the Zeeman val-
in our sample (OMC-A, OMC-B, PMC, and CMC). We com- ues, we find it promising that: a) our magnetic field strengths and
pared the results to existing Zeeman measurements to verify the directions fall within the envelope of those determined via Zee-
validity of the method. We discuss our results for each of these man measurements, and b) that our error bars for these positions
regions below. are, in fact, smaller than those for the Zeeman measurements.
Thus, we suggest that there is qualitative agreement between our an indication of helical magnetic field in this filamentary struc-
results and those from Zeeman measurements. Having said that, ture as well.
comparing our results to those of Zeeman measurements must
be done cautiously, since they are possibly looking at different
4.2.2. Strength and Morphology of BLOS in the Perseus
regions within the MC (see Sec. 5.3).
Molecular Cloud (PMC)
Given that there are many more RM observations across the
Galaxy than there are Zeeman measurements, our technique can The PMC is a well-known star forming region at a position of
also provide useful insight into the morphology of the line-of- 50◦ <α(J2000)<58◦ and 28◦ <δ(J2000)<34◦ , and at a distance
sight magnetic field in MCs. For example, Fig. 6 suggests that of about 300 pc from the Sun (Bally et al. 2008). To find the
the magnetic field on the eastern side of OMC-A is predomi- proper input physical parameters to use in our chemical code,
nantly positive (blue), whereas on the western side it is nega- we use results found in the literature. Bachiller & Cernicharo
tive (red). This particular pattern has been previously observed (1986) study different regions within Perseus and, for the glob-
(Heiles 1997), and interpreted as helical magnetic fields (e.g. ule L1455 (=B204, B206), they report a temperature of 12 K.
Johnstone & Bally 1999a; Hoq et al. 2017; Matthews et al. In the position of the NH3 peak they find a density of n(H2 )
2001). We will discuss this possibility in more detail in Sec. 5.2. ' 1.4 × 104 cm−3 . Bachiller & Cernicharo (1984) mention that
The two available Zeeman measurements in OMC-B are in a B1, has a mean density of n% 103 cm−3 and is connected to the
high extinction area at α(J2000) ' 85.44◦ , δ(J2000) ' −1.93◦ , rest of the complex with densities of n ' 103 cm−3 . Consider-
and have significantly different magnetic field strengths and error ing this along with table 2 presented in Bachiller & Cernicharo
bars, e.g. −270±330 µG (Crutcher et al. 1999b) and −87±5.5 µG (1986), we choose 103 cm−3 for the average density and 12 K
(Crutcher et al. 1999a). Our measurements in this proximity are for the temperature. Additionally, we select a UV field radiation
points 1 and 2 (see Table 3 and Fig. 7) with magnetic field values strength of G◦ = 1.0.
of −119±25 µG and −129±28 µG (i.e., both pointing away from There are several Zeeman measurements available in the
us). well-known B1 molecular core in the PMC (Goodman et al.
1989; Crutcher et al. 1993; Verschuur 1996), which sug-
As with OMC-A, there is general agreement in both the di-
gest small magnetic fields. For the B1 region (α(J2000) '
rection and strength of magnetic field between the two Zeeman
51.32◦ , δ(J2000) ' 31.12◦ ), Goodman et al. (1989) obtain a
measurements and our own results. There are, however, fewer
magnetic field of +27 ± 4 µG, and Crutcher et al. (1993) report
RM points in OMC-B with which to infer the large-scale mor-
+19.1 ± 3.9 µG. For the same position Verschuur (1996) finds a
phology of the magnetic field.
magnetic field of +16.7 ± 8.9 µG using the 1665 MHz OH line
and −6.2 ± 8.5 µG using the 1667 OH line. Our closest point to
4.2. California and Perseus this location is point 4, in Fig. 9 and Table 6, with a value of
+32 ± 101 µG. Our result is in agreement with all of these re-
It is important to test our method in different environment condi- ported Zeeman measurements. The main source of uncertainty
tions besides the well known region of Orion. Thus, we test our of the magnetic field strength using our method is due to uncer-
method in the PMC and CMC, which have lower density and tainties in the RMs in the TSS09 catalog.
ambient UV field strengths than Orion. Fig. 9 seems to suggest that the magnetic fields on the south-
ern side of the PMC are pointing away from us whereas, on
the northern side, they are pointing towards us, however, more
4.2.1. Strength and Morphology of BLOS in the California data points would be required to draw any firm conclusions since
Molecular Cloud (CMC) there is a paucity of RMs on the southern side of the cloud.
The CMC occupies a region of roughly 58◦ <α(J2000)<70◦ and
34◦ <δ(J2000)<42◦ (Lombardi et al. 2010). It is part of the Gould 5. Discussion
Belt and has modest star formation activity (Harvey et al. 2013).
Lada et al. (2009) report a distance of 450 ± 23 pc to the cloud. 5.1. Decreasing the Uncertainties in BLOS
The cloud extends around 80 pc and has a mass of around 105 As mentioned previously, our derived magnetic field strengths
M . (see Tables 1, 3, 4, and 6) often have relatively large uncertainties
Considering the results of Kong et al. (2015) and Lada and, in some cases, the error bars are larger than the tabulated
et al. (2009) we take an initial volume density of n(HI+H2 ) = value of BLOS . As mentioned in Sec. 3.3, the dominant source
450 cm−3 , a temperature of T = 10 K, and UV field radiation of errors in our method are the errors of the RMs as tabulated in
strength of G◦ = 1.0 for the input to our chemical models. Us- TSS09.
ing the same method described in Sec. 3, we then calculate the The RMs of the TSS09 were calculated using two frequen-
magnetic field strength and direction in CMC. The results are cies in combination with the fractional depolarization as a func-
shown in Fig. 8 with their values listed in Table 4. Our derived tion of rotation measure. Errors in the calculated RM could
values for BLOS in the CMC are not very sensitive to the uncer- be reduced by re-observing the same sources (in addition to
tainties in coordinate and extinction values or to uncertainties in more sources) with new generation radio telescopes such as the
the chemical code input parameters, and their dominant source Low Frequency Array (LOFAR: a square kilometer Array low
of uncertainty comes from RM uncertainties. pathfinder). For example, in their Table 1, Van Eck et al. (2017)
While there are no Zeeman measurements available for this compare their RM results using LOFAR with the TSS09 catalog.
region to compare with our results, Fig. 8 does exhibit some While the absolute values are in good agreement, the RM uncer-
interesting morphological characteristics. Fig. 8 shows that the tainties presented in Van Eck et al. (2017) (0.05 rad m−2 ) are
magnetic fields on the eastern side of the CMC are pointing away significantly smaller than those in TSS09 catalog (10 rad m−2 ).
from us, while on the western side they are pointing towards us. These reductions in RM uncertainties can accordingly improve
This morphology is similar to that seen in OMC-A, and might be the error bars associated with our procedure. For example, for
point 4 in OMC-B in Table 3, if we hold all other values con- dritz (2000b) study the fragmentation length-scale, stability, den-
stant and change the RM uncertainty to 0.05 rad m−2 , the final sity profile, and mass per length of filamentary MCs and, based
BLOS would be 122 ± 50 µG, instead of the currently tabulated on observational constraints, they suggest that many filamentary
122±125 µG. In addition, in this “new and improved” BLOS value clouds are likely wrapped by helical magnetic fields.
of 122 ± 50 µG, the largest source of error is now from RMref . Additional observations with improved sensitivity and an in-
Errors in RMref could be reduced by improved sensitivity RM creased number of RM data points would be required to better
observations which could provide additional RMOFF data points map the BLOS morphology in these MCs and confirm or reject
to be used in the calculation of RMref . Since the error in RMref our suggestion of helical magnetic field structure. Such obser-
is a standard deviation, with additional points, Poisson statistics vations should be possible with the new/next generation radio
should decrease its error. telescope facilities (e.g. LOFAR, SKA). In addition, simulations
Even with the current uncertainties in RMON , we can im- of MCs with the sizes and physical characteristics of the OMC-A
prove the robustness of our results by removing from consider- and CMC are required to theoretically connect the results in this
ation any position that has an uncertainty greater than 100% of paper to the presence of helical fields. This will be the subject of
the calculated BLOS value. Tables 2, 5, and 7 are subsets of Ta- a future paper (Tahani et al. in prep, b).
bles 1, 4, and 6 which contain only the points with error bars A visual comparison of our results with those of Planck
less than 100% of the magnetic field strength. Although the un- (Planck Collaboration et al. (2016)) suggests that the data are
certainty in the absolute value of BLOS of any point may still be consistent with a helical or toroidal field wrapping the cloud.
relatively high, the direction of the magnetic field for the points We will investigate the 3D structure of the magnetic field in this
in these tables is fixed. Therefore, these data can still provide us region by comparing these two data sets in a more quantitative
with insight into the large-scale magnetic field morphology in fashion in a future paper (Tahani et al. in prep, a).
MCs. This will be discussed in Sec. 5.2 below. We should note that our technique utilizes OFF positions
that are distributed randomly, based on lowest extinction values,
around each cloud. However, it is clear from Figs. 2 and 3 that
5.2. Magnetic Field Morphology: Evidence for Helical Fields?
the pattern of a sign change from one side of a cloud to another
In OMC-A, Fig. 6, suggests that BLOS on the east side of OMC- can sometimes be seen in the raw RM data itself. Therefore, to
A tends to point away from us, whereas on the west side it tends investigate whether the observed magnetic field morphology is a
to point towards us. This holds true even if we only use the BLOS result of large-scale Galactic effects or due to the cloud itself, we
values listed in Table 2, which have error bars small enough that redo our analysis by choosing OFF positions specific to each side
the magnetic field direction is fixed. In fact, our interpretation is of the cloud. More precisely, to calculate magnetic fields on one
more robust using the data in Table 2, since points 21, 28, and 30 side of the cloud, we choose OFF positions that are on the same
on the east side of the cloud and 11, and 16 on the west side of side. For example, for OMC-A, to calculate the magnetic fields
the cloud are removed. Removing these points strengthens the on the left side of the cloud where the RMs are predominantly
perceived large-scale pattern of the magnetic field by reducing blue (positive), we select OFF positions that are also on the left
the number of positions with opposing BLOS directions. side of the cloud. We use the same technique for the right side of
This magnetic field configuration has been previously ob- the cloud, where the RMs are predominantly red (negative).
served in OMC-A (Heiles 1997), and interpreted as a helical We implement this method for OMC-A, CMC, and PMC.
magnetic field wrapping around the cloud (Heiles 1987). Other We find that considering both sides of the cloud separately and
observations, have also been indirectly interpreted as indications obtaining RMref for each side result into a maximum change of
of a helical magnetic field structure (e.g. Johnstone & Bally 5.7 rad m−2 , 14.4 rad m−2 , and 26.3 rad m−2 from the origi-
1999a; Hoq et al. 2017; Matthews et al. 2001; Contreras et al. nal RMref for OMC-A, CMC, and PMC, respectively. For both
2013; Stutz & Gould 2016). For example, by using the Virial OMC-A and CMC, this maximum change is within the original
mass per length obtained by Fiege & Pudritz (2000a) for a cylin- value of δ(RMref ). Therefore, for these two clouds the original
drical filament threaded by a helical magnetic field, Buckle et al. and updated values of RMref are indistinguishable within the un-
(2012) show that the integral shaped filament in OMC-A is too certainties. Consequently, the overall magnetic field morphology
massive for thermal or turbulent support. Thus, they suggest that (i.e. direction reversals) in OMC-A and the CMC is preserved in
the mass and morphology of the integral shaped filament (a small our obtained maps, with very minor and negligible differences.
region within our OMC-A map) is consistent with a Virial model In the PMC, the changes in RMref obtained by using the two
of a filamentary cloud threaded by a helical magnetic field. sides of the cloud separately are not within the uncertainties. Ac-
In the CMC (Fig. 8) and PMC (Fig. 9), a first glance at the cordingly the overall magnetic field morphology in PMC is not
data seem to suggest the presence of a helical magnetic field. In preserved and the resultant map does not suggest a magnetic field
the CMC this holds true even if we only use the data in Table 5 reversal from one side of the cloud to the other. However, since
(with error bars less than 100% of the BLOS value). In the PMC, we do not suggest a particular morphology for this region due to
if we only use the data in Table 7, on the north side of the cloud a lack of points on the southern side of the cloud, this does not
the remaining points are primarily towards us, but there are too change our original conclusion.
few observations on the southern side of the cloud to truly infer We believe that the choice of the OFF positions, for these
anything about the magnetic field geometry. clouds, does not affect the overall derived magnetic field mor-
This type of magnetic field geometry is also predicted or in- phology. The clouds themselves are located at high Galactic lati-
vestigated by a number of numerical simulations or theoretical tudes at longitudes towards the Galactic anti-center, but are only
analysis (Shibata & Matsumoto 1991; Fiege & Pudritz 1999a,b, 0.5 kpc away. Thus, the Galactic contribution to the RM along
2000a,b,c; Schleicher & Stutz 2017; Nakamura et al. 1993; Mat- the lines-of-sight will be primarily from the halo, which has an
sumoto et al. 1994; Hanawa et al. 1993). Shibata & Matsumoto electron density and magnetic field strength each of at least an
(1991) study the entire Orion Cloud Complex (' 100 pc) and find order of magnitude less than that for the disk, making the RM
in their simulations that helically twisted magnetic flux tubes are contribution at least two orders of magnitude less than what
generated. In addition, Fiege & Pudritz (2000a) and Fiege & Pu- would be expected from a similar pathlength entirely through the
disk. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of reversals B, with extinction of 37.36 for both, and BLOS of −119 ± 25 and
induced by more local phenomena (e.g. supernova remnants), −129 ± 28.
but we have tried to minimize the possible effects of Galactic- The interpretation of our results in Fig. 10 should be treated
scale structure through our choice of clouds. with caution. Since we are looking through many different cloud
We also note that using the bilateral method leads to higher layers in the highest AV regions, and each layer may have a dif-
standard deviations in RMref , i.e. higher values of δ(RMref ), ferent value of BLOS , we are essentially providing an average of
and therefore higher uncertainties in the resultant magnetic field BLOS through the cloud. This averaging effect may artificially
strengths. This is entirely due to the fact that by restricting our- suppress the measured value of BLOS in the highest column den-
selves to half the area, we have fewer OFF positions with which sity regions, less than that in the low column density regions
to calculate RMref on each side of the cloud. Consequently, since where there are fewer layers over which to average.
our original method has smaller error bars and no appreciable
difference in the derived overall magnetic field morphology, we
believe that our original choice of reference points with random 6. Conclusions
positions around each cloud is the optimum method to use. We present a new method to measure the line-of-sight magnetic
It is very likely that in future studies, with more sensitivity, field (BLOS ) in molecular clouds. Our technique uses the rotation
many more RM points will be available to choose from. A larger measures of polarized sources from the catalog of Taylor et al.
dataset would provide smaller statistical errors from a sample of (2009) that are located behind, and nearby, molecular clouds.
location-specific OFF positions. Therefore, with a larger num- Using these rotation measures, along with an estimate of electron
ber of RM points to choose from, it may be preferable to pro- density determined from extinction maps from Kainulainen et al.
duce RMref s on different sides of the clouds to ensure that one is (2009) and a chemical model, we estimate BLOS in and around
subtracting out any large scale contributions from the Galaxy. molecular clouds.
We apply our method to four test clouds: the Orion A &
5.3. Comparison With Previous Measurements: A B cloud complexes, the California molecular cloud, and the
Cautionary Note Perseus molecular cloud and find good agreement for BLOS (both
in magnitude and direction) with estimates from a limited num-
As indicated in Hull et al. (2017), the magnetic field strength ber of Zeeman measurements in these same regions. For exam-
and orientation may vary significantly as one moves from higher ple, in Orion A we calculate BLOS = −23±38 µG and +15±36 µG
extinction (small scale) regions to lower extinction (larger scale) at two positions near the Zeeman measurements. In the Orion
regions. For this reason, comparisons between Zeeman measure- B complex we also find two rotation measure near the reported
ments and our results must be performed with caution, since they Zeeman measurements with calculated BLOS = −119±25 µG and
might be probing BLOS from different regions in the MCs. For −129 ± 28 µG respectively. In Perseus, our calculated BLOS at a
example, in our technique we assume that BLOS is constant in position nearest the Zeeman measurement is +32 ± 101 µG.
every cloud layer. Thus, in higher extinction regions where we The advantage of our method over the traditional Zeeman ap-
are looking through many cloud layers, we are effectively mea- proach is that we can use the plethora of rotation measures made
suring an average BLOS along the line of sight (since we use the across the Galaxy to also map the line-of-sight morphology of
total electron column density and RM in the MC along the line the magnetic field over large-scales in molecular clouds. Using
of sight). In contrast, Zeeman measurements using one partic- this technique, we find that the large-scale morphology of BLOS
ular molecular line tracer may be selectively probing specific in the Orion A complex and the California cloud is suggestive
regions/depths in the cloud. This may also be the reason that of helical fields wrapping these clouds. Combined with plane-
different Zeeman measurements in the high extinction regions of-the-sky maps of the magnetic field strength and morphology
have a large amount of scatter. If different measurements probe from dust polarization maps, our technique provides a way to de-
different layers, they may also be probing different magnetic termine the true, 3-dimensional structure of the magnetic fields
field strengths in those layers. In regions with lower extinction, in and around molecular clouds (Tahani et al. 2018a, in prep).
where we are looking through fewer cloud layers, the amount of We believe that our method holds great promise for future
“smearing” over the line-of-sight should be diminished and we studies of the large-scale magnetic field morphology in molecu-
should be more accurately probing the true value of BLOS . Un- lar clouds for two reasons. First, the magnetic field strengths and
fortunately, due to the difficulties inherent in the Zeeman mea- directions we calculate are in good qualitative agreement with
surement technique, there are few Zeeman measurements in the Zeeman measurements. Second, the inference of helical mag-
low column density regions of MCs against which to compare netic field geometries holds true even when we only consider
our results. positions with error bars small enough that the direction of BLOS
Fig. 10, shows the average of absolute value of BLOS versus is fixed.
extinction, in bins that are 0.5 magnitudes wide in AV . The error
Acknowledgements. We thank the anonymous referee for his/her insightful com-
bars reflect the standard deviation of |BLOS | in each bin. The fig- ments that helped improve this paper. We would like to thank Tim Robishaw for
ure shows a decrease in < |BLOS | > with AV , a trend that seems helpful discussions on Zeeman measurements and their directions. MT acknowl-
different than that seen in the previous studies (e.g. Li et al. 2015; edges Eyes High International Doctoral Scholarship. This project has received
Tritsis et al. 2015), which explore the magnetic field strength as funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gram under grant agreement No 639459 (PROMISE). We have used LATEX,
a function of column density. However, a closer look at Fig. 1 of Python and its associated libraries, PyCharm, SAO Image DS9, and C++ for this
Li et al. (2015) shows that in extinction range of our data points work.
(1 to 4.5), one cannot find a particular trend, within their plot-
ted uncertainties. For extinction magnitude higher than 4.5 there
are only a few points available, and up to 30 magnitude only two
points. These points are sources 13 and 14 in OMC-A with AV of References
19.56 and 21.47 with BLOS of −23 ± 38 and 15 ± 36, respectively. Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501
The points with AV higher than 30 are sources 1 and 2 in OMC- Bachiller, R. & Cernicharo, J. 1984, A&A, 140, 414

Bachiller, R. & Cernicharo, J. 1986, A&A, 168, 262 Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2009, ApJ, 703, 52
Bally, J., Langer, W. D., & Liu, W. 1991, ApJ, 383, 645 Le Teuff, Y. H., Millar, T. J., & Markwick, A. J. 2000, A&AS, 146, 157
Bally, J., Walawender, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., & Goodman, A. 2008, in Li, H.-B., Goodman, A., Sridharan, T. K., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI,
Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed. B. Reipurth (Astronom- 101
ical Society of the Pacific), 308 Li, P. S., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2500
Bergin, E. A., Langer, W. D., & Goldsmith, P. F. 1995, ApJ, 441, 222 Lombardi, M. 2009, A&A, 493, 735
Bergin, E. A., Plume, R., Williams, J. P., & Myers, P. C. 1999, ApJ, 512, 724 Lombardi, M., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J. 2010, A&A, 512, A67
Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1977, NASA STI/Recon Technical Matsumoto, T., Nakamura, F., & Hanawa, T. 1994, PASJ, 46, 243
Report N, 78 Matthews, B. C., Wilson, C. D., & Fiege, J. D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 400
Brown, J. C., Haverkorn, M., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 258 McKee, C. F. & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565
Brown, J. C., Stil, J. M., & Landecker, T. L. 2008, Physics in Canada, 64 Media Relations, R. S. 2006, astronomers find magnetic slinky in orion, www.
Buckle, J. V., Davis, C. J., Francesco, J. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 521 berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml
Castets, A., Duvert, G., Dutrey, A., et al. 1990, A&A, 234, 469 Mitchell, G. F., Johnstone, D., Moriarty-Schieven, G., Fich, M., & Tothill,
Clark, P. C. & Glover, S. C. O. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2396 N. F. H. 2001, ApJ, 556, 215
Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693 Morlino, G. & Gabici, S. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L100
Contreras, Y., Rathborne, J., & Garay, G. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 251 Morlino, G., Gabici, S., & Krause, J. 2015, ArXiv e-prints
Cox, D. P. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 337 [arXiv:1509.05128]
Crutcher, R. 2005, in The Magnetized Plasma in Galaxy Evolution, ed. K. T. Nakamura, F., Hanawa, T., & Nakano, T. 1993, PASJ, 45, 551
Chyzy, K. Otmianowska-Mazur, M. Soida, & R.-J. Dettmar, 103–110 Ordog, A., Brown, J. C., Kothes, R., & Landecker, T. L. 2017, A&A, 603, A15
Crutcher, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706
Padovani, M. & Galli, D. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceed-
Crutcher, R. M., Roberts, D. A., Troland, T. H., & Goss, W. M. 1999a, ApJ, 515,
ings, Vol. 34, Cosmic Rays in Star-Forming Environments, ed. D. F. Torres &
275
O. Reimer, 61
Crutcher, R. M. & Troland, T. H. 2008, ApJ, 685, 281
Padovani, M., Galli, D., & Glassgold, A. E. 2009, A&A, 501, 619
Crutcher, R. M., Troland, T. H., Goodman, A. A., et al. 1993, ApJ, 407, 175
Crutcher, R. M., Troland, T. H., Lazareff, B., & Kazes, I. 1996, ApJ, 456, 217 Padovani, M., Marcowith, A., Hennebelle, P., & Ferrière, K. 2016, A&A, 590,
Crutcher, R. M., Troland, T. H., Lazareff, B., Paubert, G., & Kazès, I. 1999b, A8
ApJ, 514, L121 Palmeirim, P., André, P., Kirk, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A38
Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H. 2010, Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A138
ApJ, 725, 466 Pudritz, R. E., Klassen, M., Kirk, H., Seifried, D., & Banerjee, R. 2014, in
Dutrey, A., Duvert, G., Castets, A., et al. 1993, A&A, 270, 468 IAU Symposium, Vol. 302, Magnetic Fields throughout Stellar Evolution, ed.
Everett, J. E. & Zweibel, E. G. 2011, ApJ, 739, 60 P. Petit, M. Jardine, & H. C. Spruit, 10–20
Falgarone, E., Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., & Paubert, G. 2008, A&A, 487, Reich, W., Fürst, E., Reich, P., Wielebinski, R., & Wolleben, M. 2002, in Ameri-
247 can Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 609, Astrophysical Polarized
Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 1999a, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints Backgrounds, ed. S. Cecchini, S. Cortiglioni, R. Sault, & C. Sbarra, 3–8
[astro-ph/9905148] Robishaw, T. 2008, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley
Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 1999b, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- Röllig, M., Abel, N. P., Bell, T., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 187
ference Series, Vol. 168, New Perspectives on the Interstellar Medium, ed. Schleicher, D. R. G. & Stutz, A. M. 2017, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1705.06302]
A. R. Taylor, T. L. Landecker, & G. Joncas, 248 Schnee, S., Mason, B., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2303
Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 2000a, MNRAS, 311, 85 Seifried, D., Walch, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints
Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 2000b, MNRAS, 311, 105 [arXiv:1704.06487]
Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 2000c, ApJ, 544, 830 Shibata, K. & Matsumoto, R. 1991, Nature, 353, 633
Flower, D. R., Pineau Des Forêts, G., & Walmsley, C. M. 2007, A&A, 474, 923 Simard-Normandin, M. & Kronberg, P. P. 1980, ApJ, 242, 74
Gibson, D., Plume, R., Bergin, E., Ragan, S., & Evans, N. 2009, ApJ, 705, 123 Smith, R. J., Glover, S. C. O., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Springel, V. 2014,
Glover, S. C. O. & Clark, P. C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 377 MNRAS, 441, 1628
Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, MN- Stil, J. M. & Hryhoriw, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 202
RAS, 404, 2 Stutz, A. M. & Gould, A. 2016, A&A, 590, A2
Goldsmith, P. F., Heyer, M., Narayanan, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 428 Sun, X. H., Reich, W., Waelkens, A., & Enßlin, T. A. 2008, A&A, 477, 573
Goodman, A. A., Crutcher, R. M., Heiles, C., Myers, P. C., & Troland, T. H. Taylor, A. R., Stil, J. M., & Sunstrum, C. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1230
1989, ApJ, 338, L61 Taylor, L. R. 1997, An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd edn. (University Sci-
Han, J. L., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Qiao, G. J., & van Straten, W. 2006, ence Books)
ApJ, 642, 868 Tritsis, A., Panopoulou, G. V., Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Pavlidou, V.
Hanawa, T., Nakamura, F., Matsumoto, T., et al. 1993, ApJ, 404, L83 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4384
Harrison, S., Faure, A., & Tennyson, J. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3541 Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., & Kazes, I. 1986, ApJ, 304, L57
Harvey, P. M., Fallscheer, C., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 133 Troland, T. H. & Heiles, C. 1982, ApJ, 252, 179
Hasegawa, T. I. & Herbst, E. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 589 Troland, T. H., Heiles, C., & Goss, W. M. 1989, ApJ, 337, 342
Heiles, C. 1987, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 134, Interstellar Van Eck, C. L., Brown, J. C., Stil, J. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 97
Processes, ed. D. J. Hollenbach & H. A. Thronson, Jr., 171–194 Van Eck, C. L., Haverkorn, M., Alves, M. I. R., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A98
Heiles, C. 1997, ApJS, 111, 245 Van Loo, S., Keto, E., & Zhang, Q. 2014, ApJ, 789, 37
Hollenbach, D. J. & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1995, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Verschuur, G. L. 1996, AJ, 112, 2718
Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 459, The Physics and Chemistry of Interstellar Willacy, K. & Williams, D. A. 1993, MNRAS, 260, 635
Molecular Clouds, ed. G. Winnewisser & G. C. Pelz, 164–174 Williams, J. P., Bergin, E. A., Caselli, P., Myers, P. C., & Plume, R. 1998, ApJ,
Hollenbach, D. J. & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 179 503, 689
Hollenbach, D. J. & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1999, Reviews of Modern Physics, 71, Wolleben, M. & Reich, W. 2004a, A&A, 427, 537
173 Wolleben, M. & Reich, W. 2004b, in The Magnetized Interstellar Medium, ed.
Hoq, S., Clemens, D. P., Guzmán, A. E., & Cashman, L. R. 2017, ApJ, 836, 199 B. Uyaniker, W. Reich, & R. Wielebinski, 99–104
Hull, C. L. H., Girart, J. M., Tychoniec, Ł., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., & Parastaran, P. 1997, ApJ, 475, L119
[arXiv:1707.03827]
Johnstone, D. & Bally, J. 1999a, ApJ, 510, L49
Johnstone, D. & Bally, J. 1999b, ApJ, 510, L49
Johnstone, D. & Bally, J. 1999c, in The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar
Medium, ed. V. Ossenkopf, J. Stutzki, & G. Winnewisser
Johnstone, D. & Bally, J. 2006, ApJ, 653, 383
Kainulainen, J., Beuther, H., Henning, T., & Plume, R. 2009, A&A, 508, L35
Khesali, A., Kokabi, K., Faghei, K., & Nejad-Asghar, M. 2014, Research in As-
tronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 66
Killeen, N. E. B., Lo, K. Y., & Crutcher, R. 1992, ApJ, 385, 585
Kirk, H., Klassen, M., Pudritz, R., & Pillsworth, S. 2015, ApJ, 802, 75
Klassen, M., Pudritz, R. E., & Kirk, H. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2254
Kong, S., Lada, C. J., Lada, E. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 58
Kounkel, M., Hartmann, L., Loinard, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 142

Table 1. Orion A BLOS values. Point numbers are as mapped in Fig. 6. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer
and positive values are towards the observer. δBs indicate the upper and lower limit uncertainties.
Point
RA (◦ J2000) Dec (◦ J2000) AV (mag) RMON (rad m−2 ) RMMC (rad m−2 ) B (µG) +δB (µG) -δB (µG)
Number
1 80.56 -10.96 0.78 0.0 -1.4 -52 883 883
2 81.08 -10.20 1.62 -25.7 -27.1 -284 315 323
3 81.18 -10.15 1.30 -21.3 -22.7 -330 307 307
4 81.25 -7.66 0.99 -41.6 -43.0 -991 620 620
5 81.29 -7.13 1.30 -9.6 -11.0 -159 413 413
6 81.65 -6.57 0.86 -33.1 -34.5 -1035 537 620
7 81.89 -4.62 0.85 76.0 74.6 2327 896 965
8 81.97 -11.14 0.94 29.4 28.0 700 517 463
9 82.48 -4.89 0.90 8.5 7.1 196 558 558
10 82.49 -10.98 0.85 -19.6 -21.0 -647 874 889
11 82.76 -9.55 1.64 7.4 6.0 62 248 223
12 82.89 -7.18 0.83 -36.3 -37.7 -1233 657 612
13 83.81 -5.39 19.56 -13.5 -14.9 -23 38 38
14 83.82 -5.38 21.47 10.9 9.5 15 36 36
15 85.03 -5.22 2.09 81.0 79.6 595 215 215
16 85.13 -10.38 1.81 28.1 26.7 242 265 265
17 85.41 -5.70 1.62 58.9 57.5 607 168 168
18 85.84 -5.04 1.58 45.9 44.5 483 275 275
19 85.98 -10.51 2.43 26.3 24.9 154 121 121
20 86.28 -5.49 3.11 24.1 22.7 104 114 114
21 86.29 -6.58 1.29 -0.3 -1.7 -25 301 301
22 86.31 -5.49 2.84 23.5 22.1 113 119 119
23 86.32 -10.86 1.96 -3.1 -4.5 -37 220 220
24 86.86 -4.30 2.05 13.5 12.1 93 167 167
25 86.86 -4.30 2.05 10.6 9.2 71 157 157
26 86.92 -11.49 0.77 -16.3 -17.7 -676 867 841
27 87.12 -10.56 1.31 8.2 6.8 98 295 295
28 87.18 -4.74 1.15 -19.6 -21.0 -370 456 455
29 87.18 -8.05 1.66 42.6 41.2 418 308 308
30 87.26 -5.04 0.85 -17.4 -18.8 -578 927 926
31 87.61 -6.44 0.91 95.6 94.2 2553 695 698
32 87.88 -7.94 0.77 103.6 102.2 3928 1135 1675
33 87.88 -10.39 2.32 13.3 11.9 78 163 163
34 87.89 -10.38 2.32 28.5 27.1 177 102 102
Table 2. Orion A BLOS values, considering only the points that do not change direction within the estimated uncertainties. Point numbers are
as mapped in Fig. 6. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer and positive values are towards the observer. δBs
indicate the upper and lower limit uncertainties.
Point
Number
3 81.18 -10.15 1.30 -21.3 -22.7 -330 307 307
4 81.25 -7.66 0.99 -41.6 -43.0 -991 620 620
6 81.65 -6.57 0.86 -33.1 -34.5 -1035 537 620
7 81.89 -4.62 0.85 76.0 74.6 2327 896 965
8 81.97 -11.14 0.94 29.4 28.0 700 517 463
12 82.89 -7.18 0.83 -36.3 -37.7 -1233 657 612
15 85.03 -5.22 2.09 81.0 79.6 595 215 215
17 85.41 -5.70 1.62 58.9 57.5 607 168 168
18 85.84 -5.04 1.58 45.9 44.5 483 275 275
19 85.98 -10.51 2.43 26.3 24.9 154 121 121
29 87.18 -8.05 1.66 42.6 41.2 418 308 308
31 87.61 -6.44 0.91 95.6 94.2 2553 695 698
32 87.88 -7.94 0.77 103.6 102.2 3928 1135 1675
34 87.89 -10.38 2.32 28.5 27.1 177 102 102

Table 3. Orion B BLOS values. Point numbers are as mapped in Fig. 7. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer
Point
Number
1 85.44 -1.92 37.36 -44.1 -76.4 -119 25 25
2 85.45 -1.91 37.36 -50.1 -82.4 -129 28 28
3 85.91 -2.95 2.03 82.6 50.3 393 199 199
4 87.09 -1.29 2.84 56.0 23.7 122 125 125
5 88.21 3.22 1.50 91.1 58.8 699 268 268
6 88.92 -1.02 1.50 152.4 120.1 1423 268 263
7 90.09 0.05 1.19 33.9 1.6 27 437 437
8 90.15 -2.74 0.82 53.8 21.5 736 642 670
Table 4. California BLOS values. Point numbers are as mapped in Fig. 8. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer
Point
Number
1 58.30 38.45 2.52 46.6 42.6 278 141 141
2 58.63 41.91 0.90 -56.5 -60.5 -2106 1070 1070
3 58.92 41.90 1.10 -7.5 -11.5 -255 539 539
4 59.31 37.96 2.66 44.5 40.5 249 147 147
5 59.60 41.87 1.81 -20.2 -24.2 -241 213 213
6 59.75 40.05 1.02 24.9 20.9 541 615 615
7 59.76 40.03 0.94 26.5 22.5 697 881 881
8 59.87 41.78 2.45 12.9 8.9 60 228 228
9 60.03 40.20 1.24 28.1 24.1 431 404 404
10 60.19 37.80 1.16 73.0 69.0 1373 355 355
11 60.54 41.51 2.88 -16.5 -20.5 -116 130 131
12 60.92 38.33 2.06 7.1 3.1 26 255 255
13 61.89 39.42 0.98 -3.4 -7.4 -210 701 701
14 62.03 41.28 1.16 -2.4 -6.4 -129 637 637
15 62.03 40.38 2.35 21.8 17.8 126 144 144
16 62.14 41.56 0.98 -2.4 -6.4 -180 669 669
17 62.24 36.59 0.93 59.1 55.1 1761 827 826
18 62.34 38.81 2.07 56.0 52.0 430 138 138
19 63.69 36.04 0.69 55.4 51.4 4160 3259 3438
20 64.47 35.28 1.16 34.8 30.8 614 394 394
21 64.57 38.01 3.55 -24.2 -28.2 -131 119 119
22 64.62 38.04 3.05 -13.7 -17.7 -94 175 175
23 65.06 38.83 1.37 27.3 23.3 348 384 384
24 65.33 35.19 0.78 31.5 27.5 1402 1799 1799
25 65.39 38.61 1.73 5.1 1.1 11 259 259
26 65.61 39.93 1.08 -17.4 -21.4 -495 656 656
27 65.97 34.86 0.78 41.0 37.0 1925 1257 1257
28 66.09 39.35 1.76 -26.4 -30.4 -313 189 190
29 66.10 39.37 1.76 -18.0 -22.0 -226 286 286
30 66.77 36.06 2.32 -21.2 -25.2 -181 214 214
31 66.92 38.39 1.47 -3.6 -7.6 -102 360 360
32 67.98 34.94 1.69 -44.4 -48.4 -529 240 240
33 68.28 35.84 2.17 -24.2 -28.2 -220 171 171
34 68.77 36.78 2.12 -14.0 -18.0 -145 227 227
35 68.87 35.25 1.63 -17.6 -21.6 -248 268 268

Table 5. California BLOS values, considering only the points that do not change direction within the estimated uncertainties. Point numbers are
as mapped in Fig. 8. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer and positive values are towards the observer. δBs
Point
Number
1 58.30 38.45 2.52 46.6 42.6 278 141 141
2 58.63 41.91 0.90 -56.5 -60.5 -2106 1070 1070
4 59.31 37.96 2.66 44.5 40.5 249 147 147
5 59.60 41.87 1.81 -20.2 -24.2 -241 213 213
9 60.03 40.20 1.24 28.1 24.1 431 404 404
10 60.19 37.80 1.16 73.0 69.0 1373 355 355
17 62.24 36.59 0.93 59.1 55.1 1761 827 826
18 62.34 38.81 2.07 56.0 52.0 430 138 138
19 63.69 36.04 0.69 55.4 51.4 4160 3259 3438
20 64.47 35.28 1.16 34.8 30.8 614 394 394
21 64.57 38.01 3.55 -24.2 -28.2 -131 119 119
27 65.97 34.86 0.78 41.0 37.0 1925 1257 1257
28 66.09 39.35 1.76 -26.4 -30.4 -313 189 190
32 67.98 34.94 1.69 -44.4 -48.4 -529 240 240
33 68.28 35.84 2.17 -24.2 -28.2 -220 171 171
Table 6. Perseus BLOS values. Point numbers are as mapped in Fig. 9. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer
Point
Number
1 50.01 29.69 2.62 59.2 28.1 194 176 176
2 50.01 31.13 1.27 89.6 58.5 1229 457 624
3 50.15 30.72 3.50 40.1 9.0 47 128 116
4 51.29 31.48 2.34 35.1 4.0 32 101 101
5 51.80 29.02 1.75 26.2 -4.9 -57 268 269
6 51.91 31.40 2.87 15.1 -16.0 -100 157 158
7 52.03 29.44 1.16 18.9 -12.2 -310 530 537
8 52.15 29.37 2.32 24.8 -6.3 -50 103 106
9 52.17 30.83 4.21 60.2 29.1 134 67 67
10 52.54 30.55 3.75 -8.3 -39.4 -196 109 109
11 52.54 28.65 1.37 6.5 -24.6 -441 339 338
12 52.61 30.06 0.64 28.1 -3.0 -238 1351 1363
13 52.92 28.68 1.89 19.9 -11.2 -118 246 253
14 53.17 31.86 1.50 67.4 36.3 557 488 359
15 53.57 31.20 4.09 28.2 -2.9 -13 88 88
16 53.88 30.54 2.11 22.2 -8.9 -80 146 147
17 54.13 32.31 1.03 34.3 3.2 113 435 443
18 54.41 32.13 0.92 175.4 144.3 7160 1121 4585
19 54.46 31.25 2.42 110.8 79.7 605 207 211
20 54.47 30.93 3.08 48.7 17.6 103 83 81
21 54.91 32.91 2.03 126.8 95.7 904 291 256
22 55.04 32.15 2.69 200.0 168.9 1137 466 103
23 55.52 30.34 1.25 19.2 -11.9 -257 473 475
24 55.81 31.25 3.47 39.9 8.8 46 94 94

Table 7. Perseus BLOS values, considering only the points that do not change direction within the estimated uncertainties. Point numbers are as
mapped in Fig. 9. Negative values indicate magnetic fields pointed away from the observer and positive values are towards the observer. δBs
Point
Number
1 50.01 29.69 2.62 59.2 28.1 194 176 176
2 50.01 31.13 1.27 89.6 58.5 1229 457 624
9 52.17 30.83 4.21 60.2 29.1 134 67 67
10 52.54 30.55 3.75 -8.3 -39.4 -196 109 109
11 52.54 28.65 1.37 6.5 -24.6 -441 339 338
14 53.17 31.86 1.50 67.4 36.3 557 488 359
18 54.41 32.13 0.92 175.4 144.3 7160 1121 4585
19 54.46 31.25 2.42 110.8 79.7 605 207 211
20 54.47 30.93 3.08 48.7 17.6 103 83 81
21 54.91 32.91 2.03 126.8 95.7 904 291 256
22 55.04 32.15 2.69 200.0 168.9 1137 466 103
Fig. 1. Schematic illustrating “ON” and “OFF” RM positions, relative to a molecular cloud (MC). To find the magnetic field in the molecular cloud
(MC) we need to disentangle the RM produced by the Galaxy from that produced by the MC itself. We do so by subtracting the rotation measure
(RM) of a nearby point called the OFF position, from the ON position which has an RM produced by both the MC (MC contribution) and the
Galaxy (Galactic contribution). See Sec. 3.1 for details. Additionally, we need to consider the effects of all the layers of the MC from the exterior
to the center of the cloud to reach to extinction value of AV, MC = AV − AV, ref . However, since the cloud is symmetrical along the line-of-sight, and
A
is illuminated from both sides by an ambient UV field, we assume the center of the cloud has an extinction of V,2MC magnitudes.

Longitude
160° 158° 156° 154° 152° 150° 148° 25
10 rad m 2
50 rad m 2
42° 100 rad m 2 -16°
200 rad m 2 20
Negative RM
40° Positive RM
-18°
38° 15
Dec (degree)
Lattitude
-20°
36°
AV
10
34°
-22°
32°
5
-24°
30°
0
70° 68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52° 50°
RA (degree)
Fig. 2. Rotation measure (RM) values from the catalog of TSS09 mapped on the extinction map of CMC and PMC. Blue (red) circles indicate
positive (negative) RM values. The size of the circles is proportional to the magnitude of the RM. The gray grid provides galactic coordinates,
whereas the black grid provides equatorial coordinates. Color image shows the extinction map (AV ) in units of magnitudes of visual extinction
provided by KBHP09.

Longitude
200° 198° 196° 25
10 rad m 2
50 rad m 6°2
100 rad m 2
150 rad m 2
Negative RM
Positive RM
4°
-18° 20
2°
0° 15
-20°
Dec (degree)
Lattitude
-2°
AV
10
-4°
-22°
-6°
5
-8°
-24°
-10°
90° 88° 86° 84° 82°

RA (degree)
Fig. 3. Rotation measure (RM) values from the catalog of TSS09 mapped on the extinction map of Orion. OMC-A is the complex to the south
and OMC-B is the complex to the north. Blue (red) circles indicate positive (negative) RM values. The size of the circles is proportional to the
magnitude of the RM. The grey grid provides galactic coordinates, whereas the black grid provides equatorial coordinates. Color image shows the
extinction map (AV ) in units of magnitudes of visual extinction provided by KBHP09.

BLOSVariation, OMC-A
1200 Point 20
1100 Point 27
Point 29
1000
900
800
MagneticField (µG)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Number of OFF positions
Fig. 4. Magnetic field values in OMC-A using different numbers of OFF positions to calculate the “reference” value (RMref ). Results are presented
for three different points in Orion A. The x-axis indicates the number of OFF positions used in RMref . The y-axis shows the calculated magnetic
field value. As discussed in the text, the magnetic field stabilizes at roughly 12 OFF positions.

Magnetic Field Variation, Orion A, T= T0
2.0
1.5
8 1.0
11 0.5
13
∆B(µG)
14 0.0
20 0.5
22
24 1.0
28 1.5
2.0
2.5
28
24
22
-50 -40 -30
-20 -10 -5
20
mber
-2.5 -1
14
N u
t
oin
0 1 13
2.5 5
10 20
30 40 11
ta P
Da
∆n 50
n 0 ( %) 8
BLOSVariation, OMC-A, T= T0 BLOSVariation, OMC-A, T= T0

1.5 250
11 20 10 26
14 28 12 30
1.0
200
Magnetic Field Difference (µG)
Magnetic Field Difference (µG)
0.5
150
0.0
100
0.5
50
1.0
1.5 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -5 -2.5 -1 0 1 2.5 5 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -5 -2.5 -1 0 1 2.5 5 10 20 30 40 50
∆n (%) ∆n (%)
n0 n0
Fig. 5. Uncertainties in BLOS due to uncertainties in the input volume density of the chemical evolution code. Top Panel: BLOS variation for a
selection of positions in Orion A sampling regions with different AV . The x-axis ( ∆n
n0
) indicates the relative (%) changes in input density to the
chemical model. The y-axis labels the data points presented and corresponds to the positions labeled in Fig. 6. The z-axis plots the change in the
magnetic field strength and direction from that calculated for the fiducial density n0 (104 cm−3 ). The bottom left panel shows BLOS uncertainties
for points with AV < 1. The bottom right panel shows uncertainties in BLOS for a selection of points with AV >1.

BLOS in OMC-A
10µG Away from us
Towards us
24
6° 100µG
1000+µG Zeeman
Towards us
4° 21
2° 18
0° 15
Dec (J2000)
-2° 12
AV
-4° 2524
28 7 9
30 18 9
2220 15
13
17 14
-6°
31 21 6 6
12 5
4
-8° 32 29
3
11
-10° 3433 16
32
27 19
23 10 8 1 0
26
90° 88° 86° 84° 82°
RA (J2000)
Fig. 6. BLOS in OMC-A. Blue (red) circles show magnetic fields toward us (away from us). The size of the circles indicate the magnitude of
magnetic field. Black square shows the location of the available Zeeman measurements. Color image is the extinction map (AV ). The magnetic
fields are dominantly towards us at the eastern side of this filamentary structure and away from us at its western side.

BLOS in OMC-B
10µG Away from us
Towards us
24
6° 100µG
1000+µG Zeeman
270µG (Away from us)
4° 21
5
2° 18
0° 7
15
6
4
Dec (J2000)
-2° 1
2 12
AV
8
3
-4°
9
-6°
6
-8°
3
-10°
0
90° 88° 86° 84° 82°
RA (J2000)
Fig. 7. BLOS in OMC-B. Blue (red) circles show magnetic fields toward us (away from us). The size of the circles indicate the magnitude of
magnetic field. Black square shows the location of the available Zeeman measurements. Color image is the extinction map (AV ).

BLOS in the California Cloud
10µG Away from us 24

42°00' 100µG Towards us
3 2
1000+µG 85
16 11
14 21
41°00'
15 9 6
40°00' 18
26 7
29 13
39°00' 28
15
23 18
25 1
31 12
Dec (J2000)
38°00' 21 4
22 10 12
AV
37°00'
34
17 9
36°00' 30 19
33
35 20 6
35°00' 24
32 27
34°00' 3
33°00' 0
70°00' 69°00' 68°00' 67°00' 66°00' 65°00' 64°00' 63°00' 62°00' 61°00' 60°00' 59°00' 58°00'
RA (J2000)
Fig. 8. BLOS in the California MC. Blue (red) circles show magnetic fields toward us (away from us). The size of the circles indicate the magnitude
of magnetic field. Color image is the extinction map (AV ). The magnetic fields are dominantly towards us at the western side of this filamentary
structure and away from us at its eastern side.

BLOS in the Perseus Cloud

25
10 G Away from us
100 G Towards us
35°00' 1000+ G Zeeman
27 G(Towards us)
20
34°00'
21
33°00'
17 15
22 18
14
32°00' 4
6
Dec (J2000)
2
19 15
AV
24 9 3
20
31°00' 16 10
10
23 12 1
30°00' 87
5
13 11 5
29°00'
28°00'
0
59°00' 58°00' 57°00' 56°00' 55°00' 54°00' 53°00' 52°00' 51°00' 50°00' 49°00'
RA (J2000)
Fig. 9. BLOS in the Perseus MC. Blue (red) circles show magnetic fields toward us (away from us). The size of the circles indicate the magnitude
of magnetic field. Black square shows the location of the available Zeeman measurements. Color image is the extinction map (AV ).

500
400
< |Blos| > ( G)
300
200
100
1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25

AV (magnitudes)
Fig. 10. The average of absolute value of BLOS versus extinction, in bins that are 0.5 magnitudes wide in AV . The error bars reflect the standard
deviation of BLOS in each bin. In these data, the average BLOS appears to decrease with AV .

Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no.

Helical Magnetic Fields in Molecular Clouds?

1. Introduction of magnetic fields (BLOS ) are necessary to obtain information

Article number, page 2 of 23

Article number, page 4 of 23

Article number, page 9 of 23

Article number, page 10 of 23

Article number, page 11 of 23

Article number, page 12 of 23

Article number, page 13 of 23

Article number, page 14 of 23

Article number, page 15 of 23

90° 88° 86° 84° 82°

Article number, page 16 of 23

Article number, page 17 of 23

BLOSVariation, OMC-A, T= T0 BLOSVariation, OMC-A, T= T0

Magnetic Field Difference (µG)

Article number, page 18 of 23

Article number, page 19 of 23

Article number, page 20 of 23

BLOS in the California Cloud

10µG Away from us 24

Article number, page 21 of 23

BLOS in the Perseus Cloud

Article number, page 22 of 23

1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25

Article number, page 23 of 23

You might also like