Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Theory of the kinetic helicity effect on turbulent diffusion of magnetic and scalar fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Kinetic helicity makes turbulent magnetic diffusion fall while turbulent scalar diffusion rises.

desk verdict The formal path-integral derivation is respectable, but the paper's own DNS table contradicts the assumed increase of correlation time with helicity, and for the Re≈120 fit the theory actually predicts the wrong sign for scalar diffusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13807 v3 pith:7GQRQH5M submitted 2025-01-23 physics.flu-dyn astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

Igor Rogachevskii , Nathan Kleeorin , Axel Brandenburg This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords kinetichelicityturbulentmagneticdiffusionpassivescalarcorrelationtimemean-fielddynamopathintegralhelicalturbulence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that kinetic helicity, the correlation between velocity and vorticity in a turbulent flow, does not just add a correction to turbulent diffusion; it drives magnetic and passive-scalar diffusion in opposite directions. Using a path-integral representation of the induction and advection-diffusion equations for random helical flows with a finite correlation time, the authors derive formulas in which helicity enters negatively, through $(H_K\tau_c)^2/\langle u^2\rangle$, but with a smaller negative coefficient for scalars than for magnetic fields. Once the observed growth of the correlation time with helicity is included, turbulent magnetic diffusion decreases while turbulent scalar diffusion increases, in qualitative agreement with numerical simulations. A sympathetic reader would care because helicity-rich astrophysical turbulence would then dissipate large-scale magnetic fields more slowly while dispersing scalar contaminants more quickly.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the exact Feynman–Kac path-integral solution of the induction equation and of the advection-diffusion equation, averaged over a velocity field that renews at finite time intervals. This representation lets the authors separate averaging over the Wiener process from averaging over the random velocity and reduces the exact solution to a mean-field diffusion operator when the mean fields vary slowly in space. With Gaussian velocity statistics, fourth-order moments factor into products of second-order moments, which is why kinetic helicity enters only squared, and the renewal-time limit turns the operator into the diffusion coefficients above. The second ingredient is the fitted correlation-time relation $\tau_c(H_K)=\tau_0(1+C_\tau\epsilon_f^4)$, with $\zeta=4$ and positive $C_\tau$, which converts the direct helicity terms into the final predictions.

What would settle it

Run forced helical turbulence simulations at Reynolds numbers above 100 and measure the velocity correlation time directly from autocorrelations together with the test-field values of $\eta_t$ and $\kappa_t$ over the full range $0\le\epsilon_f\le1$. If $\tau_c/\tau_0$ does not rise as $1+C_\tau\epsilon_f^4$, or if $\kappa_t/\kappa_t(0)$ does not exceed unity at moderate helicity, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in random helical velocity fields with finite correlation time and large fluid and magnetic Reynolds numbers, the turbulent magnetic diffusivity is $\eta_t = \frac{\tau_c}{3}\left[\langle u^2\rangle - \frac{\tau_c^2}{3}\langle\mathbf{u}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega}\rangle^2\right]$, while the turbulent diffusivity of a passive scalar is $\kappa_t = \frac{\tau_c}{3}\left[\langle u^2\rangle - \frac{\tau_c^2}{6}\langle\mathbf{u}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega}\rangle^2\right]$. Because the helicity-squared coefficient is $-1/3$ in $\eta_t$ and only $-1/6$ in $\kappa_t$, and because the correlation time itself is assumed to grow with helicity as $\tau_c/\tau_0 = 1 + C_\tau\epsilon_f^4$, the two diffusivities separate: $\eta_t$ falls with increasing helicity while $\kappa_t$ rises. The authors present this separation as the explanation for the opposite signs observed in direct numerical simulations and identify the helicity dependence of the correlation time as the decisive ingredient.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the assumed correlation-time dependence $\tau_c(H_K)=\tau_0(1+C_\tau\epsilon_f^4)$ with positive $C_\tau$, which must be strong enough to flip the sign of the scalar term. The paper's own Table 1 lists $\tau_c u_{\rm rms} k_f$ values that decrease as $\epsilon_f$ grows, so the scalar-enhancement prediction depends on how that decrease is reconciled with the assumed increase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In helical astrophysical turbulence, large-scale magnetic fields would decay more slowly than in nonhelical turbulence of the same intensity, helping dynamo action sustain fields longer.
  • Passive scalars such as chemical tracers or temperature fluctuations would mix faster in helical regions, producing an observable difference between magnetic and tracer diffusivities.
  • The ratio of magnetic to scalar turbulent diffusivity, the turbulent magnetic Prandtl number, decreases with helicity, shifting the conditions for mean-field dynamo growth and saturation.
  • Mean-field closures that omit the helicity dependence of the correlation time will not reproduce the scalar-enhancement effect and will understate the magnetic-diffusion reduction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is correct, comparing magnetic decay with tracer spreading in the same turbulent flow becomes a direct measurement of kinetic helicity, since the two diffusivities move in opposite directions.
  • The theory implies the separation is negligible below a normalized helicity of about 0.4 and grows steeply above it, so experimental and numerical searches should force helicity as strongly as possible to see the effect.
  • The same path-integral machinery, extended to momentum transport, would predict helicity corrections to turbulent viscosity; that is a testable next step for rotating or stratified shear flows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a path-integral/Feynman-Kac theory of turbulent diffusion of magnetic and scalar fields in random helical velocity fields with finite correlation time and large Reynolds numbers. The formal derivation yields Eqs. (20) and (36), in which the magnetic and scalar turbulent diffusivities both receive negative corrections proportional to (τ_c)^3 ⟨u·ω⟩^2. To explain the DNS results of Brandenburg et al. (2025), the paper introduces Eq. (22), τ_c(H_K)=τ_0(1+C_τ ε_f^ζ), with ζ=4 and fitted C_τ, leading to Eqs. (23) and (38). It claims that magnetic diffusion is reduced while scalar diffusion is enhanced by kinetic helicity, and compares the resulting curves with test-field DNS at Re≈14 and ≈120.

Significance. If correct, the paper would resolve a controversy about the sign of the helicity effect on turbulent diffusion and would make a falsifiable prediction of opposite behavior for magnetic and scalar fields. The authors provide a formal derivation with explicit assumptions, use the test-field method for the DNS comparison, and make data and code available. However, the central phenomenological claim rests entirely on the assumed helicity dependence of τ_c, Eq. (22), and that assumption is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. Moreover, for the quoted Re≈120 fit the authors' Eq. (38) predicts a decrease rather than an increase of scalar diffusivity, so the comparison with DNS is not evidence for scalar enhancement. These are load-bearing inconsistencies, not presentation issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1 and Eq. (22)] The assumed increase of the correlation time with kinetic helicity, τ_c(H_K)=τ_0(1+C_τ ε_f^4) with positive C_τ in Eq. (22), is contradicted by the tabulated values of τ_c u_rms k_f in Table 1: for Re≈14 this quantity decreases monotonically from 0.107 (σ=0.10) to 0.071 (σ=1.00), and for Re≈120 it decreases from 0.054 (σ=0) to 0.045 (σ=1.00). Because the positive helicity correction in Eq. (22) is the only mechanism that can make Eq. (38) exceed unity, this contradiction removes the basis for the paper's central claim that scalar turbulent diffusion is enhanced by helicity.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (38)] For the Re≈120 fit quoted in the text (ζ=4, C_τ=0.37), the bracket in Eq. (38) is less than unity for every 0<ε_f<1 (for example, 0.989 at ε_f=0.8 and 0.941 at ε_f=1), so Eq. (38) predicts that κ_t decreases with helicity. The DNS data in Table 1 show κ_t/D0 increasing from 2.27 to 2.48 over the same range of ε_f. The discrepancy is therefore not confined to the ε_f≳0.8 regime that the paper labels unreliable, and Figure 2 cannot be evidence for the predicted scalar enhancement.
  3. [Sections 3 and 4, Eqs. (21)-(23) and (37)-(38)] The conversion of the ratio forms (21) and (37) into the polynomial forms (23) and (38) implicitly uses the normalization τ_0^2 ⟨u^2⟩/ℓ_0^2=1, i.e., τ_0 u_rms k_f=1 when ℓ_0=1/k_f. This unstated normalization conflicts with the DNS values in Table 1, where τ_c u_rms k_f is 0.05–0.1, and with the stated baseline η_t(0)=κ_t(0)=D_0, since the tabulated nonhelical values are η_t/D_0≈1.7–2.0 and κ_t/D_0≈2.3–2.4. Without a justification for this normalization, the quantitative predictions of Eqs. (23) and (38) are not determined by the derivation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (37)] The notation κ_t(H_u) should read κ_t(H_K) to match the definition of kinetic helicity density used elsewhere.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The sentence "In the second panel, we used τ0urmskf = 9.6" is unexplained and appears inconsistent with Table 1, where τ_c u_rms k_f is about 0.05–0.1; if this is a typographical error, it should be corrected.
  3. [Section 5, Figure 2] The theoretical curves are shown only for 0<ε_f<0.8, but the DNS points cover the full range; the figure should either show the theoretical prediction over the full plotted range or clearly mark the range of validity on the axes.
  4. [Section 6] The statement that "the results of the theory developed here are in a qualitative agreement with the numerical results" should be qualified in light of the contradictions in Table 1, because for Re≈120 the theory with the quoted C_τ=0.37 predicts a decrease of κ_t, not the observed increase.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The scalar-diffusion enhancement is not derived from the path-integral calculation; it is injected by the assumed and numerically fitted τc(HK) relation Eq(22), whose Re≈120 calibration makes Eq(38) predict a decrease, and whose trend is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq (22); Section 5, Figure 1 and Table 1]
    "We assume that τc(HK) = τ0 (1 + Cτ ǫζ f ), where ǫf = ⟨u · ω⟩ℓ0/⟨u2⟩ is the normalized kinetic helicity. Equation (22) has recently been supported by the DNS of forced turbulence (Brandenburg et al. 2025), where ζ = 4 and Cτ = 0.5 for Re ≈ 14. ... Equation (22) has also been confirmed for Re = 120; see Figure 1 ... the results are well approximated by ζ = 4 and Cτ = 0.37, where we have assumed ℓ0 = 1/kf."

    The scalar-enhancement prediction, Eq (38), is generated by the positive term 1 + Cτ ε^4 from Eq (22). The direct helicity terms in Eqs (20) and (36) are negative for both magnetic and scalar fields, so the claimed scalar enhancement has no other source. The constants ζ and Cτ are not derived but fitted to DNS of the same forced helical runs whose κt and ηt the paper then 'explains'. For Re≈120 the confirmation is fitted in this paper's own Figure 1, and the supporting citation (Brandenburg et al. 2025) shares three co-authors with the present paper. Moreover, with the paper's own Re≈120 fit Cτ=0.37, Eq (38) gives κt/κt(0)=1+0.37ε^4−(1/6)(1+0.37ε^4)^3ε^2<1 for all ε∈(0,1], so the calibrated theory predicts a decrease in scalar diffusivity, not the claimed enhancement.

  2. other [Section 5, Table 1]
    "H 120.6 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.27 ± 0.01 1.73 ± 0.05 0.05 ± 0.09 0.123 13.0 0.054 ... M 127.6 1.00 1.00 0.81 2.48 ± 0.06 1.32 ± 0.02 − 3.45 ± 0.07 0.130 12.2 0.045"

    This flag is an internal-consistency check on the load-bearing input, not a separate identity. For Re≈14, τc u_rms kf falls from 0.107 (run A) to 0.071 (run G) as εf rises; for Re≈120 it falls from 0.054 (run H) to 0.045 (run M). That is the opposite of Eq (22), which requires τc/τ0 = 1 + Cτ ε^4 to increase monotonically with εf. Since Eq (22) is the only term capable of making κt exceed κt(0), the paper's own tabulated data remove the mechanism on which the central prediction relies. This supports the verdict that the predicted scalar enhancement is an artifact of the fitted ansatz rather than a confirmed consequence of the derived equations.

full rationale

The path-integral expansion itself is not circular: Eqs (20) and (36) are derived from the velocity model Eq (15), and the negative O(τc²⟨u·ω⟩²) corrections follow from the fourth-order moments of the Gaussian velocity field. A magnetic reduction is obtained even without any helicity-dependent τc. The circularity is narrower and located at Eq (22). The claimed qualitative difference—scalar diffusivity rising while magnetic diffusivity falls—is entirely produced by assuming τc(HK)=τ0(1+Cτ ε^4). That functional form and its coefficients are fitted to DNS data: Cτ=0.5 and ζ=4 for Re≈14 from Brandenburg et al. 2025, an overlapping-author paper, and Cτ=0.37 from this paper's own Figure 1. Thus the 'prediction' that helicity enhances scalar diffusion is a propagation of an empirically calibrated input, not a derivation from first principles. Two additional checkable problems reinforce this. First, Table 1 lists τc u_rms kf decreasing with εf for both Re values, contradicting Eq (22). Second, with the Re≈120 fit, Eq (38) actually gives κt/κt(0)<1, so the calibrated theory does not predict the observed increase. There is also a normalization inconsistency in passing from Eq (21) to Eq (23): the implicit factor τ0²⟨u²⟩/ℓ0²=1 is inconsistent with ηt(0)=D0, which would require τ0 u_rms kf=1, and with the Strouhal numbers ≈0.05–0.1 in Table 1. These are correctness and consistency failures rather than pure identity-circularity, but they show that the central sign-changing result is not independently established. The most defensible circularity reading is 'fitted input presented as a prediction', which is partial, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central external input is the fitted tau_c(H_K) relation, plus an implicit normalization of the eddy turnover time that is inconsistent with the paper's own tabulated correlation times.

free parameters (3)
  • C_tau = 0.37 for Re about 120; 0.5 for Re about 14
    Amplitude of the fitted correlation-time relation tau_c = tau_0(1 + C_tau epsilon_f^4), Eq (22) and Figure 1.
  • zeta = 4
    Exponent in the fitted correlation-time relation, Eq (22).
  • implicit eddy-turnover normalization a = tau_0 sqrt(<u^2>)/ell_0 = Implicitly 1 in Eq (23); Table 1 implies about 0.05 to 0.1
    The conversion from Eq (21) to Eqs (23) and (38) requires a^2 = 1 for the quoted coefficients, but the DNS values of tau_c u_rms k_f in Table 1 are far smaller.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The random velocity field has Gaussian statistics
    Used to factor fourth-order moments into products of second moments, Section 3; not proven for the actual DNS flows.
  • domain assumption Renewal model: velocity fields on adjacent intervals of length tau are statistically independent
    Allows decoupling of the averages in Eq (10); represents a restricted class of turbulent flows, Section 3.
  • domain assumption Helical turbulence spectrum model of Eq (15)
    Used to evaluate <u_i grad_p u_j> = -(1/6) epsilon_ijp <u.omega>, Eq (16); standard but a modeling input.
  • domain assumption Incompressible velocity field
    Stated in Section 2; the DNS is compressible isothermal with Ma about 0.1, so the mapping to DNS is approximate.
  • ad hoc to paper Correlation time depends on helicity as tau_c = tau_0(1 + C_tau epsilon_f^4)
    Eq (22), with constants fitted from DNS; load-bearing for scalar diffusion enhancement and contradicted by Table 1's Strouhal numbers.
  • standard math Feynman-Kac formula and Cameron-Martin-Girsanov theorem
    Used to write exact solutions in Eqs (2) and (25); referenced to Dittrich et al. 1984 and Kleeorin et al. 2002, not re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of the kinetic helicity effect on turbulent diffusion of magnetic and scalar fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GQRQH5M

@misc{pith2026250113807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of the kinetic helicity effect on turbulent diffusion of magnetic and scalar fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GQRQH5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13807}
}
read the original abstract

Kinetic helicity is a fundamental characteristics of astrophysical turbulent flows. It is not only responsible for the generation of large-scale magnetic fields in the Sun, stars, and spiral galaxies, but it also affects turbulent diffusion resulting in the dissipation of large-scale magnetic fields. Using the path integral approach for random helical velocity fields with a finite correlation time and large Reynolds numbers, we show that turbulent magnetic diffusion is reduced by the kinetic helicity, while the turbulent diffusivity of a passive scalar is enhanced by the helicity. The latter can explain the results of recent numerical simulations for forced helical turbulence. One of the crucial reasons for the difference between the kinetic helicity effect on magnetic and scalar fields is related to the helicity dependence of the correlation time of a turbulent velocity field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependence of τc on ǫf and Re ≈ 120. The solid line gives the fit with ζ = 4 and Cτ = 0.37. In the second panel, we used τ0urmskf = 9.6. where u is a random velocity field of the particles which they acquire in a random fluid velocity field and κ is the coefficient of molecular (Brownian) diffusion. Fol￾lowing to the method described in Sections 2–3 (see also Elperin et al. 2000, 2001), we derive the mean-field equa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependencies of α (red solid line), ηt(0)−ηt (blue solid line) and κt(0) − κt (black solid line) on the fraction ǫf of the kinetic helicity for Re ≈ 120. The theoretical depen￾dencies for 0 < ǫf < 0.8 [see Equations (23) and (38)] are shown as dashed lines. The theoretical results for ǫf & 0.8 are shown as dotted lines, because they may not be reliable. It follows from Equation (36) that κt(Hu) κt(0) = τc(HK) τ0  1… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Connecting mean-field theory with dynamo simulations

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    Mean-field dynamo models reproduce the large-scale magnetic modes of 3D simulations at least qualitatively, but quantitative closure remains incomplete because transport coefficients are hard to measure and non-locali...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., Schober, J., Dhang, P., & Subramanian, K

    Bendre, A. B., Schober, J., Dhang, P., & Subramanian, K. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1100

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1100 2024

  2. [2]

    2005, AN, 326, 787, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510414

    Brandenburg, A. 2005, AN, 326, 787, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510414

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200510414 2005

  3. [3]

    Helicity effect on turbulent passive and active scalar diffusivities

    Brandenburg, A., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., Rogachevskii, I., & Yokoi, N. 2025, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2501.08879

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 482, 739, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809365

    Brandenburg, A., R¨ adler, K.-H., & Schrinner, M. 2008, A&A, 482, 739, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809365 2008

  5. [5]

    2017, AN, 338, 790, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713384

    Brandenburg, A., Schober, J., & Rogachevskii, I. 2017, AN, 338, 790, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713384

    doi:10.1002/asna.201713384 2017

  6. [6]

    2002, GApFD, 96, 319, doi: 10.1080/03091920290032974

    Brandenburg, A., & Sokoloff, D. 2002, GApFD, 96, 319, doi: 10.1080/03091920290032974

    work page doi:10.1080/03091920290032974 2002

  7. [7]

    G., Hnatich, M., Jurˇ ciˇ sinov´ a, E., et al

    Chkhetiani, O. G., Hnatich, M., Jurˇ ciˇ sinov´ a, E., et al. 2006, PhRvE, 74, 036310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036310

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.74.036310 2006

  8. [8]

    Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1984, AN, 305, 119, doi: 10.1002/asna.2113050305

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.2113050305 1984

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Z., & Silant’ev, N

    Dolginov, A. Z., & Silant’ev, N. A. 1987, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 93, 159

    1987

  2. [10]

    2000, PhRvE, 61, 2617, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.2617 —

    Elperin, T., Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., & Sokoloff, D. 2000, PhRvE, 61, 2617, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.2617 —. 2001, PhRvE, 64, 026304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.026304

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    Furutsu, K. 1963, J. Res. Natl Bureau Standards – D. Radio Propagation, 67D, 303–323

    1963

  4. [12]

    1995, PhPl, 2, 1941

    Gruzinov, A., & Diamond, P. 1995, PhPl, 2, 1941

    1995

  5. [13]

    Kishore, G., & Singh, N. K. 2025, ArXiv:2502.02946

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2002, PhRvE, 65, 036303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.036303

    Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., & Sokoloff, D. 2002, PhRvE, 65, 036303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.036303

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

    Krause, F., & R¨ adler, K.-H. 1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

    1980

  8. [16]

    G., Sokoloff, D

    Lamburt, V. G., Sokoloff, D. D., & Tutubalin, V. N. 2000, Astron. Rep., 44, 659, doi: 10.1134/1.1312962

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    Mizerski, K. A. 2023, PhRvE, 107, 055205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.107.055205 9 Moffatt, H. K. 1978, Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Moffatt, H. K., & Dormy, E. 2019, Self-Exciting Fluid Dynamos (Cambridge Univ. Pr...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    1988, GApFD, 43, 149, doi: 10.1080/03091928808213623

    Nicklaus, B., & Stix, M. 1988, GApFD, 43, 149, doi: 10.1080/03091928808213623

    1988 doi

  11. [19]

    Novikov, E. A. 1965, JETP, 20, 1290

    1965

  12. [20]

    Parker, E. N. 1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields: Their Origin and Their Activity (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, J. Open Source Softw., 6, 2807, doi: 10.21105/joss.02807

    1979 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, Phil

    Pouquet, A., & Yokoi, N. 2022, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A, 380, 20210087, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2021.0087

    2022

  14. [22]

    Rogachevskii, I. 2021, Introduction to turbulent transpor t of particles, temperature and magnetic fields: analytical methods for physicists and engineers (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1063/5.0188732,2024 R¨ udiger, G., Kitchatinov, L. L., & Hollerbach, R. 2013, Magneti...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    1988, Magnetic Fields of Galaxies (Dordrecht: Kluwer)

    Ruzmaikin, A., Shukurov, A., & Sokoloff, D. 1988, Magnetic Fields of Galaxies (Dordrecht: Kluwer)

    1988

  16. [24]

    , & Christensen, U

    Schrinner, M., R¨ adler, K.-H., Schmitt, D., Rheinhardt, M. , & Christensen, U. 2005, AN, 326, 245, doi: 10.1002/asna.200410384

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    , & Christensen, U

    Schrinner, M., R¨ adler, K.-H., Schmitt, D., Rheinhardt, M. , & Christensen, U. R. 2007, GApFD, 101, 81, doi: 10.1080/03091920701345707

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, Astrophysical Magnetic Fields: From Galaxies to the Early Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Shukurov, A., & Subramanian, K. 2022, Astrophysical Magnetic Fields: From Galaxies to the Early Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2022

  19. [27]

    2016, AdSpR, 58, 1522, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.03.041

    Simard, C., Charbonneau, P., & Dub´ e, C. 2016, AdSpR, 58, 1522, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.03.041

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Ruzmaikin, A

    Zeldovich, Y. B., Ruzmaikin, A. A., & Sokoloff, D. D. 1990, The Almighty Chance (Singapore: World Scientific)

    1990

  21. [29]

    B., Ruzmaikin, A

    Zeldovich, Ya. B., Ruzmaikin, A. A., & Sokoloff, D. D. 1983, Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics (New York: Gordon and Breach)

    1983

  22. [30]

    1990, PhRvA, 41, 5683, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.41.5683

    Zhou, Y. 1990, PhRvA, 41, 5683, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.41.5683

    1990 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.