pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.17740 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Interstellar Dust Transport Through the Heliosphere Including the Sector Region

Jonathan D. Slavin , Marc Kornbleuth , Merav Opher , Gabor Toth This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords interstellar dustheliospheresector regionsolar magnetic fielddust transportsize distributionsolar cycleheliospheric current sheet
0
0 comments X

The pith

Including the heliospheric sector region allows smaller interstellar dust grains to penetrate deeper and reduces solar-cycle density variations, making near-Earth observations a reliable proxy for the local interstellar size distribution.

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

The paper models interstellar dust grain motion through the heliosphere while explicitly including the sector region around the current sheet, where magnetic polarity reverses on short spatial scales. This produces an averaged low field strength that acts as a window, letting grains with gyroradii of tens of AU reach the inner heliosphere even when they are relatively small. As a direct result, the models show much weaker solar-cycle modulation of dust density than earlier calculations that omitted the sector, with grains larger than about 0.1 micrometers experiencing almost no net concentration or dilution over most of the cycle. A focusing polarity still concentrates dust in the ecliptic plane at solar minimum, but the overall effect is that measurements taken near Earth should closely reflect the true size distribution in the surrounding interstellar medium.

Core claim

The sector region can act as a window allowing even relatively small grains to penetrate deep into the heliosphere. The sector region reduces the variation in dust density with the solar cycle, with very little concentration or dilution of the dust for grains larger than ∼0.1 μm for most of the solar cycle. There is still a substantial concentration of the dust in the ecliptic plane for a focusing overall polarity of the field at solar minimum. These results imply that observations of interstellar dust grains, even near Earth, could be fairly accurate in determining their size distribution in the surrounding interstellar medium.

What carries the argument

The heliospheric sector region, where rapid magnetic polarity flips average to a very low effective field strength for grains whose gyroradii reach tens of AU.

If this is right

  • Even grains smaller than those previously thought to be filtered can reach the inner heliosphere.
  • Dust density shows substantially less variation over the solar cycle than in models without the sector.
  • Grains larger than ∼0.1 μm experience almost no net concentration or dilution for most of the cycle.
  • A focusing magnetic polarity still produces clear ecliptic-plane concentration at solar minimum.
  • In-situ measurements near Earth should yield a size distribution close to that of the local interstellar medium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Spacecraft dust detectors at 1 AU could serve as a simpler alternative to outer-heliosphere sampling for mapping interstellar grain properties.
  • Similar sector-region averaging may affect the transport of other charged particles whose gyroradii are comparable to the sector thickness.
  • Extending the models to time-varying fields during grain transit would test whether the reduced modulation survives when the field evolves on the travel timescale.
  • If confirmed, the result tightens the link between local interstellar dust and the material available for planet formation in nearby star-forming regions.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic field is treated as fixed in time while grains travel through the heliosphere.

What would settle it

Comparison of the modeled dust density and size distribution at 1 AU against in-situ counts from spacecraft such as Ulysses or Stardust taken at different phases of the solar cycle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17740 by Gabor Toth, Jonathan D. Slavin, Marc Kornbleuth, Merav Opher.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time variation of the sector boundary latitude (α) over a full 22-year solar cycle. We consider the magnitude of the latitude (θ) for a given solar wind parcel at the inner boundary of 1 au with respect to the sector boundary latitude. |θ| < α indicates the plasma is within the sector region, and |θ| > α indicates the plasma is within a unipolar region. The time on the x-axis is model time and does not cor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The sector region in a meridional plane that includes the upwind direction. Yellow regions contain the current sheet, dark blue/purple regions are inside the heliopause but do not include the current sheet and greenish regions are outside the heliopause. The times shown in the panels are model times. The solar cycle phases that correspond to the panels (l-to-r) are: transition from solar max to min, solar … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Magnetic field, By (in µG), for the time of transitioning from solar min to solar max (model time 2204) in the meridional plane that includes the upwind direction. The overall polarity imposed is focusing (magnetic north in the ecliptic north). The azimuthal field in this plot is −By. solar wind data from the OMNI 2 dataset (King & Papitashvili 2005). Heliolatitudinal variations of the solar wind speed and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of dust density relative to interstellar for 0.1 µm grains and for different assumptions about the magnetic field. The images are for a slice perpendicular to the ecliptic at a distance 20 au upstream of the Sun. As indicated by the labels, the heliosphere model for the calculation either included the sector region or did not and the overall polarity is either focusing or defocusing. Clearly the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Grain density relative to that in the undisturbed ISM in the ecliptic plane. The field here is for solar max conditions (model time 2207). The top row is for overall focusing polarity and the bottom row is for defocusing polarity. The grain sizes are as indicated in the labels. The white lines indicate the location of the termination shock (to the right) and heliopause (to the left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Averaged relative dust density in the region upstream of the Sun. Here we show the mean dust density relative to ambient for a volume going from the Sun to 20 au upstream (x) and along the ecliptic from -10 au to +10 au (y) and from 5 au above and below the ecliptic (z). The different lines show results for the focusing polarity (solid) and defocusing polarity (dashed) and for the different solar cycle sec… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Interstellar dust has been detected in situ flowing through the heliosphere. However, our ability to derive the density and size distribution of the interstellar dust in the local interstellar medium from this directly detected dust requires modeling the transport of the grains as they interact with the solar wind magnetic field. The magnetic field in the sector region that contains the heliospheric current sheet has rapid polarity flips which can present an effectively very low averaged field strength to dust grains that have gyroradii tens of au in size. We present new calculations of dust transport through the heliosphere using models that include the sector region to assess the effects on dust transport. We show that the sector region can act as a window allowing even relatively small grains to penetrate deep into the heliosphere. We find the sector region reduces the variation in dust density with the solar cycle (as compared to models without the sector region), with very little concentration or dilution of the dust for grains larger than \sim 0.1$ $\mu$m for most of the solar cycle. We still find a substantial concentration of the dust in the ecliptic plane for a focusing overall polarity of the field at solar minimum. These models do not include the time dependence of the magnetic field during transport of grains through the heliosphere. Nevertheless, our results imply that observations of interstellar dust grains, even near Earth, could be fairly accurate in determining their size distribution in the surrounding interstellar medium.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript models interstellar dust grain transport through the heliosphere using particle-tracing techniques applied to static magnetic field configurations that incorporate the sector region around the heliospheric current sheet. It reports that the sector region functions as a low-effective-field window permitting penetration of grains down to smaller sizes, suppresses solar-cycle density variations relative to models without the sector, and produces little net concentration or dilution for grains ≳0.1 μm over most of the cycle (while still showing ecliptic-plane concentration under focusing polarity at solar minimum). The authors conclude that these results imply near-Earth in-situ observations can yield fairly accurate determinations of the local interstellar medium size distribution, while explicitly noting the omission of magnetic-field time dependence.

Significance. If the static-field results are robust, the work would reduce a major systematic uncertainty in converting heliospheric dust detections into constraints on the local ISM grain population. This has direct value for interpreting data from spacecraft such as Ulysses and for linking heliospheric filtering to interstellar dust dynamics and composition studies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that near-Earth observations remain 'fairly accurate' for the ISM size distribution rests on the reported suppression of density variations for grains ≳0.1 μm. This outcome is obtained exclusively from static magnetic-field models; the manuscript states that grain transit times from the heliopause to 1 au are several years and overlap the solar cycle, yet provides no quantitative estimate of how evolving sector width, polarity, or field strength would modify the penetration probabilities or the ~0.1 μm threshold. Because the central interpretive conclusion depends on this untested approximation, the static assumption is load-bearing.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit table listing the adopted magnetic-field parameters, grain charge-to-mass ratios, and integration time steps so that the semi-quantitative thresholds can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that near-Earth observations remain 'fairly accurate' for the ISM size distribution rests on the reported suppression of density variations for grains ≳0.1 μm. This outcome is obtained exclusively from static magnetic-field models; the manuscript states that grain transit times from the heliopause to 1 au are several years and overlap the solar cycle, yet provides no quantitative estimate of how evolving sector width, polarity, or field strength would modify the penetration probabilities or the ~0.1 μm threshold. Because the central interpretive conclusion depends on this untested approximation, the static assumption is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the static-field models constitute an approximation whose limitations are load-bearing for the interpretive claim, and we already flag this explicitly in the abstract. The sector region remains a persistent low-effective-field feature whose qualitative role in permitting smaller-grain penetration should survive time dependence, but we lack any quantitative estimate of how evolving sector width, polarity reversals, or field strength would shift the ~0.1 μm threshold or the reported suppression of density variations. Such an estimate would require new time-dependent particle-tracing simulations that lie outside the present study. We will therefore revise the abstract to replace 'fairly accurate' with 'reasonably representative' and add a short paragraph in the discussion section that reiterates the static approximation and its implications for the conclusions. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative estimate of modifications to penetration probabilities and the ~0.1 μm threshold arising from time-dependent magnetic-field evolution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained forward modeling

full rationale

The paper performs numerical integration of dust grain trajectories under Lorentz forces in static heliospheric magnetic field models that incorporate the sector region. All reported outcomes (reduced solar-cycle density variation for grains ≳0.1 μm, ecliptic concentration at focusing polarity, and the implication for near-Earth size-distribution fidelity) are direct outputs of these simulations rather than quantities fitted to or defined from the same in-situ data. No self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, no ansatz is smuggled in, and no parameter is tuned on a subset of observations then relabeled as a prediction. The explicit statement that time dependence is omitted is a modeling limitation, not a circular reduction. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its target conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about dust charging and solar-wind magnetic structure plus the specific treatment of the sector region; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • grain size threshold ~0.1 μm
    Threshold above which little concentration occurs is obtained from the numerical runs and depends on chosen field strengths and grain properties.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Magnetic field in the sector region has rapid polarity flips that present an effectively very low averaged field strength to dust grains with gyroradii tens of au
    Invoked to justify the window effect for small grains.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5565 in / 1216 out tokens · 40068 ms · 2026-05-15T08:43:30.371847+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Katushkina, O

    Alexashov, D. B., Katushkina, O. A., Izmodenov, V. V., & Akaev, P. S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw514 2016

  2. [2]

    2016, Science, 352, 312, doi: 10.1126/science.aac6397 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Altobelli, N., Postberg, F., Fiege, K., et al. 2016, Science, 352, 312, doi: 10.1126/science.aac6397 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aac6397 2016

  3. [3]

    N., Byrne, G

    Brown, P. N., Byrne, G. D., & Hindmarsh, A. C. 1989, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 10, 1038, doi: 10.1137/0910062

    work page doi:10.1137/0910062 1989

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6323

    Chen, Y., Toth, G., Powell, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6323

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6323 2024

  5. [5]

    2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 8038, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009917

    Czechowski, A., & Mann, I. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 8038, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009917

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja009917 2003

  6. [6]

    C., Dorschner, J

    Frisch, P. C., Dorschner, J. M., Geiss, J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 492, doi: 10.1086/307869

    work page doi:10.1086/307869 1999

  7. [7]

    A., & Izmodenov, V

    Godenko, E. A., & Izmodenov, V. V. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 72, 5142, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.016 —. 2024, A&A, 687, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450257

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.016 2023

  8. [8]

    M., Phillips, A

    Gondhalekar, P. M., Phillips, A. P., & Wilson, R. 1980, A&A, 85, 272

    work page 1980

  9. [9]

    1994, A&A, 286, 915

    Gruen, E., Gustafson, B., Mann, I., et al. 1994, A&A, 286, 915

    work page 1994

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023

  11. [11]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  12. [12]

    V., & Alexashov, D

    Izmodenov, V. V., & Alexashov, D. B. 2020, A&A, 633, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937058 2020

  13. [13]

    P., Tielens, A

    Jones, A. P., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Hollenbach, D. J., & McKee, C. F. 1994, ApJ, 433, 797

    work page 1994

  14. [14]

    Katushkina, O., Izmodenov, V., Koutroumpa, D., Quémerais, E., & Jian, L. K. 2019, SoPh, 294, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1391-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1391-5 2019

  15. [15]

    A., Izmodenov, V

    Katushkina, O. A., Izmodenov, V. V., Quemerais, E., & Sokół, J. M. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 2800, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50303

    work page doi:10.1002/jgra.50303 2013

  16. [16]

    H., & Papitashvili, N

    King, J. H., & Papitashvili, N. E. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A02104, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010649

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010649 2005

  17. [17]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2fa6

    Kornbleuth, M., Opher, M., Baliukin, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2fa6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2fa6 2021

  18. [18]

    A., et al

    Kornbleuth, M., Opher, M., Dayeh, M. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4498 Krüger, H., Strub, P., Grün, E., & Sterken, V. J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/139

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4498 2024

  19. [19]

    1992, A&A, 266, 479

    Lallement, R., & Bertin, P. 1992, A&A, 266, 479

    work page 1992

  20. [20]

    1995, A&A, 304, 461

    Lemoine, M., & Vidal-Madjar, A. 1995, A&A, 304, 461

    work page 1995

  21. [21]

    L., et al

    Lallement, R., Quémerais, E., Bertaux, J. L., et al. 2005, Science, 307, 1447, doi: 10.1126/science.1107953

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1107953 2005

  22. [22]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Lallement, R., Quémerais, E., Koutroumpa, D., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini (AIP), 555–558, doi: 10.1063/1.3395925

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3395925 2010

  23. [23]

    Landgraf, M. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10303, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900243 15

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900243 2000

  24. [24]

    J., Grün, E., Krüger, H., & Linkert, G

    Landgraf, M., Baggaley, W. J., Grün, E., Krüger, H., & Linkert, G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10343, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900359

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900359 2000

  25. [25]

    J., & Gombosi, T

    Linde, T. J., & Gombosi, T. I. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10411, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900149

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900149 2000

  26. [26]

    S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    work page doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  27. [27]

    J., Barraclough, B

    McComas, D. J., Barraclough, B. L., Funsten, H. O., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10419, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000383

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja000383 2000

  28. [28]

    T., Opher, M., Tóth, G., Tenishev, V., & Borovikov, D

    Michael, A. T., Opher, M., Tóth, G., Tenishev, V., & Borovikov, D. 2022, ApJ, 924, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35eb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac35eb 2022

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJL, Submitted

    Onobogu, C., Opher, M., Kornbleuth, M., Tóth, G., & Florinski, V. 2024, ApJL, Submitted

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    A., Toth, G., et al

    Opher, M., Bibi, F. A., Toth, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 1036, doi: 10.1038/nature08567

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08567 2009

  31. [31]

    F., Zieger, B., & Gombosi, T

    Opher, M., Drake, J. F., Zieger, B., & Gombosi, T. I. 2015, ApJL, 800, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/l28 2015

  32. [32]

    C., Gombosi, T

    Opher, M., Liewer, P. C., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L61, doi: 10.1086/376960

    work page doi:10.1086/376960 2003

  33. [33]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 675, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1036-0

    Opher, M., Loeb, A., Drake, J., & Toth, G. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 675, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1036-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1036-0 2020

  34. [34]

    Z., et al

    Powell, E., Opher, M., Kornbleuth, M. Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cee 2024

  35. [35]

    D., & Toth, G

    Richardson, J. D., & Toth, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/29 Quémerais, E., Lallement, R., Ferron, S., et al. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A09114, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011711

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/29 2014

  36. [36]

    Redfield, S., & Linsky, J. L. 2008, ApJ, 673, 283, doi: 10.1086/524002

    work page doi:10.1086/524002 2008

  37. [37]

    D., & Frisch, P

    Slavin, J. D., & Frisch, P. C. 2006, ApJL, 651, L37, doi: 10.1086/508991

    work page doi:10.1086/508991 2006

  38. [38]

    D., Frisch, P

    Slavin, J. D., Frisch, P. C., Müller, H.-R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/46 Sokół, J. M., Bzowski, M., Tokumaru, M., Fujiki, K., & McComas, D. J. 2013, SoPh, 285, 167, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9993-9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/46 2012

  39. [39]

    J., Altobelli, N., Kempf, S., et al

    Sterken, V. J., Altobelli, N., Kempf, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117119

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117119 2012

  40. [40]

    J., Strub, P., Krüger, H., von Steiger, R., & Frisch, P

    Sterken, V. J., Strub, P., Krüger, H., von Steiger, R., & Frisch, P. 2015, ApJ, 812, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/141 2015

  41. [41]

    Strub, P., Krüger, H., & Sterken, V. J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/140 2015

  42. [42]

    J., Zirnstein, E

    Swaczyna, P., McComas, D. J., Zirnstein, E. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb80a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb80a 2020

  43. [43]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1862

    Tokumaru, M., Fujiki, K., Kojima, M., & Iwai, K. 2021, ApJ, 922, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1862

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1862 2021

  44. [44]

    2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 117, A06108, doi: 10.1029/2011JA017379 Tóth, G., Sokolov, I

    Tokumaru, M., Kojima, M., & Fujiki, K. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 117, A06108, doi: 10.1029/2011JA017379 Tóth, G., Sokolov, I. V., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12226, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011126 Tóth, G., van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., et al. 2012, Journal of Computationa...

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja017379 2012

  45. [45]

    C., Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., Draine, B. T., & Barr, D. K. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1188

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    J., Stroud, R

    Westphal, A. J., Stroud, R. M., Bechtel, H. A., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 786, doi: 10.1126/science.1252496

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1252496 2014

  47. [47]

    P., Pauls, H

    Zank, G. P., Pauls, H. L., Williams, L. L., & Hall, D. T. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 21639, doi: 10.1029/96JA02127

    work page doi:10.1029/96ja02127 1996