pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00102 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Self-consistent numerical simulations for the formation and dynamics of solar prominences

Lisa-Marie Zessner , Robert H. Cameron , Sami K. Solanki , Damien Przybylski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar prominencesnumerical simulationsprominence formationchromospheresolar coronaplasma condensationmagnetic fieldssolar dynamics
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Numerical simulations demonstrate that solar prominences form self-consistently from chromospheric plasma ejections and coronal condensation under appropriate magnetic field conditions.

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

This paper runs fully three-dimensional simulations that incorporate the physics across all solar atmospheric layers to model prominence formation. It establishes that suitable initial magnetic field setups allow random ejection of a dense plasma seed from the chromosphere into the corona, after which the structure grows through continued chromospheric injections combined with condensation of inflowing coronal plasma. A sympathetic reader would care because the results tie the formation and evolution of these ubiquitous cool dense features directly to dynamics at and below the solar surface, offering a pathway to understand their connection to eruptions and coronal mass ejections without added external forcing.

Core claim

With appropriate initial conditions for the magnetic field, solar prominences form self-consistently in the simulations. The formation starts by the random ejection of a dense plasma seed from the chromosphere into the corona. Subsequently, the prominence is built up by a combination of plasma injections from the chromosphere and condensation of inflowing coronal plasma. The prominence properties qualitatively match those of observed prominences. The findings demonstrate the importance of the dynamics at and below the solar surface in the formation and evolution of solar prominences.

What carries the argument

The fully three-dimensional simulation setup spanning all atmospheric layers, initialized with a magnetic field configuration that enables self-consistent prominence growth via chromospheric ejection and coronal condensation.

If this is right

  • Prominences form through the combined action of chromospheric plasma injections and condensation of coronal material.
  • The resulting structures reproduce observed prominence properties at a qualitative level.
  • Dynamics at and below the solar surface drive prominence formation and must be considered when modeling eruptions and associated coronal mass ejections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This mechanism implies that variations in subsurface flows or fields could influence where and when prominences appear on the Sun.
  • The self-consistent approach opens the possibility of simulating the complete prominence lifecycle from formation through stability to eruption in a single framework.
  • Coupling these atmospheric models with subsurface convection simulations could improve predictions of space weather events linked to prominences.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen initial magnetic field configuration and the included physical processes are sufficient to produce realistic formation without requiring fine-tuning that would not occur on the real Sun.

What would settle it

High-resolution observations that show no chromospheric plasma ejections or no condensation of coronal plasma prior to or during prominence formation would contradict the simulated sequence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00102 by Damien Przybylski, Lisa-Marie Zessner, Robert H. Cameron, Sami K. Solanki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualisation of the prominence and magnetic field structure for Run I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Formation of the simulated prominences in two steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Prominence dynamics seen from two directions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fine structure of the three simulated prominences in comparison to Hinode/SOT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Appearance of the prominence in Run II NLTE in H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flow structures for one snapshot of the non-sheared and the sheared setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Solar prominences are cool and dense plasma structures floating in the hot solar corona. They are ubiquitous features in the solar atmosphere, but their formation mechanism is still unclear. Here we perform comprehensive fully three-dimensional numerical simulations of prominence formation including the physics necessary to describe all atmospheric layers of the sun. With appropriate initial conditions for the magnetic field, solar prominences form self-consistently in the simulations. The formation starts by the random ejection of a dense plasma seed from the chromosphere into the corona. Subsequently, the prominence is built up by a combination of plasma injections from the chromosphere and condensation of inflowing coronal plasma. The prominence properties qualitatively match those of observed prominences. Our findings demonstrate the importance of the dynamics at and below the solar surface in the formation and evolution of solar prominences. This suggests that subsurface dynamics should also be considered in the study of prominence eruptions, which can be associated with coronal mass ejections.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports fully three-dimensional MHD simulations of solar prominence formation that incorporate the physics necessary to describe all atmospheric layers. It claims that, with appropriate initial conditions for the magnetic field, prominences form self-consistently: formation begins with random ejection of a dense plasma seed from the chromosphere, followed by additional chromospheric plasma injections and condensation of inflowing coronal plasma. The simulated prominence properties are stated to qualitatively match observations, and the work concludes that dynamics at and below the solar surface are important and should be considered in studies of prominence eruptions and associated CMEs.

Significance. If the results hold, the work would provide a numerical demonstration of a formation pathway that couples chromospheric injections with coronal condensation in a 3D domain spanning all atmospheric layers. The comprehensive inclusion of atmospheric physics is a positive feature. However, the strictly qualitative nature of the observational comparisons and the external imposition of the initial magnetic field limit the strength of the conclusions regarding generic applicability on the Sun.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that prominences 'form self-consistently' is qualified by the requirement for 'appropriate initial conditions for the magnetic field.' The manuscript does not model or demonstrate how such field geometries emerge from subsurface dynamics, and the computational domain excludes the convection zone below the photosphere. This makes the reported sequence dependent on externally supplied conditions whose natural occurrence remains untested.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Prominence properties are said to 'qualitatively match' observed prominences, yet no quantitative metrics, error bars, parameter-sensitivity tests, or direct comparisons against specific observational datasets (e.g., density, temperature, or magnetic-field profiles) are supplied. This absence weakens support for the proposed formation mechanism as a robust explanation.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: The final sentence states that 'subsurface dynamics should also be considered,' but the simulations themselves do not include these dynamics. The self-consistency therefore applies only within the modeled domain; additional work is needed to show that the formation pathway remains viable when the initial magnetic field is allowed to evolve from photospheric driving rather than being prescribed.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify in the methods section the precise treatment of radiative losses, thermal conduction, and any approximations used for the chromosphere-corona transition; explicit equations or references would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point raised regarding the abstract, agreeing where revisions are needed to improve clarity and qualifications, while maintaining the core findings of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that prominences 'form self-consistently' is qualified by the requirement for 'appropriate initial conditions for the magnetic field.' The manuscript does not model or demonstrate how such field geometries emerge from subsurface dynamics, and the computational domain excludes the convection zone below the photosphere. This makes the reported sequence dependent on externally supplied conditions whose natural occurrence remains untested.

    Authors: We agree that the initial magnetic field is prescribed and that the domain starts at the photosphere, excluding the convection zone. The phrase 'form self-consistently' refers to the plasma dynamics and prominence assembly occurring naturally from chromospheric ejections and coronal condensation once those initial conditions are set, without further artificial driving in the modeled layers. We cannot demonstrate the subsurface emergence of these fields, as that would require a much larger domain including the convection zone, which exceeds current computational resources. We will revise the abstract to explicitly qualify the initial conditions and the scope of self-consistency. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Prominence properties are said to 'qualitatively match' observed prominences, yet no quantitative metrics, error bars, parameter-sensitivity tests, or direct comparisons against specific observational datasets (e.g., density, temperature, or magnetic-field profiles) are supplied. This absence weakens support for the proposed formation mechanism as a robust explanation.

    Authors: The comparisons presented are qualitative because the study emphasizes the novel 3D formation pathway across all atmospheric layers. We acknowledge that quantitative metrics would provide stronger support. In the revision, we will add specific quantitative values (e.g., simulated density and temperature ranges compared to observed typical values) and note any sensitivity to the chosen initial magnetic field. Full error bars, exhaustive parameter tests, and direct dataset matching are not included in the current work but can be flagged as directions for follow-up studies. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The final sentence states that 'subsurface dynamics should also be considered,' but the simulations themselves do not include these dynamics. The self-consistency therefore applies only within the modeled domain; additional work is needed to show that the formation pathway remains viable when the initial magnetic field is allowed to evolve from photospheric driving rather than being prescribed.

    Authors: We accept that the simulations are confined to the modeled domain and do not evolve the magnetic field from subsurface or photospheric driving. The final sentence is an inference drawn from the necessity of specific field geometries for the reported formation sequence. We will revise the abstract to rephrase this as a suggestion for future work rather than a direct implication from the present simulations, making the limited scope of self-consistency explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the simulation chain

full rationale

The paper reports forward integration of standard 3D MHD equations from explicitly stated initial magnetic-field configurations. Prominence formation (seed ejection followed by chromospheric injection plus coronal condensation) is an emergent outcome of the time-stepping, not a quantity fitted to data or defined in terms of itself. No equations, parameters, or uniqueness claims reduce the reported results to the inputs by construction. The qualifier 'appropriate initial conditions' identifies an external setup choice rather than a self-referential loop. This is ordinary numerical experimentation; the derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard solar MHD equations plus the assumption that the chosen initial magnetic field allows self-consistent formation without additional ad-hoc forcing.

free parameters (1)
  • initial magnetic field configuration
    Described as 'appropriate' to enable formation; specific values or generation method not detailed in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Magnetohydrodynamic equations govern plasma evolution across all atmospheric layers
    Implicit in any solar atmosphere simulation; invoked to justify the numerical model.
  • domain assumption The included physics for chromosphere, transition region, and corona is sufficient to capture formation
    Stated as 'including the physics necessary to describe all atmospheric layers'.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1309 out tokens · 27537 ms · 2026-05-09T20:41:08.051188+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references

  1. [1]

    & Fang, X

    Moschou, S., Keppens, R., Xia, C. & Fang, X. Simulating coronal condensation dynamics in 3d.Adv. Space Res.56, 2738–2759 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Lu, Z.et al.Periodic coronal rain driven by self-consistent heating process in a radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulation.Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L1 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    EXTENSION OF THE MURAM RADIATIVE MHD CODE FOR CORO- NAL SIMULATIONS.Astrophys

    Rempel, M. EXTENSION OF THE MURAM RADIATIVE MHD CODE FOR CORO- NAL SIMULATIONS.Astrophys. J.834, 10 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Liu, W., Berger, T. E. & Low, B. C. FIRST SDO/AIA OBSERV ATION OF SOLAR PROMINENCE FORMATION FOLLOWING AN ERUPTION: MAGNETIC DIPS AND SUSTAINED CONDENSATION AND DRAINAGE.Astrophys. J. Lett.745, L21 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    K., MacNeice, P

    Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J., Spicer, D. S. & Klimchuk, J. A. The Dynamic Formation of Prominence Condensations.Astrophys. J.512, 985 (1999)

    1999

  6. [6]

    K., MacNeice, P

    Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J. & Spicer, D. S. The Thermal Nonequilibrium of Promi- nences.Astrophys. J.536, 494 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K. & Klimchuk, J. A. The Origin of High-Speed Motions and Threads in Prominences.Astrophys. J.637, 531 (2006). 64

    2006

  8. [8]

    Xia, C., Chen, P. F. & Keppens, R. SIMULATIONS OF PROMINENCE FORMATION IN THE MAGNETIZED SOLAR CORONA BY CHROMOSPHERIC HEATING.Astrophys. J. Lett.748, L26 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    MHD Simulation of Prominence Eruption.Astrophys

    Fan, Y . MHD Simulation of Prominence Eruption.Astrophys. J.862, 54 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Jer ˇci´c, V ., Jenkins, J. M. & Keppens, R. Prominence and coronal rain formation by steady versus stochastic heating and how we can relate it to observations.Astron. & Astrophys. 688, A145 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    & Keppens, R

    Donné, D. & Keppens, R. Mass Cycle and Dynamics of a Virtual Quiescent Prominence. Astrophys. J.971, 90 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Parker, E. N. Instability of thermal fields.Astrophysical Journal, vol. 117, p. 431117, 431 (1953)

    1953

  13. [13]

    Klimchuk, J. A. The distinction between thermal nonequilibrium and thermal instability. Sol. Phys.294, 173 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    & MacNeice, P

    Karpen, J., Antiochos, S., Hohensee, M., Klimchuk, J. & MacNeice, P. Are magnetic dips necessary for prominence formation?Astrophys. J.553, L85 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    & Yokoyama, T

    Kaneko, T. & Yokoyama, T. Numerical study on in situ prominence formation by radiative condensation in the solar corona.Astrophys. J.806, 115 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Jenkins, J. M. & Keppens, R. Prominence formation by levitation-condensation at extreme resolutions.Astron. & Astrophys.646, A134 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    J., Guo, J

    Huang, C. J., Guo, J. H., Ni, Y . W., Xu, A. A. & Chen, P. F. A Unified Model of Solar Prominence Formation.Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L8 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    J., Ni, Y

    Huang, C. J., Ni, Y . W., Guo, J. H. & Chen, P. F. A Unified Model of Solar Prominence Formation with Self-consistent Heating.Astrophys. J.991, 215 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    & Keppens, R

    Li, X., Zhou, Y . & Keppens, R. Response of the solar atmosphere to flux emergence-with emergence-driven prominence formation.Astron. & Astrophys.698, A232 (2025). 65

    2025