Kappa-Maxwellian electrons and Bi-Maxwellian protons in a two-fluid model for fast solar wind

Farhad Daei; Hossein Safari; Somayeh Taran

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 104 references

Kappa-Maxwellian electrons and Bi-Maxwellian protons in a two-fluid model for fast solar wind

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that swapping Maxwellian electrons for Kappa-Maxwellian electrons in a two-fluid fast-solar-wind model produces the observed several-million-kelvin coronal electron temperatures and faster wind at 1 AU, with the kappa…

desk verdict The kappa-dependent heat-flux closure is real, but the headline kappa=2 result rests on a divergent fourth moment and needs a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09198 v1 pith:72NPLQ2S submitted 2019-08-24 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SR

Somayeh Taran , Hossein Safari , Farhad Daei This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SR

keywords fastsolarwindKappadistributionKappa-MaxwellianelectronsBi-Maxwellianprotonstwo-fluidmodelVlasovmomentsAlfvénwaveheatingcoronalelectrontemperature

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

Observations of the fast solar wind show electron velocity distributions with suprathermal tails, not Maxwellians, and the solar corona is heated to millions of kelvin through a mechanism that is not fully understood. This paper aims to establish that putting those tails into a two-fluid model, Kappa-Maxwellian electrons paired with Bi-Maxwellian protons, is enough to reproduce both the high coronal electron temperature and the fast wind measured near Earth. Starting from the Vlasov equation and taking velocity moments up to fourth order, the authors derive eleven coupled equations in which the kappa index appears explicitly in the parallel electron heat flux. Solving the system numerically for $\kappa = 2, 5, 7$, and $30$, they find power-law density, temperature, and heat-flux profiles between $0.3$ and $1$ AU, and near-Earth flow speeds of about $805$-$823$ km/s. The paper's conclusion is that a small kappa index, meaning a strongly non-Maxwellian electron tail, captures the million-kelvin nature of the solar atmosphere.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Kappa-Maxwellian electron distribution function (Equation 20), which combines a Maxwellian in the perpendicular velocity component with a kappa power law in the parallel component; the kappa index measures the size of the suprathermal tail, with $\kappa \to \infty$ recovering a Maxwellian. Its role in the argument is to supply the fourth-order parallel velocity moment $r_{\parallel\parallel}$ (Equation 19) that closes the heat-flux hierarchy. That moment enters the parallel electron heat flux equation (Equation 26), where factors like $(2\kappa-1)/(5-2\kappa)$ and $1/(5-2\kappa)$ make the $\kappa$ dependence explicit, in contrast to the proton heat flux equations, which are the Bi-Maxwellian forms. The rest of the machinery is the eleven coupled equations (23)-(33) obtained by taking zeroth- to fourth-order moments of the Vlasov equation, together with the Alfv\'en-wave turbulent heating rates (45)-(49) that distribute dissipated wave energy among parallel and perpendicular electron and proton temperatures.

What would settle it

Evaluate the fourth parallel velocity moment $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (v_\parallel - U_\parallel)^4 f_e\, dv_\parallel$ for the Kappa-Maxwellian distribution at $\kappa = 2$; it diverges, so Equation (26) is not defined there. A concrete test is to rerun the model at $\kappa = 2.6$: if the near-Sun electron temperatures no longer reach several million kelvin, the headline claim rests on an undefined closure rather than on the physics of suprathermal electrons.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the Kappa-Maxwellian electron closure changes the physics of the fast solar wind. The electron distribution is taken as a kappa power law in parallel velocity times a Maxwellian in perpendicular velocity, Equation (20), while protons remain Bi-Maxwellian. From the zeroth- through fourth-order moments of the Vlasov equation the authors obtain eleven coupled equations; the new element is the parallel electron heat flux equation, Equation (26), whose coefficients carry factors of $\kappa$ and which reduces to the Maxwellian form, Equation (37), in the limit $\kappa \to \infty$. Numerically solving these equations with an iterated Crank-Nicolson scheme, they find that for small $\kappa$ the electron temperature near the Sun reaches several million kelvin, in line with coronal observations, the electron-to-proton heating partition shifts toward parallel electron heating, and the near-Earth flow speed increases as $\kappa$ decreases.

Load-bearing premise

The equations that produce the million-kelvin electron temperatures assume the Kappa-Maxwellian electron distribution has a well-defined fourth parallel velocity moment, a condition that holds only for $\kappa > 2.5$; the paper's headline result uses $\kappa = 2$, where that moment diverges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, coronal electron heating in the fast solar wind can be attributed to suprathermal electron tails, since small $\kappa$ yields the observed million-kelvin electron temperatures without adding an electron-specific heating term.
The model contains the earlier Maxwellian-electron two-fluid model as the $\kappa \to \infty$ limit, so any disagreement with that baseline at large $\kappa$ would indicate a coding or closure error rather than new physics.
The power-law exponents for density, temperature components, and heat-flux components between $0.3$ and $1$ AU depend on $\kappa$, giving quantitative predictions that can be checked against in-situ measurements of fast-wind streams.
The predicted near-Earth flow speeds of roughly $805$-$823$ km/s, increasing as $\kappa$ decreases, tie the shape of the electron distribution to the acceleration efficiency of the fast wind.
The shift of turbulent heating toward parallel electron heating near the Sun for small $\kappa$ predicts that electron temperature anisotropy and heat flux should both increase with stronger suprathermal tails, a correlation that can be tested with solar wind particle data.

Reading between the lines

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

The same heat-flux closure could be applied to other collisionless astrophysical outflows, such as stellar winds or accretion flows, where kappa-distributed electrons are observed; the temperature-gradient term in Equation (26) would then introduce a $\kappa$-dependent effective thermal conductivity that kinetic simulations could verify.
Because the fourth parallel moment converges only for $\kappa > 2.5$, the headline runs at $\kappa = 2$ sit outside the regime where the heat-flux equation is defined; rerunning the model at $\kappa = 2.6$ would show whether the million-kelvin electron temperatures survive the closure being well-posed.
The paper's own multi-kappa suggestion, large $\kappa$ near the Sun and small $\kappa$ near Earth, implies a spatially varying effective $\kappa$; implementing a simple heliocentric-distance-dependent closure and comparing it with the single-$\kappa$ runs would show which choice matches coronal and 1 AU data simultaneously.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the paper in one breath. It extends Chandran et al. (2011) by putting Kappa-Maxwellian electrons into a two-fluid solar wind model and deriving an 11-equation system with a kappa-dependent parallel electron heat flux (Eq. 26). That is a genuine new piece of closure, and the large-kappa limit correctly reduces to the Bi-Maxwellian result. For kappa > 2.5 the model is mathematically well-defined and might be a useful fluid-level tool for studying non-Maxwellian electrons.

The problem is the headline. The abstract and conclusion claim that small kappa captures the million-kelvin coronal electron temperature, and the numerical results push kappa = 2 as the small-kappa case. But the closure in Eq. (26) is built from the fourth-order parallel velocity moment, and for the distribution in Eq. (20) that moment converges only for kappa > 2.5. The integrand decays as v_parallel^{4 - 2*kappa}; below 2.5 the integral is divergent. Equation (26) contains (5-2*kappa) factors that are an analytic continuation of that divergent integral. In other words, the heat-flux equation used for kappa = 2 is not actually defined for that parameter value. The paper states kappa can go down to 1.5, but that is the range for the second moment, not the fourth. This isn't a cosmetic issue; the central conclusion rests on the kappa=2 branch.

Secondary weaknesses are less severe. Kappa is hand-scanned, with different values chosen for different observables, so the comparison is partly a fit. The turbulent heating rate inherits the Chandran et al. constants, and the artificial diffusion coefficients are described only vaguely (0<=D<=5) with no code or exact values. Those are ordinary referee concerns. The moment divergence is the thing that actually sinks the current version.

There is salvageable content. The moment hierarchy is laid out clearly, the kappa dependence in Eq. (26) is new, and the large-kappa limit checks out. If the authors restrict kappa to >2.5 and reframe the conclusions accordingly, the paper could be a serviceable contribution for modelers interested in kappa closures.

My call: send it to peer review with a major-revision request. The flaw is specific, fixable, and worth refereeing; it would be a waste to desk-reject outright, but I would not accept it as-is. For your own work, I wouldn't cite it until the kappa<=2.5 branch is either rigorously justified or removed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-fluid model of the fast solar wind in which electrons are described by a Kappa-Maxwellian distribution and protons by a Bi-Maxwellian distribution. Eleven coupled equations for density, flow speed, temperatures, heat fluxes, and Alfvén-wave energy are derived from moments of the Vlasov equation up to fourth order, with turbulent heating adapted from Chandran et al. (2011). The equations are integrated from 1 R☉ to 1 AU with the iterated Crank–Nicolson method for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30. The authors report power-law density, temperature, and heat-flux profiles and claim that the κ = 2 (small-κ) solution reproduces million-kelvin coronal electron temperatures, interpreting this as evidence that non-Maxwellian electrons capture a key property of the solar atmosphere.

Significance. If the result were valid, this paper would offer a comparatively simple fluid model connecting non-Maxwellian electron distributions to fast-solar-wind heating and acceleration, and the explicit κ dependence in the electron heat-flux closure would be a useful extension of Chandran et al. (2011). The paper has genuine strengths: the moment hierarchy is presented in enough detail to check, the large-κ limit in Eq. (37) correctly reduces the electron parallel heat-flux equation to the Maxwellian/Bi-Maxwellian form, and the comparisons with Helios/Ulysses data and Spitzer/free-streaming heat-flux limits are concrete. These strengths do not, however, compensate for the fact that the headline κ = 2 solution is obtained from a closure whose fourth-order velocity moment does not exist.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eqs. (19), (20), (26); Section 6; Abstract] The electron parallel heat-flux closure is undefined for κ = 2. For the Kappa-Maxwellian distribution in Eq. (20), the fourth parallel velocity moment in Eq. (19) behaves at large v‖ as ∫ v‖^4 (1 + v‖^2/(κθ‖^2))^{-κ} dv‖, which converges only for κ > 2.5. The paper nevertheless states that κ ranges from 1.5 to infinity, solves the model for κ = 2, and uses that run in Section 6 and the abstract/conclusion to claim that small κ produces million-kelvin electrons. Equation (26) contains factors of (5 − 2κ) in the denominator, i.e., a pole at κ = 2.5; using these factors for κ = 2 is an analytic continuation of a divergent integral, not a kinetic closure. The central claim therefore rests on an equation that has no valid derivation for the parameter value at which it is applied.
[Section 7; Table 1; Section 5] The conclusion that the model "captures" the solar atmosphere is further weakened by the post hoc selection of κ. Different observables are matched by different κ values: κ ≈ 7 is favored for proton and electron temperatures (§7, item 3), while a small κ is used for the electron temperature ratio, and the final paragraph explicitly proposes a multi-κ model. Because κ is scanned as a free parameter, and because the heating rate contains additional adjustable inputs such as c_d and δv_⊙ in Eq. (49) and the empirically chosen diffusion constants D in §5, the agreement in Figures 2–8 is a fit rather than a parameter-free prediction. The paper should fix κ, supply a fitting procedure with uncertainties, or clearly present the runs as a sensitivity study rather than as evidence that non-Maxwellian electrons capture coronal heating.
[Section 5; Table 1] The numerical results are not reproducible as reported. The artificial diffusion term −D∂²ψ/∂x² is added to stabilize the ICN scheme, but the exact values of D for each of the eleven equations are not given; the authors only state that 0 ≤ D ≤ 5 and that the values need not be equal across equations. Since the solutions in Section 6 and Table 1 may depend on these diffusion constants, a table of the D values used and a resolution/convergence study are necessary. No code is provided either.

minor comments (4)

[Section 7] The equation references for the electron and proton parallel heat fluxes are reversed in the conclusion: Eq. (26) is the electron parallel heat-flux equation and Eq. (28) is the proton one, but the text says the opposite.
[Equations (29)–(32)] The symbols T_p and T_e are used in the temperature equations but are not defined; the authors should state explicitly how these total temperatures are computed from T⊥ and T‖.
[Figures 2–8] The power-law exponents are quoted with very small uncertainties (e.g., ±0.04%), but no goodness-of-fit statistic is provided; the fits should be quantified with R² or reduced χ².
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., "F AST" in the title, "reminder" for "remainder" in Section 2, "cures" for "curves" in Section 6) that should be corrected in a revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the moment-closure derivation is independent of its inputs; the kappa=2 issue is a mathematical validity problem, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard moment hierarchy: the Kappa-Maxwellian electron distribution is stated as an ansatz (Eq. 20), and the electron heat-flux closures (Eqs. 25-26) are obtained by evaluating fourth-order moments of that distribution. The predicted electron temperatures are then obtained by integrating these PDEs, not by imposing or fitting those temperatures back into the equations. The kappa index is explicitly treated as a free parameter and scanned over κ=2,5,7,30; the conclusion that small κ gives high electron temperatures is a sensitivity result, not a self-definitional reduction, because no term in Equations 23-33 contains the million-kelvin temperature as an input. The heating rate Q (Eq. 49) is imported from Chandran et al. (2011) with the stated constants cd=0.75 and δv_sun=41.4 km/s; this is an external empirical input, not a self-citation, and it is not equivalent to the electron temperature or heat-flux outputs claimed as results. Self-citations by the authors appear only in contextual or analogical passages (e.g., the Alfvénic-black-hole analogy in the conclusion) and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The most serious flaw in the paper is not circularity: Eq. 26 contains the factor (5-2κ) from a fourth parallel moment r_∥ that converges only for κ>2.5, yet the model is integrated at κ=2. That means the headline kappa=2 branch uses a closure that is not defined by the stated kinetic derivation; however, this is an internal consistency/validity error, not a case of the output being identical to an input by construction.

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

The model rests on a standard kinetic MHD closure plus several imported fitted parameters (kappa, delta-v_sun, c_d) and a mathematically invalid closure for the headline kappa=2 run.

free parameters (6)

kappa (Kappa spectral index) = 2, 5, 7, 30
Chosen by hand to explore deviation from Maxwellian; different values selected post hoc to match different observations.
delta-v_sun (rms Alfvenic fluctuation amplitude at Sun) = 41.4 km/s
Taken from Chandran et al. (2011), who fitted it to observations; sets the wave energy boundary condition.
c_d (turbulent heating constant) = 0.75
From Chandran et al. (2011), a dimensionless constant calibrated to observations.
nu_0 (instability rate constant) = 0.02 sqrt(GM_sun/R_sun^3)
Used in Eqs. 40-41 for temperature-anisotropy instability frequencies; value from Chandran et al. (2011).
Artificial diffusion constants D = 0 to 5 (not individually reported)
Empirically chosen to stabilize the ICN scheme; values not stated per equation, so results may depend on D.
Time step and grid parameters = N=2000, logarithmic grid, time step not given
Numerical settings are not fully specified, which affects reproducibility.

assumptions (6)

standard math Vlasov equation and moment hierarchy provide a valid closure for collisionless plasma
The fluid equations are derived by truncating and closing the moment hierarchy using assumed distribution functions.
domain assumption The Kappa-Maxwellian distribution (Eq. 20) represents solar wind electrons
Observations show suprathermal tails, but the specific functional form and its global applicability are assumed.
ad hoc to paper Fourth-order moments are finite and computed from the assumed distribution
The closure for Eq. 26 requires finite r_parallel_parallel; this fails for kappa <= 2.5, which is not acknowledged.
domain assumption Turbulent heating rates from Chandran et al. (2011) apply to Kappa-Maxwellian electrons
Heating rates are computed via susceptibility from Cattaert et al. (2007), but the paper does not show those integrals or their validity for the kappa values used.
ad hoc to paper Artificial diffusion does not alter the physical solution
Stabilizing diffusion is added with empirically chosen constants; no convergence study is presented.
domain assumption One-dimensional flux-tube geometry with no rotation captures fast solar wind
The model assumes a thin open flux tube and neglects the Sun's rotation and multidimensional structure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kappa-Maxwellian electrons and Bi-Maxwellian protons in a two-fluid model for fast solar wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72NPLQ2S

@misc{pith2026190809198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kappa-Maxwellian electrons and Bi-Maxwellian protons in a two-fluid model for fast solar wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72NPLQ2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09198}
}

abstract

Modeling fast solar wind based on the kinetic theory is an important task for scientists. In this paper, we present a two-fluid model for fast solar wind with anisotropic Kappa-Maxwellian electrons and Bi-Maxwellian protons. In the simulation, the energy exchange between the plasma particles and low-frequency Alfv\'en waves is considered. A set of eleven coupled equations is derived by applying the zeroth- to fourth-order moments of the Vlasov equation and the modified electromagnetic Maxwell equations. A characteristic of the Kappa distribution (indicated by $\kappa$ index) is explicit in the equation for the parallel component of the electron heat flux (parallel to the ambient magnetic field line) and differs from the equation derived for the proton heat flux due to the different nature of the distributions. Within the large $\kappa$ index, the equations for the two-fluid model tend to the equations obtained by the Maxwellian distribution. Using an iterated Crank-Nicolson method, the coupled equations are numerically solved for the fast solar wind conditions. We show that at (0.3 - 1) AU from the Sun, the electron density, components of temperature, and components of heat flux follow the power-law behavior. We also showed that near the Earth, the flow speed (electron or proton) increases with decreasing $\kappa$. We concluded that applying the small $\kappa$ index (the non-Maxwellian distribution), the extraordinary nature of the solar atmosphere, with its temperature of several million kelvin temperature for electrons, has been captured.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09198 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: an image at 171 A˚ observed by the SolarDynamic Observatory(SDO)/Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on 2013:07:07. Right: a schematic representation of an open magnetic flux tube on the Sun. The parameters a⊙ and a(r) are the cross section of the flux tube on the photosphere and at a distance r from the Sun, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Number density for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30 vs the distances (r/R⊙). The filled circle (•) is mean proton density measured by Ulysses at its first orbit (McComas et al. 2000). The (Hs) show the polar coronal hole observed data near the solar minimum (Allen & Cox 2000). The exponent of the fitted power-law function to the density at (0.3 - 1) AU is presented for all κ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The solid lines are solar wind outflow velocities and the dashed lines are the Alfv´en velocities for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30 from the Sun to near the Earth. The (∗s) show the Helios data reported for the fast solar wind (Marsch et al. 1982). The inset box shows the dependency of the velocities on the κ index close to the Sun and near the Earth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The solid lines represent the perpendicular temperature and the dashed lines represent the parallel temperature for protons for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30 vs the distance from the Sun. The (∗s) and (◦s) show the Helios data reported for parallel and perpendicular temperatures…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The solid lines are perpendicular temperature and the dashed lines are the parallel temperature for electrons for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30 from the Sun to the Earth. The (▽s) show the SoHO/SUMER data of electron temperature in a polar coronal hole (Landi 2008) and the squar…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ratio of the turbulence heating rates of electrons and protons (k, ⊥) and total heating rate for electrons for κ = 2, 5, 7, and 30. The inset box shows the variability of the mentioned parameters close to the Sun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The perpendicular heat flux (q⊥p), the parallel heat flux (qkp ), and the free-streaming analytical calculation (qfs,p) of the protons are presented. The power-law indices (α⊥ ,αk ) for different κ are presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The perpendicular heat flux q⊥e, the parallel heat flux qke , the free-streaming analytical calculation qfs,e, the Spitzer-H¨arm qsh heat flux, and the total heat flux qe = 2q⊥e+qke 3 for the electrons are presented. The power-law exponents for the heat fluxes at (0.3…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

[1]

1947, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 107, 211

Alfv´ en, H., & Lindblad, B. 1947, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 107, 211

1947
[2]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 20

Alipour, N., Mohammadi, F., & Safari, H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 20

2019
[3]

W., & Cox, A

Allen, C. W., & Cox, A. N. 2000, Allen’s astrophysical quantities (4th ed.;New York: Springer)

2000
[4]

1986, Physical review letters, 57, 2807

Amagishi, Y. 1986, Physical review letters, 57, 2807

1986
[5]

2009, Physical review letters, 103, 211101

Bale, S., Kasper, J., Howes, G., et al. 2009, Physical review letters, 103, 211101

2009
[6]

1993, Geophysical research letters, 20, 2323

Bame, S., Goldstein, B., Gosling, J., et al. 1993, Geophysical research letters, 20, 2323

1993
[7]

2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 052106

Basu, B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 052106

2009
[8]

Bittencourt, J. A. 2004, Fundamentals of Plasma Physics (Springer-Verlag)

2004

Show all 104 references

[9]

E., & Funsten, H

Borovsky, J. E., & Funsten, H. O. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1246

2003
[10]

2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 4

Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 4

2005
[11]

A., & Mace, R

Cattaert, T., Hellberg, M. A., & Mace, R. L. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 082111

2007
[12]

Chandran, B. D. G. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840106

2018
[13]

Chandran, B. D. G., Dennis, T. J., Quataert, E., & Bale, S. D. 2011, ApJ, 743, 197 Chan´ e, E., Raeder, J., Saur, J., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 8517

2011
[14]

1929, MNRAS, 89, 456

Chapman, S. 1929, MNRAS, 89, 456

1929
[15]

R., Moore, T

Chappell, C. R., Moore, T. E., & Waite, Jr., J. H. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 5896 34 Taran, Safari, Daei

1987
[16]

2010, Physical review letters, 104, 255002

Chen, C., Horbury, T., Schekochihin, A., et al. 2010, Physical review letters, 104, 255002

2010
[17]

Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273

2000
[18]

Coleman, Jr., P. J. 1968, ApJ, 153, 371

1968
[19]

Cramer, N. F. 2011, The physics of Alfv´ en waves (John Wiley & Sons)

2011
[20]

R., Gibson, S

Cranmer, S. R., Gibson, S. E., & Riley, P. 2017, SSRv, 212, 1345

2017
[21]

1990, Planetary and Space Science, 38, 1091

Demars, H., & Schunk, R. 1990, Planetary and Space Science, 38, 1091

1990
[22]

G., & Schunk, R

Demars, H. G., & Schunk, R. W. 1991, Planet. Space Sci., 39, 435

1991
[23]

Dewar, R. L. 1970, Physics of Fluids, 13, 2710

1970
[24]

1971, ApJ, 166, 669

Durney, B. 1971, ApJ, 166, 669

1971
[25]

R., & Roberts, P

Durney, B. R., & Roberts, P. H. 1971, ApJ, 170, 319

1971
[26]

Erickson, W. C. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1290

1964
[27]

2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9340

Esmaeili, S., Nasiri, M., Dadashi, N., & Safari, H. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9340

2016
[28]

Farhang, N., Safari, H., & Wheatland, M. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 41

2018
[29]

Feldman, U., Landi, E., & Schwadron, N. A. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A07109

2005
[30]

D., & Gary, S

Montgomery, M. D., & Gary, S. P. 1975, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4181

1975
[31]

Frank, L. A. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 5202

1971
[32]

P., & Karimabadi, H

Gary, S. P., & Karimabadi, H. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A11224

2006
[33]

P., & Wang, J

Gary, S. P., & Wang, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 10749

1996
[34]

1995, SSRv, 72, 49

Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., & von Steiger, R. 1995, SSRv, 72, 49

1995
[35]

J., Adolfo, F., Dorelli, J

Gershman, D. J., Adolfo, F., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2017, Nature communications, 8, 14719

2017
[36]

Gheibi, A., Safari, H., & Innes, D. E. 2018, European Physical Journal C, 78, 662

2018
[37]

H., Goedbloed, J., & Poedts, S

Goedbloed, J. H., Goedbloed, J., & Poedts, S. 2004, Principles of magnetohydrodynamics: with applications to laboratory and astrophysical plasmas (Cambridge university press)

2004
[38]

1995, ApJ, 438, 763

Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763

1995
[39]

Bame, S. J. 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7831

1991
[40]

J., Beer, J., Geller, M., et al

Gray, L. J., Beer, J., Geller, M., et al. 2010, Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4001

2010
[41]

E., & Sturrock, P

Hartle, R. E., & Sturrock, P. A. 1968, ApJ, 151, 1155

1968
[42]

Lazarus, A. J. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L09101

2006
[43]

Hollweg, J. V. 1981, Solar Physics, 70, 25

1981
[44]

Howes, G. G. 2008, Physics of Plasmas, 15, 055904 —. 2015, Kinetic Turbulence, ed. A. Lazarian, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 123–152

2008
[45]

G., TenBarge, J

Howes, G. G., TenBarge, J. M., Dorland, W., et al. 2011, Physical review letters, 107, 035004 kappa-maxwellian electrons and bi-maxwellian protons 35

2011
[46]

Q., Esser, R., & Habbal, S

Hu, Y. Q., Esser, R., & Habbal, S. R. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 14661

1997
[47]

W., Liu, S., & Petrosian, V

Jiang, Y. W., Liu, S., & Petrosian, V. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 163

2009
[48]

1968, The Physics of Fluids, 11, 1797

Kalman, G., Montes, C., & Qu´ emada, D. 1968, The Physics of Fluids, 11, 1797

1968
[49]

C., Lazarus, A

Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2002, Geophysical research letters, 29, 20

2002
[50]

W., & Szabo, A

Ogilvie, K. W., & Szabo, A. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A03105

2006
[51]

A., & Holzer, T

Kopp, R. A., & Holzer, T. E. 1976, SoPh, 49, 43

1976
[52]

Kulsrud, R. M. 1983, Handbook of plasma physics, 1, 115

1983
[53]

2008, ApJ, 685, 1270 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., & Meyer-Vernet, N

Landi, E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1270 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., & Meyer-Vernet, N. 2012, Solar Physics, 279, 197

2008
[54]

2006, PhRvD, 73, 044001 Lie-Svendsen, Ø., Leer, E., & Hansteen, V

Leiler, G., & Rezzolla, L. 2006, PhRvD, 73, 044001 Lie-Svendsen, Ø., Leer, E., & Hansteen, V. H. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 8217

2006
[55]

Lin, R. P. 1980, SoPh, 67, 393

1980
[56]

2017, Kappa distributions: theory and applications in plasmas (Elsevier)

Livadiotis, G. 2017, Kappa distributions: theory and applications in plasmas (Elsevier)

2017
[57]

2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 183

Livadiotis, G., & McComas, D. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 183

2013
[58]

L., & Lotko, W

Lysak, R. L., & Lotko, W. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 5085

1996
[59]

2001, ApJ, 554, 1175

Maron, J., & Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175

2001
[60]

2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

Marsch, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

2006
[61]

Muehlhaeuser, K.-H., & Neubauer, F. M. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 35

1982
[62]

J., Ebert, R

McComas, D. J., Ebert, R. W., Elliott, H. A., et al. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L18103

2008
[63]

J., Barraclough, B

McComas, D. J., Barraclough, B. L., Funsten, H. O., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10419

2000
[64]

2012, Numerical solution of partial diﬀerential equations, Vol

Meis, T., & Marcowitz, U. 2012, Numerical solution of partial diﬀerential equations, Vol. 32 (Springer)

2012
[65]

Gombosi, T. I. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3697

2015
[66]

2007, Basics of the solar wind (Cambridge University Press)

Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the solar wind (Cambridge University Press)

2007
[67]

J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R

Morton, R. J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7813

2015
[68]

1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 9553

Newbury, J., Russell, C., Phillips, J., & Gary, S. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 9553

1998
[69]

1968, in Physics of the Magnetosphere (Springer), 641–659

Olbert, S. 1968, in Physics of the Magnetosphere (Springer), 641–659

1968
[70]

1958, The Physics of Fluids, 1, 171

Parker, E. 1958, The Physics of Fluids, 1, 171

1958
[71]

Parker, E. N. 1965, SSRv, 4, 666

1965
[72]

1978, Geophysical Journal, 54, 547

Perreault, P., & Akasofu, S.-I. 1978, Geophysical Journal, 54, 547

1978
[73]

2010, SoPh, 267, 153

Pierrard, V., & Lazar, M. 2010, SoPh, 267, 153

2010
[74]

2016, SoPh, 291, 2165

Pierrard, V., Lazar, M., Poedts, S., et al. 2016, SoPh, 291, 2165

2016
[75]

2001, Ap&SS, 277, 195

Pierrard, V., Maksimovic, M., & Lemaire, J. 2001, Ap&SS, 277, 195

2001
[76]

G., Miggenrieder, H., M¨ uhlha¨ user, K.-H., et al

Pilipp, W. G., Miggenrieder, H., M¨ uhlha¨ user, K.-H., et al. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 1103 36 Taran, Safari, Daei

1987
[77]

2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge University Press)

Priest, E. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge University Press)

2014
[78]

1998, ApJ, 500, 978

Quataert, E. 1998, ApJ, 500, 978

1998
[79]

Qureshi, M. N. S., Sehar, S., & Shah, H. A. 2014, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 516, 012013

2014
[80]

Wheatland, M. S. 2017, ApJ, 834, 11

2017
[81]

Recktenwald, G. W. 2004, Mechanical Engineering, 10, 1

2004
[82]

Matthaeus, W. H. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 11021

1987
[83]

H., & Soward, A

Roberts, P. H., & Soward, A. M. 1972, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 328, 185

1972
[84]

2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 012307

Crabtree, C. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 012307

2011
[85]

S., Howes, G

Salem, C. S., Howes, G. G., Sundkvist, D., et al. 2012, ApJL, 745, L9

2012
[86]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 133

Schreiner, A., & Saur, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 133

2017
[87]

Schunk, R. W. 1975, Planet. Space Sci., 23, 437

1975
[88]

2017, Ap&SS, 362, 13

Elhanbaly, A. 2017, Ap&SS, 362, 13

2017
[89]

Stone, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 637, 952

2006
[90]

P., Goyal, R., Gaur, N., & Scime, E

Sharma, R. P., Goyal, R., Gaur, N., & Scime, E. E. 2016, EPL (Europhysics Letters), 113, 25001

2016
[91]

B., Hammett, G

Snyder, P. B., Hammett, G. W., & Dorland, W. 1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4, 3974 Spitzer Jr, L., & H¨ arm, R. 1953, Physical Review, 89, 977

1997
[92]

Stix, T. H. 1992, Waves in plasmas (New York: SpringerVerlag) ˇStver´ ak,ˇS., Tr´ avn ´ ıˇ cek, P. M., & Hellinger, P. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 8177

1992
[93]

M., & Howes, G

TenBarge, J. M., & Howes, G. G. 2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 055901

2012
[94]

M., Howes, G

TenBarge, J. M., Howes, G. G., & Dorland, W. 2013, ApJ, 774, 139

2013
[95]

Teukolsky, S. A. 2000, PhRvD, 61, 087501

2000
[96]

Thomas, J. W. 2013, Numerical partial diﬀerential equations: ﬁnite diﬀerence methods, Vol. 22 (Springer) ˇStver´ aK,ˇS., Tr´ avn ´ ıˇ cek, P., Maksimovic, M., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A03103

2013
[97]

Vasyliunas, V. M. 1968, Journal of Geophysical Research, 73, 2839

1968
[98]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1335

Vranjes, J., & Poedts, S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1335

2010
[99]

C., & Chang, C

Whang, Y. C., & Chang, C. C. 1965, J. Geophys. Res., 70, 4175

1965
[100]

Wheatland, M. S. 2005, PASA, 22, 153 kappa-maxwellian electrons and bi-maxwellian protons 37

2005
[101]

J., Feng, H

Wu, D. J., Feng, H. Q., Li, B., & He, J. S. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 7349

2016
[102]

T., Balsiger, H., & Geiss, J

Young, D. T., Balsiger, H., & Geiss, J. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 9077

1982
[103]

2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 114

Zhao, J., Wu, D., & Lu, J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 114

2011
[104]

2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 542

Lamy, H., & Issautier, K. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 542

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1947, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 107, 211

Alfv´ en, H., & Lindblad, B. 1947, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 107, 211

1947

[2] [2]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 20

Alipour, N., Mohammadi, F., & Safari, H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 20

2019

[3] [3]

W., & Cox, A

Allen, C. W., & Cox, A. N. 2000, Allen’s astrophysical quantities (4th ed.;New York: Springer)

2000

[4] [4]

1986, Physical review letters, 57, 2807

Amagishi, Y. 1986, Physical review letters, 57, 2807

1986

[5] [5]

2009, Physical review letters, 103, 211101

Bale, S., Kasper, J., Howes, G., et al. 2009, Physical review letters, 103, 211101

2009

[6] [6]

1993, Geophysical research letters, 20, 2323

Bame, S., Goldstein, B., Gosling, J., et al. 1993, Geophysical research letters, 20, 2323

1993

[7] [7]

2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 052106

Basu, B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 052106

2009

[8] [8]

Bittencourt, J. A. 2004, Fundamentals of Plasma Physics (Springer-Verlag)

2004