Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 67 references

Laboratory evidence of the halting of magnetic reconnection by a weak guide field

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A weak out-of-plane magnetic field of only 13% of the reconnecting field can strongly slow or halt magnetic reconnection in a controlled laboratory plasma.

desk verdict A careful laser experiment reports that a weak guide field (as low as 13% of the in-plane field) delays or suppresses symmetric reconnection; the central observation looks solid, though the proton-image phase mapping leans on 2D simulations and the 'halting' wording is a bit strong. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01684 v1 pith:5YJDF4JN submitted 2019-09-04 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

S. Bolanos , R. Smets , S.N. Chen , A. Grisolet , E. Filippov , J.L Henares , V. Nastasa , S. Pikuz
show 5 more authors
R. Riquier M. Safranova A. Severin M. Starodubtsev J. Fuchs
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph PACS 52.35.Vd
keywords magneticreconnectionguidefieldlaser-producedplasmaprotondeflectometryHallquadrupolarfluxpile-upsymmetricparticleacceleration
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

Magnetic reconnection releases stored magnetic energy when two plasmas with oppositely directed fields collide. This paper tests whether adding a small out-of-plane magnetic field—a guide field—changes that process in a controlled laboratory geometry. Using two laser-driven plasma bubbles with self-generated magnetic ribbons, the authors find that a guide field of only 13% of the in-plane field strongly delays reconnection, and a 41% guide field prevents it within the observable lifetime of the field. The same delay appears in plasma heating and in the acceleration of ions and electrons along the current sheet. If true, this means weak three-dimensional twists can control whether reconnection starts at all, a constraint relevant to solar flares, planetary magnetospheres, and laser-plasma experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic object is the proton-deflectometry phase signature: in the simulated reconnection timeline, the pre-reconnection pile-up phase produces a wide 'mouth' of deflected protons, while active reconnection produces a thin focused proton line. Synthetic images from a hybrid particle-in-cell simulation and a proton-transport code let the authors transfer this mapping to the measured deflectograms; the appearance or absence of the thin line at a given time is their proxy for reconnection onset. The physical mechanism proposed for the guide-field effect is the quadrupolar (Hall) out-of-plane magnetic field—a four-lobed field structure tied to Hall currents—whose distortion by the guide field delays or prevents current-sheet formation.

What would settle it

Measure the time-resolved reconnection rate, for example the out-of-plane electric field or the decrease of in-plane magnetic flux, in the interaction region during a guide-field run; if it is comparable to the coplanar rate while the proton images still show only a 'mouth', the claimed halting is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that symmetric magnetic reconnection is strongly slowed, and for a guide field at 41% of the reconnecting field halted, by an out-of-plane field far weaker than previous models suggested was relevant. The evidence comes from proton deflectometry: in the coplanar case a thin focused proton line appears within about a nanosecond, marking the onset of reconnection; when a guide field is present, that line is missing or appears much later, and the proton images instead show a widening 'mouth' of deflection that the authors interpret as magnetic flux piling up without being annihilated. The integrated field strength in the piled-up ribbons grows from roughly 3 T·mm to more than 12 T·mm in 4 ns for the weakest guide field. Optical self-emission shows that heating and plasma evacuation in the reconnection region are correspondingly delayed, and ion and electron spectra along the current-sheet axis show super-Alfvenic outflow only when the guide field is present, which the paper attributes to slingshot-Fermi or betatron acceleration in the compressed magnetic field rather than to the reconnection exhaust. The authors propose that the guide field distorts the quadrupolar Hall magnetic field, whose growth is a necessary precursor to current-sheet formation, so the current sheet thins more slowly or not at all.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the thin proton line is not a reliable marker of active reconnection, because the paper infers halting from that line's absence rather than from a direct measurement of the reconnection rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a continuously driven system, guide-field strength acts as a switch: at 13% the reconnection onset is delayed by a few nanoseconds, at 41% it never appears within the field's lifetime.
  • The pile-up phase is long-lived and stores more magnetic energy as the guide field grows, so the energy ultimately released by any subsequent reconnection is larger.
  • Particle energization can occur before reconnection begins, in the compressed pile-up, so the presence of super-Alfvenic outflows is not by itself proof that reconnection has occurred.
  • Earth's magnetopause and solar coronal loops contain such weak out-of-plane field components; the result constrains when those environments can be expected to reconnect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit: measuring the time-resolved reconnection rate during a guide-field run, for example with Faraday rotation of a probe beam across the current sheet, would verify that field annihilation is truly suppressed rather than just visually hidden.
  • The result suggests guide-field strength can act as a controllable knob in laser-driven experiments to separate pre-reconnection pile-up acceleration from exhaust acceleration.
  • Since the simulations are two-dimensional and break field lines with a numerical hyperviscous term, a three-dimensional simulation with continuous flux injection would show whether the suppression is complete or only shifts onset outside the observed window.
  • A satellite-data search for the 'mouth' pile-up pattern ahead of observed reconnection at the magnetopause—where relative guide-field strengths like these occur—could test the same mechanism in space.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a laser-driven laboratory experiment on symmetric magnetic reconnection in two colliding plasma bubbles, where an adjustable out-of-plane guide field is imposed by tilting the two target foils. Using proton deflectometry, streaked optical pyrometry, and ion/electron spectrometry, the authors find that even a weak guide field (BGF/Byz = 0.13) substantially delays the onset of reconnection, and that for a stronger guide field (0.41) no onset is observed within the field lifetime. The proton images are interpreted by comparing them with synthetic images generated from two-dimensional HECKLE hybrid simulations, which identify a 'mouth' pattern with pre-reconnection flux pile-up (phase II) and a thin proton line with ongoing reconnection (phase III). The simulations reproduce the delay and attribute it to destabilization of the Hall quadrupolar field. The paper concludes that 3D effects associated with even a weak guide field strongly slow or halt symmetric reconnection.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the result is notable: it provides controlled laboratory evidence that a guide field as small as ~13% of the reconnecting field can strongly modify the reconnection onset, and it constrains models of reconnection in the solar corona and magnetopause. The experiment's strengths are the three mutually supporting diagnostics, the use of synthetic proton radiography for phase identification, and the hybrid simulations that reproduce the qualitative delay. The field pile-up is quantified (increase from ~3 T.mm to >12 T.mm). However, the claim of 'halting' rests on a null observation within a finite window, and the phase identification depends on a 2D simulation geometry that does not capture the tilted-target 3D setup; these points require substantial additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 and Methods: The HECKLE code] The mapping of proton-deflectometry patterns to reconnection phases is derived from 2D hybrid simulations with a uniform out-of-plane guide field, whereas the experimental guide field is produced by tilting the foils by ±θ/2 (Fig. 1b). The resulting 3D geometry changes the line-of-sight integration of the proton beam and the ribbon topology. The comparison in Figs. 1 and 4 is visual only; the paper does not provide a quantitative metric (e.g., cross-correlation or fitting of synthetic images to experimental images) that would rule out a geometric origin of the 'mouth' pattern in the tilted configuration. Without this, the absence of the thin proton line in guide-field runs does not directly prove that reconnection is halted; it shows a field-topology change that is interpretable only if the simulation geometry faithfully represents the experiment. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Methods: The HECKLE code and Fig. 5] Reconnection in HECKLE is enabled by a hyperviscous term that breaks field lines at the grid scale; the paper neither gives the value of the hyperviscous coefficient nor demonstrates that the simulated delay is insensitive to it and to the grid resolution. Since the experimental reconnection rate is not directly measured, the simulation's quantitative support for the delay (Fig. 5c) is contingent on numerical resistivity. A convergence or sensitivity study is needed to establish that the guide-field delay is physical rather than an artifact of the hyperviscous model.
  3. [Fig. 1(g-l) and Supplementary note 4] The statement that for BGF/Byz = 0.41 the authors 'do not even witness the onset of reconnection during the magnetic field lifetime' is a null result within a finite observation window (~5 ns). The paper's own Fig. 2 shows the self-emission decreases after 5 ns as the laser switches off and the field disassembles. The data therefore support a delay that increases with guide-field strength, but the stronger claim of 'halting' requires showing that the thin-line phase would never appear on longer timescales, which is not available. The title and abstract should be tempered accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'one of the target is tilted by 45°' should be 'one of the targets is tilted by 45°'.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The symbol Byz is not explicitly defined; please state that it denotes the in-plane magnetic field magnitude in the y-z plane.
  3. [References] Reference 62 is incomplete, listing only 'No Title'; a full citation is needed.
  4. [Methods: The HECKLE code] The hyperviscous coefficient is not quoted numerically; giving its value and the grid spacing in physical units would make the simulation setup reproducible.
  5. [Fig. 3] The legend that panel (f) is supposed to show is not visible in the figure as printed; please ensure the legend is actually displayed and readable.
  6. [Fig. 2(d)] The lineouts in Fig. 2(d) would be easier to interpret if the guide-field ratio were labeled directly on each curve, as the linestyles may be hard to distinguish in print.
  7. [Abstract and text] The spelling of 'co-planar' is inconsistent with 'coplanar' elsewhere in the text; please choose one form and use it consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central delay/halting claim is an independent laboratory measurement, and the only self-citation concerns a secondary mechanism interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation, not a derived prediction. The BGF/Byz ratios are set by geometric target tilts (0, 0.13, 0.27, 0.41 from θ=0°, 15°, 30°, 45°), and the proton deflectometry, streaked self-emission, and particle spectra are independent diagnostics. The phase mapping that identifies the 'mouth' as pre-reconnection pile-up (phase II) and the thin proton line as active reconnection (phase III) is established by the HECKLE hybrid simulation and the ILZ synthetic proton imager; this is an interpretive model applied to the data, not a quantity fitted to the data, so the observed delay does not reduce to the simulation by construction. The guide-field HECKLE simulation (Fig. 5) independently shows a delayed thinning phase, but the experimental conclusion is not derived from that simulation. The self-citation to Ref. 45 ('we have recently suggested45 that the reconnection process and the appearance of the quadrupolar magnetic field are rather both consequences of the formation of a thin ... current sheet') motivates a mechanistic explanation for the delay but is not used to infer the delay itself, and no uniqueness claim is imported from it. Possible weaknesses in the 2D simulation geometry or hyperviscous reconnection are correctness or modeling risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the interpretation of proton deflectometry and self-emission data through simulation-guided phase labels. The free parameters are numerical choices in the HECKLE hybrid code (hyperviscosity and background density). No new physical entities, forces, or particles are introduced. The main assumptions are the fidelity of the hybrid model, the geometric mapping of the guide field, and the phase interpretation from synthetic proton images.

free parameters (2)
  • hyperviscous coefficient in HECKLE Ohm's law = not specified
    The HECKLE code uses a hyperviscous term to break field lines at the grid scale. Its magnitude is a numerical choice that could affect the simulated reconnection rate and the delay in the guide-field runs, which underpin the phase interpretation of the experimental proton images.
  • background ion population density = 1/5 of maximum density
    A uniform background ion population is superposed in the HECKLE simulation to prevent vacuum regions where the electric field calculation would diverge. This non-physical background slows the plasma expansion and could influence the reconnection dynamics, but it is not fitted to the experimental data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hybrid-PIC model with massless isothermal electrons and the generalized Ohm's law (ideal + Hall + electron pressure + hyperviscous) is a valid description of the reconnection dynamics in the experiment.
    Invoked in Methods (HECKLE code) to produce the simulations whose synthetic proton images are used to label reconnection phases in the experimental images.
  • domain assumption The azimuthal magnetic ribbon on each target is well described by a simple toroidal field, and the guide field generated by tilting is uniform over the reconnection region with magnitude BGF/Byz = tan(θ/2).
    Used in the laser experiment setup (Methods and Fig.1) to state the guide field ratios; no in situ measurement of the guide field is provided.
  • domain assumption The thin proton line in deflectometry corresponds to magnetic reconnection (field annihilation), and the mouth-shaped pattern corresponds to pre-reconnection pile-up.
    This phase mapping, established from HECKLE and ILZ simulations (Fig.4), is the basis for reading reconnection onset from the experimental proton images (Fig.1).
  • domain assumption The plasma in the reconnection region is optically thin and its self-emission follows about ne^2/Te^0.5, so a decrease in self-emission indicates evacuation and heating by reconnection.
    Used to interpret the streaked optical pyrometry data in Fig.2 and to infer delayed heating in the guide-field cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laboratory evidence of the halting of magnetic reconnection by a weak guide field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YJDF4JN

@misc{pith2026190901684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laboratory evidence of the halting of magnetic reconnection by a weak guide field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YJDF4JN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01684}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic reconnection occurs when two plasmas having co-planar but anti-parallel magnetic fields meet. At the contact point, the field is locally annihilated and the magnetic energy can be released into the surrounding plasma. Theory and numerical modelling still face many challenges in handling this complex process, the predictability of which remains elusive. Here we test, through a laboratory experiment conducted in a controlled geometry, the effect of changing the field topology from two-dimensional to three-dimensional. This is done by imposing an out-of-plane (guide) magnetic field of adjustable strength. A strong slowing down or even halting of symmetric reconnection is observed, even for a weak guide-field. Concomitantly, we observe a delayed heating of the plasma in the reconnection region and modified particle acceleration, with super-Alfvenic outflows ejected along the reconnection layer. These observations highlight the importance of taking into account three-dimensional effects in the many reconnection events taking place in natural and laboratory environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental setup and experimental observation of delayed magnetic reconnection in the presence of a guide field. (a-b) Two schematic views of the experimental setup, along two projections. The high-intensity laser beam L1 (red cone) generates a proton beam (grey cone) from a 25 μm thick Au foil (T1, in yellow). After a 1 mm gap, this proton beam propagates through the two 5 μm thick Cu interaction foils (T2 and T3… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig.1.i) when applying a weak (0.13) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Laboratory optical pyrometry observation of delayed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulations of β =20 magnetic reconnection events concurring with the experimental observation of delayed reconnection in the presence of a guide-field. (a) temporal evolution, extracted from the two-dimensional hybrid simulation, of both the reconnection rate (full bl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aulanier, G. et al. Slipping Magnetic Reconnection in Coronal Loops. Science. 318, 1588–1591 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [3]

    M., Piovezan, P

    de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Piovezan, P. P. & Kadowaki, L. H. S. The role of magnetic reconnection on jet/accretion disk systems. Astron. Astrophys. 518, A5 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [4]

    Sweet, P. A. The Neutral Point Theory of Solar Flares. in Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics 6, 123 (1958)

    work page 1958

  4. [5]

    The results of two simulations are shown, namely using a ratio between the plasma and magnetic pressure (β= pplasma/pmagnetic ) =1, as well as using β =20

    The grid size is 0.2 (ion inertial length) and the time step is 0.001 (inverse of proton gyroperiod), which is small enough to correctly treat the high frequency whistler modes. The results of two simulations are shown, namely using a ratio between the plasma and magnetic pressure (β= pplasma/pmagnetic ) =1, as well as using β =20. These two values are ch...

    work page 2020

  5. [6]

    Parker, E. N. Sweet’s mechanism for merging magnetic fields in conducting fluids. J. Geophys. Res. 62, 509 (1957)

    work page 1957

  6. [7]

    Ji, H. et al. Magnetic reconnection with Sweet-Parker characteristics in two-dimensional laboratory plasmas. Phys. Plasmas 6, 1743–1750 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [8]

    F., Samtaney, R., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Samtaney, R., Schekochihin, A. A. & Uzdensky, D. A. Magnetic reconnection and stochastic plasmoid chains in high-Lundquist-number plasmas. Phys. Plasmas 19, 042303 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [9]

    & Velli, M

    Pucci, F. & Velli, M. Reconnection of quasi-singular current sheets: The ‘ideal’ tearing mode. Astrophys. J. Lett. 780, 4–7 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 67 references
  1. [10]

    & Zenitani, S

    Hesse, M., Neukirch, T., Schindler, K., Kuznetsova, M. & Zenitani, S. The Diffusion Region in Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection. Space Sci. Rev. 160, 3–23 (2011)

    2011

  2. [11]

    & Horiuchi, R

    Ishizawa, A. & Horiuchi, R. Suppression of Hall-Term Effects by Gyroviscous Cancellation in Steady Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection. 045003, 2–5 (2005)

    2005

  3. [12]

    Fox, W. et al. Experimental Verification of the Role of Electron Pressure in Fast Magnetic Reconnection with a Guide Field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 125002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [13]

    Katz, N. et al. Laboratory Observation of Localized Onset of Magnetic Reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 255004 (2010)

    2010

  5. [14]

    Li, C. K. et al. Observation of Megagauss-Field Topology Changes due to Magnetic Reconnection in Laser-Produced Plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 055001 (2007)

    2007

  6. [15]

    Hare, J. D. et al. Anomalous Heating and Plasmoid Formation in a Driven Magnetic Reconnection Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 085001 (2017)

    2017

  7. [16]

    U., Daughton, W

    Ricci, P., Brackbill, J. U., Daughton, W. & Lapenta, G. Collisionless magnetic reconnection in the presence of a guide field. Phys. Plasmas 11, 4102–4114 (2004)

    2004

  8. [17]

    & Bhattacharjee, A

    Huang, Y.-M. & Bhattacharjee, A. Turbulent magnetohydrodynamic reconnection mediated by the plasmoid instability. Astrophys. J. 818, 20 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    J., Mulcock, J

    Trattner, K. J., Mulcock, J. S., Petrinec, S. M. & Fuselier, S. A. Location of the reconnection line at the magnetopause during southward IMF conditions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L03108 (2007)

    2007

  10. [19]

    J., Hill, N

    Qiu, J., Liu, W. J., Hill, N. & Kazachenko, M. Reconnection and energetics in two-ribbon 17 flares: A revisit of the bastille-day flare. Astrophys. J. 725, 319–330 (2010)

    2010

  11. [20]

    N., Chacón, L

    Stanier, A., Simakov, A. N., Chacón, L. & Daughton, W. Fast magnetic reconnection with large guide fields. Phys. Plasmas 22, 010701 (2015)

    2015

  12. [21]

    Pritchett, P. L. & Coroniti, F. V. Three-dimensional collisionless magnetic reconnection in the presence of a guide field. J. Geophys. Res. 109, A01220 (2004)

    2004

  13. [22]

    Huba, J. D. Hall magnetic reconnection: Guide field dependence. Phys. Plasmas 12, 012322 (2005)

    2005

  14. [23]

    & Hesse, M

    Birn, J. & Hesse, M. Energy release and transfer in guide field reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 17, 012109 (2010)

    2010

  15. [24]

    Nilson, P. M. et al. Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 255001 (2006)

    2006

  16. [25]

    Willingale, L. et al. Proton probe measurement of fast advection of magnetic fields by hot electrons. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 124026 (2011)

    2011

  17. [26]

    Rosenberg, M. J. et al. Characterization of single and colliding laser-produced plasma bubbles using Thomson scattering and proton radiography. Phys. Rev. E 86, 056407 (2012)

    2012

  18. [27]

    S., Thomas, A

    Joglekar, A. S., Thomas, A. G. R., Fox, W. & Bhattacharjee, A. Magnetic Reconnection in Plasma under Inertial Confinement Fusion Conditions Driven by Heat Flux Effects in Ohm’s Law. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 105004 (2014)

    2014

  19. [28]

    & Germaschewski, K

    Fox, W., Bhattacharjee, A. & Germaschewski, K. Magnetic reconnection in high-energy-density laser-produced plasmas. Phys. Plasmas 19, 056309 (2012)

    2012

  20. [29]

    Lancia, L. et al. Topology of Megagauss Magnetic Fields and of Heat-Carrying Electrons Produced in a High-Power Laser-Solid Interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 235001 (2014)

    2014

  21. [30]

    Stamper, J. A. et al. Spontaneous Magnetic Fields in Laser-Produced Plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1012–1015 (1971)

    1971

  22. [31]

    Gao, L. et al. Precision Mapping of Laser-Driven Magnetic Fields and Their Evolution in High-Energy-Density Plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 215003 (2015)

    2015

  23. [32]

    G., Bogdanov, S

    Frank, A. G., Bogdanov, S. Y., Dreiden, G. V., Markov, V. S. & Ostrovskaya, G. V. Structure of the current sheet plasma in the magnetic field with an X line as evidence of the two-fluid plasma properties. Phys. Lett. A 348, 318–325 (2006)

    2006

  24. [33]

    Tharp, T. D. et al. Quantitative study of guide-field effects on hall reconnection in a laboratory plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 2–6 (2012)

    2012

  25. [34]

    Zhong, J. et al. Modelling loop-top X-ray source and reconnection outflows in solar flares with intense lasers. Nat. Phys. 6, 984–987 (2010)

    2010

  26. [35]

    Zhong, J. Y. et al. Relativistic Electrons Produced By Reconnecting Electric Fields in a Laser-Driven Bench-Top Solar Flare. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 225, 30 (2016)

    2016

  27. [36]

    Stochastic Particle Acceleration in Multiple Magnetic Islands during Reconnection

    Hoshino, M. Stochastic Particle Acceleration in Multiple Magnetic Islands during Reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 135003 (2012)

    2012

  28. [37]

    Egedal, J., Daughton, W. & Le, A. Large-scale electron acceleration by parallel electric fields during magnetic reconnection. Nat. Phys. 8, 321–324 (2012)

    2012

  29. [38]

    Raymond, A. E. et al. Relativistic-electron-driven magnetic reconnection in the laboratory. Phys. Rev. E 98, 043207 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    F., Swisdak, M., Che, H

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H. & Shay, M. A. Electron acceleration from contracting magnetic islands during reconnection. 443, 553–556 (2006)

    2006

  31. [40]

    Fox, W. et al. Astrophysical particle acceleration mechanisms in colliding magnetized laser-produced plasmas. Phys. Plasmas 24, 092901 (2017)

    2017

  32. [41]

    R., Abel, T

    Totorica, S. R., Abel, T. & Fiuza, F. Particle acceleration in laser-driven magnetic 18 reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 24, 041408 (2017)

    2017

  33. [42]

    Wang, S. et al. Particle-in-cell simulations of electron energization in laser-driven magnetic reconnection. New J. Phys. 18, 013051 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Rosenberg, M. J. et al. A laboratory study of asymmetric magnetic reconnection in strongly driven plasmas. Nat. Commun. 6, 6190 (2015)

    2015

  35. [44]

    Lezhnin, K. V. et al. Regimes of magnetic reconnection in colliding laser-produced magnetized plasma bubbles. Phys. Plasmas 25, 093105 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Karimabadi, H., Huba, J. D. & Omidi, N. On the generation and structure of the quadrupole magnetic field in the reconnection process : Comparative simulation study. 31, 3–6 (2004)

    2004

  37. [46]

    & Fuchs, J

    Smets, R., Aunai, N., Belmont, G., Boniface, C. & Fuchs, J. On the relationship between quadrupolar magnetic field and collisionless reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 21, 062111 (2014)

    2014

  38. [47]

    Scurry, L., Russell, C. T. & Gosling, J. T. Geomagnetic activity and the beta dependence of the dayside reconnection rate. 99, 1–4 (1994)

    1994

  39. [48]

    Phan, T. D. et al. The dependence of magnetic reconnection on plasma β and magnetic shear: Evidence from magnetopause observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 11–16 (2013)

    2013

  40. [49]

    Reale, F. et al. 3D MHD modeling of twisted coronal loops. Astrophys. J. 830, 21 (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    Albertazzi, B. et al. Production of large volume, strongly magnetized laser-produced plasmas by use of pulsed external magnetic fields. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 043505 (2013)

    2013

  42. [51]

    Cecchetti, C. A. et al. Magnetic field measurements in laser-produced plasmas via proton deflectometry. Phys. Plasmas 16, 043102 (2009)

    2009

  43. [52]

    Bolton, P. R. et al. Instrumentation for diagnostics and control of laser-accelerated proton (ion) beams. Phys. Medica 30, 255–270 (2014)

    2014

  44. [53]

    Wilks, S. C. et al. Energetic proton generation in ultra-intense laser–solid interactions. Phys. Plasmas 8, 542–549 (2001)

    2001

  45. [54]

    Cowan, T. E. et al. Ultralow Emittance, Multi-MeV Proton Beams from a Laser Virtual-Cathode Plasma Accelerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 204801 (2004)

    2004

  46. [55]

    Mancic, A. et al. Isochoric heating of solids by laser-accelerated protons: Experimental characterization and self-consistent hydrodynamic modeling. High Energy Density Phys. 6, 21–28 (2010)

    2010

  47. [56]

    Dromey, B. et al. Picosecond metrology of laser-driven proton bursts. Nat. Commun. 7, 10642 (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Chen, S. N. et al. Absolute dosimetric characterization of Gafchromic EBT3 and HDv2 films using commercial flat-bed scanners and evaluation of the scanner response function variability. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 073301 (2016)

    2016

  49. [58]

    Faenov, A. Y. et al. High-performance x-ray spectroscopic devices for plasma microsources investigations. Phys. Scr. 50, 333–338 (1994)

    1994

  50. [59]

    Revet, G. et al. Laboratory unraveling of matter accretion in young stars. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700982 (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. Radiative Processes in Astrophysics. Physics Bulletin 31, (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 1985)

    1985

  52. [61]

    Cowan, T. E. et al. High energy electrons, nuclear phenomena and heating in petawatt laser-solid experiments. Laser Part. Beams 17, 773–783 (1999). 19

    1999

  53. [62]

    Boutoux, G. et al. Study of imaging plate detector sensitivity to 5-18 MeV electrons. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86, 113304 (2015)

    2015

  54. [63]

    & Rezeau, L

    Smets, R., Belmont, G., Aunai, N. & Rezeau, L. Plasma diffusion in self-consistent fluctuations. Phys. Plasmas 18, (2011)

    2011

  55. [64]

    Boris, J. P. Relativistic plasma simulation—Optimization of a hybridcode. in Proceedings of 4th Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasmas 3–67 (1970)

    1970

  56. [65]

    Harned, D. S. Quasineutral hybrid simulation of macroscopic plasma phenomena. J. Comput. Phys. 47, 452–462 (1982)

    1982

  57. [66]

    Lui, A. T. Y. A synthesis of magnetospheric substorm models. J. Geophys. Res. Sp. Phys. 96, 1849–1856 (1991)

    1991

  58. [67]

    Highland, V. L. Some practical remarks on multiple scattering. Nucl. Instruments Methods 129, 497–499 (1975)

    1975

  59. [68]

    Groom, D. E. & Klein, S. R. Passage of particles through matter. Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 163–173 (2000)

    2000

Pith tools

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