Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dark plasmas in the nonlinear regime: constraints from particle-in-cell simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collective plasma instabilities in a dark U(1) sector make collisionless dark matter effectively collisional, and the authors derive from Bullet Cluster simulations a charge-to-mass limit about ten orders of magnitude stronger than…

desk verdict Careful PIC simulations of dark plasma instabilities, but the leap from cumulative deflections to a hard-scatter cross-section is the load-bearing assumption and it is not yet justified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11958 v2 pith:FMMFGKVK submitted 2024-11-18 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

William DeRocco , Pierce Giffin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords darkmatterself-interactionsU(1)gaugesectorplasmainstabilitiestwo-streaminstabilityWeibelBulletClusterparticle-in-cellsimulations
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper tries to establish that collective plasma effects, not single-particle collisions, can dominate the behavior of dark matter in merging galaxy clusters if the dark sector has a long-range U(1) force. Using particle-in-cell simulations of two counter-streaming, net-neutral dark electron-positron beams with parameters taken from the Bullet Cluster, the authors find that two-stream and Weibel instabilities grow, saturate, and scatter most particles substantially even though the plasma is collisionless. Interpreting this as an effective collisional cross-section, they place a new upper limit on the dark charge-to-mass ratio, $q_\chi < 2.0\times 10^{-14}\,(m_\chi/\mathrm{GeV})$, roughly ten orders of magnitude stronger than previous Bullet Cluster constraints. If right, it closes a large swath of parameter space for dark U(1) models and shows that dark matter phenomenology may be governed by collective interactions rather than free-particle scattering.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a fully kinetic 2D3V particle-in-cell simulation of two counter-streaming, net-neutral beams of dark electrons and dark positrons, initialized with the density, velocity dispersion, and relative bulk velocity of the Bullet Cluster's two halos at a radius of 150 kpc. The quantity that carries the argument is the simulated scattering fraction: a test particle is counted as having undergone a hard scatter when its velocity projection $\Delta v_t = \mathbf{v}_0\cdot\mathbf{v}_t/|\mathbf{v}_0|^2$ changes by a factor $e$, and the fraction is converted to a collisional cross-section via $\sigma/m = -\Sigma^{-1}\log(1-p)$, with $\Sigma \approx 0.33\,\mathrm{g/cm^2}$. The two-stream instability (electrostatic bunching of counter-streaming beams) and the Weibel instability (growth of transverse magnetic filaments) are what generate the electromagnetic inhomogeneities that deflect the particles; because the Vlasov-Maxwell system scales with the plasma frequency, the result transfers to any $(q_\chi, m_\chi)$ with the same plasma frequency.

What would settle it

A calculation that would settle this is to couple the microphysical scattering distribution measured after Weibel saturation into a full simulation of the Bullet Cluster merger and ask whether the dark-matter centroid offset matches the offset produced by $\sigma/m = 4\,\mathrm{cm^2/g}$ hard-sphere collisions; if the collective deflections are mostly small-angle diffusion, the centroid offset would differ and the constraint would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in a dissociative cluster merger like the Bullet Cluster, a dark-matter sector charged under a massless dark U(1) gauge field is not described by two-to-two particle scattering: even when the mean free path is enormously larger than the system, two-stream and Weibel plasma instabilities grow from noise, saturate, and leave behind dark electromagnetic filaments that deflect particles by order-one amounts. In dedicated particle-in-cell simulations of interpenetrating pair-plasma beams with Bullet-Cluster parameters, 73.3% of tracked particles suffer such a deflection in $330\,\omega_{pl,B}^{-1}$, before 1% of the cluster crossing time; using the standard mapping from scattered fraction to collisional cross-section, that corresponds to $\sigma/m = 4\,\mathrm{cm^2/g}$. The paper therefore derives an upper limit $q_\chi < 2.0\times 10^{-14}\,(m_\chi/\mathrm{GeV})$, adopted from the most conservative of four simulation runs, and interprets this as extending the existing Bullet Cluster constraint on charged dark matter by over ten orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a particle whose velocity projection changes by a factor $e$ in these small-scale plasma simulations behaves, for Bullet Cluster centroid-offset purposes, exactly like a particle that underwent a conventional two-to-two scattering collision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A dark U(1) fermion with $q_\chi/m_\chi$ above $2\times 10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV^{-1}}$ is excluded by the Bullet Cluster, because instabilities scatter more than 73% of particles within 1% of the crossing time.
  • The long-standing interpretation of cluster mergers as testing only two-to-two dark-matter self-interactions must be revised for long-range dark forces: collective instabilities can mimic a collisional cross-section of $4\,\mathrm{cm^2/g}$.
  • Because the Vlasov-Maxwell system scales with the plasma frequency, the simulation result applies across a wide range of masses and charges with the same $q_\chi/m_\chi$, not just the fiducial point.
  • Dark-sector models that were previously allowed by ellipticity and collisionless-scattering bounds, at charges down to about ten orders of magnitude below old limits, are now in tension with this analysis.
  • The paper deliberately adopts conservative parameters, including a low relative velocity, asymmetric densities, and a limit set before Weibel saturation, so the quoted bound is a floor rather than the strongest limit this mechanism can produce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension beyond the paper: the same effective-collisionality argument should apply to other long-range dark forces, such as millicharged or atomic dark matter, though the plasma-parameter and Debye-screening conditions would need to be rechecked for each model.
  • A testable prediction implicit in the paper is that the velocity distribution of the bullet halo should become substantially isotropized after the merger; kinematic or lensing observations of dissociative clusters could look for this signature independently of the cross-section mapping.
  • If the mapping from collective deflection to hard-sphere scattering ever fails, a cleaner route would be to compute the Bullet Cluster lensing offset directly from the simulated plasma turbulence rather than through an equivalent $\sigma/m$, producing a model-specific prediction that avoids the equivalence assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that dark matter in a U(1)-charged pair plasma can develop two-stream and Weibel instabilities during a cluster merger, and that the resulting collective fields scatter particles so efficiently that an effective collisional cross-section can be assigned. The authors run 2D3V particle-in-cell simulations of counter-streaming dark electron-positron beams with Smilei, measure the linear growth rates and nonlinear saturation of the instabilities, and track test particles to define a 'hard scatter' as a change by a factor e in the projected velocity (Eq. (4)). Using the survival formula in Eq. (5), they convert the measured scattered fraction p=73.3% at t=330 ω_pl^{-1} into an effective σ/m=4 cm^2/g, adopt the Bullet Cluster limit, and derive a constraint qχ/mχ < 2.0×10^{-14} GeV^{-1} from the most conservative simulation R4 (Eq. (7)), claiming an extension of existing limits by over ten orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the mapping from simulated collective deflections to a collisional cross-section is valid, this would be a significant result: it would be the first dedicated PIC simulation connecting nonlinear dark-plasma instabilities to a macroscopic cluster-merger constraint, and the resulting limit would probe charge-to-mass ratios far below existing bounds. The paper has clear strengths: the microphysical evolution is benchmarked against analytic expectations and prior work (Γ_TS=0.397ω_pl, Γ_W=0.00992ω_pl, and a bulk slowdown of 0.444 v0 versus 0.442 v0 in Ref. [10]); the R2-R4 parameter scans test sensitivity to velocity and density ratios; numerical heating is reported below 0.1%; and the appendix explicitly discusses limitations of the 2D3V setup. The central weakness is not the simulation itself but the inference from the simulated particle-deflection statistics to the Bullet Cluster's observed centroid offset.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V, Eqs. (4)–(5)] The load-bearing step of the paper is the identification of the simulated 'hard scatter' flag with the scattering probability used in the Bullet Cluster constraint, and this identification is not established. Equation (5), p = 1 - exp(-Σ σ/m), is the survival probability for rare, irreversible two-body collisions in which a scattered particle is removed from the coherent stream and contributes to a lagging population. In the simulation, however, a particle flagged by Eq. (4) has accumulated many small deflections from two-stream and Weibel turbulence, can cross the e-fold threshold while remaining in the same beam, and may cross it multiple times as the turbulence evolves. The paper calibrates p=73.3% to σ/m=4 cm^2/g and then quotes Eq. (7) as a constraint, but it never demonstrates that collective momentum diffusion produces the same DM-gas centroid offset as discrete scattering. This is not a presentation issue: if the collective interaction acts more like a continuous drag on the whole beam, the mapping in Eq. (5) is invalid and the ten-order-of-magnitude claim does not follow. The authors need either a derivation of the equivalence between cumulative deflection and single-scattering probability, or a macroscopic simulation of the Bullet Cluster geometry using the measured velocity-space diffusion to show that it reproduces the same centroid offset as a 4 cm^2/g collisional model.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 2 and Eq. (5)] Even granting the e-fold criterion, the paper does not justify substituting a cumulative fraction measured at a fixed time in a periodic box into Eq. (5), which is a column-integrated probability for a particle passing through a finite scattering screen once. In the collisional case, p is the total probability that a particle has scattered somewhere along the line of sight through the main cluster; in the simulation, the same tracked population is followed continuously, and the threshold-crossing fraction is a time-dependent cumulative count, not a column-integrated survival probability. The quantity t_73.3 is therefore a rate-like diagnostic, and the conversion to σ/m requires an argument that threshold crossings are irreversible and occur once per particle on the merger timescale. Without such an argument, the numerical value in Eq. (7) is not determined by the simulation output.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A] The Ampère law in Eq. (A1) is printed as ∇ × B = J + ∂B/∂t; it should read ∇ × B = J + ∂E/∂t.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (6)] The notation qχ < 1.2×10^{-14} (mχ/GeV) is dimensionally confusing; the intended constraint is on the charge-to-mass ratio, qχ/mχ < 1.2×10^{-14} GeV^{-1}, and the text should state this explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption reports '73%' while the text and subsequent discussion use 73.3%; these should be made consistent.
  4. [Table I] The caption states that t_73.3 is in units of the fiducial Bullet plasma frequency, but it is not clear how the quoted qχ/mχ values are rescaled for runs R2-R4, which have different physical plasma frequencies; the conversion should be written out explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PIC simulation output is converted to a constraint via external Bullet Cluster limits and parameter-free plasma-frequency scaling, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The simulation defines a 'scattered' particle by an e-fold change in projected velocity (Eq. 4), an operational definition cited to external PIC studies [54-56]. The effective cross-section is then obtained from the scattered fraction using the standard single-scattering relation sigma/m = -Sigma^-1 log(1-p) (Eq. 5), which is an external formula from the SIDM review [57]. The 73.3% threshold is not fit to the simulation; it is the re-expression of the externally adopted Bullet Cluster limit sigma/m < 4 cm^2/g through Eq. 5. The simulation output t_73.3 is measured in units of the Bullet plasma frequency omega_pl,B and converted to q/m through the parameter-free scaling of the Vlasov-Maxwell system (Sec. II and Appendix A), so the final constraint Eq. (7) is not the input limit restated. The choice among simulations R2-R4 is a conservative selection, not a fit. The bulk slowdown is benchmarked against an independent external simulation [10], giving quantitative agreement (0.444 v0 vs 0.442 v0), which supports the code and setup. The skeptical concern that cumulative e-fold deflections may not produce the same centroid offset as true two-to-two scattering is a physical/validity assumption, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the effective cross-section in terms of the target limit, nor does it fit any parameter to the Bullet Cluster data. There are no load-bearing self-citations, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation-to-equation reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dark U(1) model, a set of astrophysical inputs from Bullet Cluster literature, and three hand-set thresholds (hard-scatter e-fold, 73.3% fraction, 1% crossing time). No new particles are introduced. The main nonstandard assumption is the equivalence of collective deflection to two-to-two scattering, which is the bridge from simulation to the q/m constraint.

free parameters (4)
  • Scattered-fraction threshold p = 73.3% = 0.733 (from σ/m = 4 cm2/g via Eq. 5)
    External calibration value used to decide when collective scattering is ruled out; chosen from existing Bullet Cluster limit, not derived from the simulation.
  • Hard-scatter threshold in Eq. (4): Δv_t changes by factor e = e-fold change
    Conventional definition taken from Refs [54-56] to count a particle as scattered; no physical derivation that this matches two-to-two scattering effects on halo centroid.
  • Time window fraction: 1% of crossing time = 0.01 t_cross = 1.07e6 yr
    Chosen as 'conservative' scale over which halo density varies negligibly; changing it changes the q/m limit.
  • Projected surface density Σ of main cluster at 150 kpc = 0.33 g/cm^2
    Astrophysical input from Ref [40] used in Eq. (5); uncertain at tens of percent and directly scales the threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Bullet Cluster merger is locally described by two counter-streaming, net-neutral, equal-mass dark pair-plasma beams with periodic boundary conditions.
    Secs. II-III: the model replaces the actual density profiles and gravitational evolution by uniform beams; the 1% crossing-time window is used to justify this. Density gradients, magnetic fields, and single-species asymmetries are ignored.
  • domain assumption The plasma approximation holds: the plasma parameter Λ = 4π n χ λ_D^3 >> 1 throughout the constrained region.
    Sec. II: quoted Λ ~ 10^23-10^56 for the region between the ellipticity bound and the new limit, validating collective treatment.
  • domain assumption The dark sector is a massless U(1) gauge theory with no kinetic mixing with the Standard Model.
    Eq. (1); a model assumption from Refs [12-14]. Any mediator mass or kinetic mixing changes the instability spectrum and the constraint.
  • standard math The two-stream and Weibel linear instabilities are the dominant modes for near-symmetric warm beams.
    Appendix A with Refs [17,31,32]; oblique modes vary only slightly for symmetric beams, and the paper determines the rates numerically for its parameters.
  • domain assumption 2D3V PIC results capture the 3D plasma evolution up to Weibel saturation.
    Appendix B5: stated explicitly; supported by comparison to Shukla et al. (Ref [10]), but late-time filament merging is not captured and could alter late evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper An e-fold change in projected velocity is dynamically equivalent, for Bullet Cluster centroid offsets, to a two-to-two scattering event with the same population fraction.
    Eqs. (4)-(5) and Sec. V: this paper-specific equivalence bridges the simulated particle statistics to the effective σ/m. It is asserted, not derived, and is the weakest link in the argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark plasmas in the nonlinear regime: constraints from particle-in-cell simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMMFGKVK

@misc{pith2026241111958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark plasmas in the nonlinear regime: constraints from particle-in-cell simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMMFGKVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11958}
}
abstract

If the dark sector possesses long-range self-interactions, these interactions can source dramatic collective instabilities even in astrophysical settings where the collisional mean free path is long. Here, we focus on the specific case of dark matter halos composed of a dark $U(1)$ gauge sector undergoing a dissociative cluster merger. We study this by performing the first dedicated particle-in-cell plasma simulations of interacting dark matter streams, tracking the growth, formation, and saturation of instabilities through both the linear and nonlinear regimes. We find that these instabilities give rise to local (dark) electromagnetic inhomogeneities that serve as scattering sites, inducing an effective dynamic collisional cross-section. Mapping this effective cross-section onto existing results from large-scale simulations of the Bullet Cluster, we extend the limit on the dark charge-to-mass ratio by over ten orders of magnitude. Our results serve as a simple example of the rich phenomenology that may arise in a dark sector with long-range interactions and motivate future dedicated study of such ``dark plasmas.''

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Constraints on dark U(1) electromagnetism in the qχ − mχ plane. Bullet Cluster constraints from two-to-two scattering are shown in blue. Constraints from the survival of elliptical galaxies are shown in red [12–14]. The results presented in this work place constraints above the solid black line. heating each individually, even in a fully collisionless regime [10]. The longitudinal instability grows at a rate proport… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fraction of tracked macroparticles that have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Center of momentum velocity distribution of particles in the longitudinal direction at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy densities from simulation normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Combined particle and field energy from simulation (blue) and energy lost due to numerical heating (orange). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 kx [ωpl,B/c] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ΓT S [ωpl,B] Cold Symmetric Bullet Cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exponential growth rate of longitudinal two-stream instability in the case of cold symmetric beams (blue) and for the parameters of the Bullet Cluster system (orange). The red lines show the fastest growing mode and corresponding instability rate. tion as a function of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exponential growth rate of transverse Weibel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Longitudinal component of the electric field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power spectrum of the longitudinal electric field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Transverse component of the magnetic field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Power spectrum of the transverse magnetic field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Non-linear Evolution of Dark Plasma Subhalos

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dark plasma instabilities can evaporate up to ~97% of a 10^7 M_sun subhalo's mass by first pericenter, much more than ordinary tidal stripping.

  2. Can plasma physics establish a significant bound on long range dark matter interactions?

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Collisionless plasma instabilities would visibly brake dark-matter halos in cluster mergers, so the clean Bullet Cluster passage bounds the dark electromagnetic coupling to α_D < 4×10^-25 (m_D = 1 TeV).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [10]

    Shukla, K

    N. Shukla, K. Schoeffler, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, E. Boella, and L. O. Silva, Slowdown of interpenetration of two counterpropagating plasma slabs due to collective effects, Physical Review E105, 10.1103/physreve.105.035204 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.105.035204 2022

  2. [1]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Rotation curves of spiral galaxies, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.39, 137 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010594

    arXiv 2001

  3. [2]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Massey, T

    R. Massey, T. Kitching, and J. Richard, The dark matter of gravitational lensing, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 086901 (2010), arXiv:1001.1739 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    J. R. Primack, Cosmological Structure Formation, in Philosophy of Cosmology UK/US Conference(2015) pp. 136–160, arXiv:1505.02821 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Evidence for Dark Matter Self-Interactions via Collisionless Shocks in Cluster Mergers

    M. Heikinheimo, M. Raidal, C. Spethmann, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Dark matter self-interactions via collision- less shocks in cluster mergers, Phys. Lett. B749, 236 (2015), arXiv:1504.04371 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    Collisionless shocks in self-interacting dark matter

    M. Heikinheimo, M. Raidal, C. Spethmann, and H. Veer- mae, Collisionless shocks in self-interacting dark mat- ter, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion60, 014011 (2017), arXiv:1707.03662 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Simulations of Galaxy Cluster Collisions with a Dark Plasma Component

    C. Spethmann, H. Veerm¨ ae, T. Sepp, M. Heikin- heimo, B. Deshev, A. Hektor, and M. Raidal, Simula- tions of Galaxy Cluster Collisions with a Dark Plasma Component, Astron. Astrophys.608, A125 (2017), arXiv:1603.07324 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Lasenby, Long range dark matter self-interactions and plasma instabilities, JCAP11, 034, arXiv:2007.00667 [hep-ph]

    R. Lasenby, Long range dark matter self-interactions and plasma instabilities, JCAP11, 034, arXiv:2007.00667 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Cruz and M

    A. Cruz and M. McQuinn, Astrophysical plasma insta- bilities induced by long-range interacting dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023 (04), 028

  3. [11]

    M. V. Medvedev and A. Loeb, Plasma constraints on the millicharged dark matter (2024), arXiv:2406.15750 7 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ackerman, M

    L. Ackerman, M. R. Buckley, S. M. Carroll, and M. Kamionkowski, Dark matter and dark radiation, Physical Review D79, 10.1103/physrevd.79.023519 (2009)

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, Hid- den charged dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2009(07), 004

  6. [14]

    Agrawal, F.-Y

    P. Agrawal, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, L. Randall, and J. Scholtz, Make dark matter charged again, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(05), 022

  7. [15]

    Bret, Can we trust mhd jump conditions for collision- less shocks?, The Astrophysical Journal900, 111 (2020)

    A. Bret, Can we trust mhd jump conditions for collision- less shocks?, The Astrophysical Journal900, 111 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Bret and C

    A. Bret and C. Deutsch, Hierarchy of beam plasma in- stabilities up to high beam densities for fast ignition sce- nario, Physics of Plasmas12, 082704 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, and M. E. Dieckmann, Multidi- mensional electron beam-plasma instabilities in the rela- tivistic regime, Physics of Plasmas17, 120501 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    M. E. Dieckmann and A. Bret, Simulation study of the formation of a non-relativistic pair shock, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 905830104 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    A. Bret, C. C. Haggerty, and R. Narayan, Density jump for oblique collisionless shocks in pair plasmas: physi- cal solutions, Journal of Plasma Physics90, 905900213 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Bret and R

    A. Bret and R. Narayan, Density jump for oblique colli- sionless shocks in pair plasmas: allowed solutions, Jour- nal of Plasma Physics88, 905880615 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    A. Bret, A. Stockem Novo, R. Narayan, C. Ruyer, M. E. Dieckmann, and L. O. Silva, Theory of the formation of a collisionless weibel shock: pair vs. electron/proton plasmas, Laser and Particle Beams34, 362–367 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Livadiotis, Rankine–hugoniot shock conditions for space and astrophysical plasmas described by kappa dis- tributions, The Astrophysical Journal886, 3 (2019)

    G. Livadiotis, Rankine–hugoniot shock conditions for space and astrophysical plasmas described by kappa dis- tributions, The Astrophysical Journal886, 3 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    D. A. Gurnett and A. Bhattacharjee,Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space, Laboratory and Astrophys- ical Applications, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    A. Bret, A. Stockem, F. Fi´ uza, E. P. ´Alvaro, C. Ruyer, R. Narayan, and L. O. Silva, The formation of a collision- less shock, Laser and Particle Beams31, 487–491 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Jubin, A

    S. Jubin, A. T. Powis, W. Villafana, D. Sydorenko, S. Rauf, A. V. Khrabrov, S. Sarwar, and I. D. Kaganovich, Numerical thermalization in 2d pic simu- lations: Practical estimates for low-temperature plasma simulations, Physics of Plasmas31, 023902 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Rambo, Finite-grid instability in quasineutral hybrid simulations, Journal of Computational Physics118, 152 (1995)

    P. Rambo, Finite-grid instability in quasineutral hybrid simulations, Journal of Computational Physics118, 152 (1995)

    1995

  19. [27]

    M. D. Acciarri, C. Moore, and S. D. Baalrud, Artificial correlation heating in pic simulations, Physics of Plasmas 31, 093903 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Grassi, M

    A. Grassi, M. Grech, F. Amiranoff, F. Pegoraro, A. Mac- chi, and C. Riconda, Electron weibel instability in rela- tivistic counterstreaming plasmas with flow-aligned ex- ternal magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. E95, 023203 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    M. V. Medvedev, M. Fiore, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Long-time evolution of magnetic fields in relativistic gamma-ray burst shocks, The Astrophysical Journal618, L75 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Ruyer and F

    C. Ruyer and F. Fiuza, Disruption of current filaments and isotropization of the magnetic field in counterstream- ing plasmas, Physical Review Letters120, 245002 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Bohm and E

    D. Bohm and E. P. Gross, Theory of plasma oscillations. b. excitation and damping of oscillations, Phys. Rev.75, 1864 (1949)

    1949

  24. [32]

    B. D. Fried, Mechanism for instability of transverse plasma waves, The Physics of Fluids2, 337 (1959)

    1959

  25. [33]

    Tucker, P

    W. Tucker, P. Blanco, S. Rappoport, L. David, D. Fab- ricant, E. E. Falco, W. Forman, A. Dressler, and M. Ramella, 1e 0657-56: A contender for the hottest known cluster of galaxies, The Astrophysical Journal 496, L5–L8 (1998), aDS Bibcode: 1998ApJ...496L...5T

    1998

  26. [34]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, L. David, A. Vikhlinin, S. Murray, W. Forman, C. Jones, and W. Tucker, A text- book example of a bow shock in the merging galaxy clus- ter 1e 0657-56, The Astrophysical Journal567, L27–L31 (2002), aDS Bibcode: 2002ApJ...567L..27M

    2002

  27. [35]

    Barrena, A

    R. Barrena, A. Biviano, M. Ramella, E. E. Falco, and S. Seitz, The dynamical status of the cluster of galax- ies 1e0657-56, Astronomy & Astrophysics386, 816–828 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Paraficz, J.-P

    D. Paraficz, J.-P. Kneib, J. Richard, A. Morandi, M. Limousin, E. Jullo, and J. Martinez, The bullet clus- ter at its best: weighing stars, gas, and dark matter, Astronomy & Astrophysics594, A121 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradaˇ c, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, A direct em- pirical proof of the existence of dark matter*, The Astro- physical Journal648, L109 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Clowe, A

    D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, and M. Markevitch, Weak- lensing mass reconstruction of the interacting cluster 1e 0657–558: Direct evidence for the existence of dark mat- ter*, The Astrophysical Journal604, 596 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonza- lez, and M. Bradaˇ c, Constraints on the self interaction cross section of dark matter from numerical simulations of the merging galaxy cluster 1e 0657-56, The Astrophys- ical Journal679, 1173 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Robertson, R

    A. Robertson, R. Massey, and V. Eke, What does the bullet cluster tell us about self-interacting dark matter?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465, 569 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Kahlhoefer, K

    F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, M. T. Frandsen, and S. Sarkar, Colliding clusters and dark matter self- interactions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society437, 2865–2881 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark matter self-interactions and small scale structure, Physics Reports730, 1 (2018), dark matter self-interactions and small scale structure

    2018

  35. [43]

    Ruyer, L

    C. Ruyer, L. Gremillet, A. Debayle, and G. Bonnaud, Nonlinear dynamics of the ion weibel-filamentation in- stability: An analytical model for the evolution of the plasma and spectral properties, Physics of Plasmas22, 032102 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    C. H. Jaroschek, H. Lesch, and R. A. Treumann, Self- consistent diffusive lifetimes of weibel magnetic fields in gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal616, 1065 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    H. R. Kaufman, Explanation of bohm diffusion, Jour- nal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics Processing and Phenomena8, 107–108 (1990)

    1990

  38. [46]

    Takabe, Theory of magnetic turbulence and shock formation induced by a collisionless plasma instability, Physics of Plasmas30, 030901 (2023)

    H. Takabe, Theory of magnetic turbulence and shock formation induced by a collisionless plasma instability, Physics of Plasmas30, 030901 (2023). 8

    2023

  39. [47]

    Vanthieghem, M

    A. Vanthieghem, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Stabil- ity analysis of a periodic system of relativistic current filaments, Physics of Plasmas25, 072115 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Chang, A

    P. Chang, A. Spitkovsky, and J. Arons, Long-term evo- lution of magnetic turbulence in relativistic collisionless shocks: Electron-positron plasmas, The Astrophysical Journal674, 378 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    M. D. McFarland and A. Y. Wong, Spatial, spectral, and statistical properties of the high-frequency electrostatic fluctuations in a beam-driven turbulent plasma, Physics of Plasmas8, 110–121 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    M. D. McFarland and A. Y. Wong, Beam scattering and low-frequency fluctuations in a beam-driven strongly tur- bulent plasma, Physics of Plasmas8, 122–131 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    P. H. Yoon, Weak turbulence theory for beam-plasma interaction, Physics of Plasmas25, 011603 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fle, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, J. Dargent, C. Riconda, and M. Grech, Smilei: A collaborative, open-source, multi- purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation, Computer Physics Commun...

    2018

  45. [53]

    Springel and G

    V. Springel and G. R. Farrar, The speed of the ‘bullet’ in the merging galaxy cluster 1e0657-56, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society380, 911–925 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    M. Zhou, V. Zhdankin, M. W. Kunz, N. F. Loureiro, and D. A. Uzdensky, Magnetogenesis in a collisionless plasma: From weibel instability to turbulent dynamo, The Astrophysical Journal960, 12 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Pic simulations of the effect of velocity space instabilities on electron viscosity and thermal conduction,824, 123 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    A. F. A. Bott, M. W. Kunz, E. Quataert, J. Squire, and L. Arzamasskiy, Thermodynamics and collisionality in firehose-susceptible high-βplasmas (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Adhikari, A

    S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, K. K. Boddy, F.-Y. Cyr- Racine, H. Desmond, C. Dvorkin, B. Jain, F. Kahlhoe- fer, M. Kaplinghat, A. Nierenberg, A. H. G. Pe- ter, A. Robertson, J. Sakstein, and J. Zavala, Astro- physical tests of dark matter self-interactions (2022), arXiv:2207.10638...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Li and T

    J.-T. Li and T. Lin, Dynamics of millicharged dark mat- ter in supernova remnants, Phys. Rev. D101, 103034 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    A. J. Millar, S. M. Anlage, R. Balafendiev, P. Belov, K. van Bibber, J. Conrad, M. Demarteau, A. Droster, K. Dunne, A. G. Rosso, J. E. Gudmundsson, H. Jackson, G. Kaur, T. Klaesson, N. Kowitt, M. Lawson, A. Leder, A. Miyazaki, S. Morampudi, H. V. Peiris, H. S. Røising, G. Sing...

    2023

  52. [60]

    X. An, M. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Sheng, and J. Zhang, Mod- eling of axion and electromagnetic fields interaction in particle-in-cell simulations, Matter and Radiation at Ex- tremes9, 067204 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, Double- Disk Dark Matter, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 139 (2013), arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. Roy, X. Shen, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, Simulating atomic dark matter in milky way analogs, The Astrophysical Journal Letters954, L40 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    S. Roy, X. Shen, J. Barron, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, Aggressively-Dissipative Dark Dwarfs: The Effects of Atomic Dark Matter on the Inner Densities of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies, (2024), arXiv:2408.15317 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Skoutnev, A

    V. Skoutnev, A. Hakim, J. Juno, and J. M. TenBarge, Temperature-dependent saturation of weibel-type insta- bilities in counter-streaming plasmas, The Astrophysical Journal Letters872, L28 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    S. P. Gary, The plasma dispersion function, inTheory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities, Cambridge Atmo- spheric and Space Science Series (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p. 170–171

    1993

  58. [66]

    A. Bret, A. Stockem, F. Fiuza, C. Ruyer, L. Gremil- let, R. Narayan, and L. O. Silva, Collisionless shock for- mation, spontaneous electromagnetic fluctuations, and streaming instabilities, Physics of Plasmas20, 042102 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    J.-L. Vay, C. Geddes, E. Cormier-Michel, and D. Grote, Numerical methods for instability mitigation in the mod- eling of laser wakefield accelerators in a lorentz-boosted frame, Journal of Computational Physics230, 5908 (2011). Appendix A: Plasma review: Linear and non-linear ...

    2011

  60. [68]

    two-stream

    Linear regime A simple system in which instabilities arise consists of two beams of plasma with comparable densities stream- ing through one another. Though simple, this system captures the essential features of the astrophysical set- tings we discuss in Section III of the mai...

  61. [69]

    collisionless shocks

    Nonlinear regime The growth of the two-stream instability will cause the formation of “collisionless shocks” [15, 17, 18, 22– 24, 64, 65], shock fronts between the beams supported by 4 Additional electromagnetic oblique modes can occur in asymmet- ric beam plasmas. For beams t...

  62. [70]

    Here,ω pl,B is the plasma frequency correspond- ing to the Bullet sub-cluster

    Setup Our simulations consist of a 2D3V Cartesian geom- etry of dimensionsL x = 7c/ω pl,B in the longitudinal direction andL y = 175c/ω pl,B in the transverse direc- tion with periodic boundary conditions across all bound- aries. Here,ω pl,B is the plasma frequency correspond-...

  63. [71]

    Growth rates Fig. 4 shows the energy densities of the longitudinal electric field (red), the transverse magnetic field (blue), and total electromagnetic energy density (purple) from our simulation normalized to the initial kinetic energy of the two-beam system as a function of...

  64. [72]

    Saturation energies From the growth rate in the linear regime, we calcu- late the approximate saturation energy of the two-stream instability, which yields εE εK = E2 sat/2 1 2 (4n0)mχ(v0/2)2 ≈ 1 96 ,(B1) whereε K is the initial kinetic energy density of the plasma. Similarly,...

  65. [73]

    Additional diagnostic plots Here, we show some additional diagnostic plots from our simulation to highlight some of the key features of the evolution of the two-stream and Weibel instabilities. In Fig. 8 (9), we show a plot of the (Fourier transform of the) electric field alon...

  66. [74]

    Limitations of 2D3V simulations Though our simulation is 2-dimensional, it is still able to conservatively estimate the macrophysical properties of the 3-dimensional Bullet Cluster system. First, we note that the Weibel instability has previously been studied in 1 and 2-dimens...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.