Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Kinetic simulations underestimate the effects of waves during magnetic reconnection

T0 review · 4 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 Kinetic simulations with reduced ion-to-electron mass ratios underestimate lower-hybrid drift wave amplitudes and their drag on magnetic reconnection.

desk verdict Useful warning about reduced mass ratios, but the wave-simulation scaling is partly a normalization artifact and the V_d ∝ v_Ae premise needs direct verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18020 v1 pith:F5KJQM56 submitted 2024-11-27 physics.plasm-ph

J. Ng , J. Yoo , L.-J. Chen , N. Bessho , H. Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.35.Qz52.35.Vd52.65.Rr
keywords lower-hybriddriftinstabilitymagneticreconnectionguide-fieldkineticsimulationmassratioanomalousdragwaveamplitudescalingparticle-in-cell
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

Fully kinetic simulations of collisionless plasmas cannot afford realistic ion-to-electron mass ratios, so they typically reduce that ratio and the electron plasma-to-cyclotron frequency ratio. This paper shows that these numerical choices are not neutral when electron-scale waves are present. Using lower-hybrid drift waves in guide-field magnetic reconnection as a test case, it argues that the wave electric field normalized to the reconnection electric field grows like the square root of the mass ratio, and that the phase between density and field fluctuations changes as well. Together these effects make the anomalous drag, the wave-driven force that helps balance electron momentum in the reconnection region, come out up to an order of magnitude too small in reduced-parameter simulations. The reconnection rate itself is insensitive to these parameters, so the underestimate is easy to miss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scaling relation in Eq. (2), which connects the normalized lower-hybrid wave electric field $\delta E/(B_0 v_{A0})$ to $\sqrt{m_i/m_e}$ and the frequency ratio $\omega_{pe}/\omega_{ce}$. Lower-hybrid drift waves are short-wavelength electrostatic waves driven by the relative drift between electrons and ions across a magnetic-field gradient. The relation follows from the saturation energy balance of Eq. (1), which equates the free energy of the drift to wave plus particle energy, combined with the assumption that in guide-field reconnection the drift speed $V_d$ is proportional to the electron Alfvén speed $v_{Ae}$. A second piece is the quasi-linear anomalous-drag expression of Eq. (5), whose phase factor $\operatorname{Im}(\zeta_i Z(\zeta_i))$ grows with mass ratio for the studied parameters, explaining why the drag term rises more steeply than the electric-field amplitude.

What would settle it

Measure the saturated lower-hybrid wave electric field, normalized to $B_0 v_{A0}$, in a guide-field reconnection simulation at a fixed mass ratio while varying the initial current-sheet thickness by a factor of four. If the normalized amplitude changes with thickness rather than tracking $\sqrt{m_i/m_e}$, the assumed proportionality between the drift speed and the electron Alfvén speed, and with it the central scaling, is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when lower-hybrid drift waves couple to an ion-scale reconnection region, the saturated wave electric field normalized by the reconnection electric field scales as $\sqrt{m_i/m_e}$ times a frequency-ratio factor, so the common practice of running kinetic simulations at reduced mass ratios systematically weakens the waves relative to the reconnection field. The authors derive this from the saturation energy estimate of Ref. [41] after taking the electron-ion drift speed in guide-field reconnection to be proportional to the electron Alfvén speed. They confirm the scaling in isolated current-layer simulations: the measured electric-field fluctuation amplitude varies with mass ratio as $(m_i/m_e)^{0.56}$, close to the predicted square-root law, and the normalized correlated density-field fluctuation (the anomalous drag term) rises by an order of magnitude from $m_i/m_e = 100$ to $1836$. They also find that the phase between density and electric-field fluctuations changes with mass ratio through the quasi-linear response function, which strengthens the drag beyond what the field amplitude alone would suggest. The conclusion is not that the reconnection rate is wrong, but that wave-driven momentum balance and electron energization are underrepresented in reduced-parameter simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The square-root mass-ratio scaling depends on the premise that in guide-field reconnection the electron-ion drift speed that drives the instability is proportional to the electron Alfvén speed; if the drift is instead set by the current-sheet thickness or by diamagnetic drifts, the scaling does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantitative comparisons of wave amplitudes between kinetic simulations, laboratory experiments, and spacecraft observations of guide-field reconnection must account for the mass-ratio and frequency-ratio dependence before declaring a discrepancy.
  • Reduced-parameter simulations understate the anomalous drag in the electron momentum equation, so conclusions about which mechanism balances the reconnection electric field may need to be revisited.
  • At realistic mass ratios the normalized wave electric field is large enough to compete with the reconnection electric field, implying stronger wave-driven electron energization than reduced-parameter runs show.
  • The same parameter sensitivity should apply to other multi-scale collisionless systems, notably collisionless shocks, where simulated fluctuating electric fields are already known to be weaker than observed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction follows for spacecraft data: in guide-field reconnection events with similar geometry, the ratio of lower-hybrid wave electric field to the local reconnection electric field should increase with the square root of the true mass ratio; comparing events could validate the normalization directly.
  • The paper's own discussion of anti-parallel Harris sheets implies the underestimate may be configuration-specific: where the drift speed is set by the sheet width rather than the electron Alfvén speed, the mass-ratio penalty could vanish or even reverse.
  • The phase contribution to the drag suggests that matching only wave power spectra is insufficient; simulations or analyses should also reproduce the phase of density fluctuations, which governs momentum transfer.
  • A practical extension would be a reduced model that substitutes the analytic scaling for the wave-induced drag into large-scale reconnection codes, bypassing the need to resolve electron scales.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in kinetic simulations of guide-field magnetic reconnection, the amplitude of lower-hybrid drift waves relative to the reconnection electric field scales as sqrt(mi/me), and that the associated anomalous drag is therefore underestimated by an order of magnitude when reduced mass ratios are used. The authors support this with two asymmetric reconnection simulations (mi/me = 25 and 400), a series of smaller isolated 'wave' simulations that scan mi/me from 100 to 1836 and ωpe/ωce from 0.5 to 8, and an analytical scaling estimate (Eq. 2) derived from a saturation formula for the lower-hybrid drift instability. The main quantitative evidence is the fitted (mi/me)^0.56 scaling of normalized electric field fluctuations in the wave simulations and the order-of-magnitude increase in the normalized anomalous drag term in Table I.

Significance. If the central claim holds, it identifies a systematic deficiency of reduced-mass-ratio kinetic simulations when electron-scale waves couple to ion-scale reconnection, with direct implications for interpreting simulation-based studies of reconnection, shocks, and particle energization. The paper is refreshingly direct about the potential magnitude of the effect and proposes a simple scaling that can be tested in other codes. The systematic parameter scan in the wave simulations and the clear statement of the scaling law are strengths; the prediction is falsifiable. However, the analytical foundation rests on an untested premise about the drift velocity in the reconnection geometry, and the wave-simulation scaling may be substantially a normalization effect, so the quantitative claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II (after Eq. 1)] The central premise Vd ∝ v_Ae0 in guide-field reconnection, cited to Ref. [46], is never directly tested in the reconnection simulations. The wave simulations cannot validate it: as the text states, 'the recursive relations here do not depend on the mass ratio,' so the equilibrium current density, and hence Vd, is independent of mi. With Vd independent of mi, Eq. (1) gives an unnormalized wave amplitude independent of mi, and normalization by B0 v_A0 ∝ 1/sqrt(mi) automatically yields δE/(B0 v_A0) ∝ sqrt(mi/me). The measured (mi/me)^0.56 fit in Fig. 4 and the order-of-magnitude drag increase in Table I are therefore consistent with a normalization artifact and do not discriminate whether Vd in reconnection obeys Vd ∝ v_Ae, Vd ∝ v_Ai, or some other scaling. The authors should either measure Vd/v_Ae0 in the reconnection runs, or show that the unnormalized wave amplitudes are mass-ratio independent even when Vd is held fixed, to separate the physics from the normalization.
  2. [Eqs. (1)-(2)] Equation (1) is an energy density, while Eq. (2) is a normalized electric field amplitude; the intermediate conversion (e.g., δE = sqrt(2E/ε0) together with the dielectric response factor) is not shown. The factor ωpe/ωce sqrt(1+(ωpe/ωce)^2) appears without derivation, and the first term ωce/ωce0 is described only as a 'scaling factor.' Because Eq. (2) is the analytical foundation for the paper's headline scaling, the missing steps should be supplied so the exponent and the frequency-ratio dependence can be checked independently.
  3. [Fig. 1 and surrounding text] The two reconnection runs provide only two mass-ratio points, and the text acknowledges that plasmoid formation causes differences in evolution between them. The statement that 'the normalized outflow uex/vA0 increases as mass ratio increases' is presented as the explanation for the higher normalized wave amplitude at mi/me = 400, but no quantitative measurement of uex or Vd is shown for these runs. Without such a measurement, these runs cannot substitute for a direct test of the Vd ∝ v_Ae0 premise.
  4. [Sec. III, Table I] The order-of-magnitude underestimate of the anomalous drag is inferred from the wave simulations, but Table I shows that at fixed mass ratio the drag varies by up to a factor of about two with ωpe/ωce (e.g., 0.034 to 0.044 at mi/me = 1836). The paper's claim that the drag is 'underestimated by an order of magnitude' should be framed as the mass-ratio effect at fixed frequency ratio, and the spread due to ωpe/ωce should be acknowledged when comparing to the reconnection geometry.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 4] There are typographical issues: the abstract has 'scales like p mi/me' with a stray 'p', and the label 'mi/m0.5 e' in Fig. 4 should read '(mi/me)^0.5'.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation ωce/ωce0 is used without specifying whether ωce is the local cyclotron frequency and whether the ratio is evaluated at the same location as the other quantities; this should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  3. [Table I] The table caption does not define the normalization 1/(⟨ne⟩B0vA0) or state how ⟨δEyδne⟩ is computed in practice; a brief sentence in the text or caption would improve clarity.
  4. [Sec. IV (antiparallel discussion)] The discussion of the Harris-sheet case is useful, but it is only qualitative. Since the paper argues that the mass-ratio scaling depends on whether the current-sheet width L is di or de scale, it would be helpful to state the assumed values of βi and βe used in the estimate and to specify which regime is expected during guide-field reconnection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass-ratio scaling is derived from external LHDI saturation theory and an external velocity-scaling premise, with self-citations used only for simulation setup.

full rationale

The central scaling, Eq. (2), is obtained by substituting the relation Vd ∝ vAe0 (cited to the independent Ref. [46]) into the external LHDI saturation formula, Eq. (1) (Ref. [41]), and comparing with the mass-ratio-insensitive reconnection electric field from Refs. [21-23]. The wave simulations then test this scaling, and the fitted exponent 0.56 is a posteriori confirmation rather than an input used to construct Eq. (2). Self-citations ([35, 42, 43]) appear only for the reconnection configuration and prior discrepancy motivation, not as the load-bearing derivation of the scaling. A limitation worth noting, but not circularity, is that in the isolated wave simulations the equilibrium recursive relations do not depend on mass ratio, so with fixed current-layer parameters the unnormalized wave amplitude is nearly mass-ratio-independent and the observed sqrt(mi/me) trend in δE/(B0vA0) is partly a consequence of the B0vA0 ∝ (mi/me)^{-1/2} normalization; however, the paper's analytical claim does not derive from those simulations, and the reconnection runs independently show increasing normalized outflow and wave amplitudes with mass ratio. The derivation chain is therefore not equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or entities are introduced. The paper's contribution is a scaling law built on existing saturation theory and a parameter scan of existing simulation capability.

free parameters (1)
  • mass-ratio scaling exponent = 0.56
    Obtained by fitting log deltaE_rms/(B0 vA0) versus log(mi/me) in the wave simulations; quoted as evidence for the predicted 0.5 exponent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LHDI saturation amplitude follows the electrostatic free-energy balance of Winske-Liewer, Eq. (1).
    Used to derive the central scaling Eq. (2) from the drift speed. The authors note it omits electron temperature and electromagnetic effects, and Vd/vthi=3.5 lies near the ion-trapping boundary, yet they report good agreement at large omega_pe/omega_ce.
  • domain assumption In guide-field reconnection, the electron-ion drift speed Vd is proportional to the electron Alfven speed v_Ae.
    This converts Eq. (1) into Eq. (2). It is cited to Ref. [46] and is not directly verified in the isolated wave simulations.
  • domain assumption The normalized reconnection electric field is approximately 0.1 B0 vA0 and is insensitive to mi/me and omega_pe/omega_ce.
    Used to interpret Eq. (2) as the wave-to-reconnection ratio; supported by prior simulation literature Refs. [21-23].
  • domain assumption The quasi-linear anomalous collision frequency expression of Davidson-Gladd, Eq. (5), describes the drag contribution.
    Used to explain the mass-ratio dependence of the drag term; the manipulation to the proportional form is not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic simulations underestimate the effects of waves during magnetic reconnection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5KJQM56

@misc{pith2026241118020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic simulations underestimate the effects of waves during magnetic reconnection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5KJQM56}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18020}
}
abstract

Collisionless plasma systems are often studied using fully kinetic simulations, where protons and electrons are treated as particles. Due to their computational expense, it is necessary to reduce the ion-to-electron mass ratio $m_i/m_e$ or the ratio between plasma and cyclotron frequencies in simulations of large systems. In this work we show that when electron-scale waves are present in larger-scale systems, numerical parameters affect their amplitudes and effects on the larger system. Using lower-hybrid drift waves during magnetic reconnection as an example, we find that the ratio between the wave electric field and the reconnection electric field scales like $\sqrt{m_i/m_e}$, while the phase relationship is also affected. The combination of these effects means that the anomalous drag that contributes to momentum balance in the reconnection region can be underestimated by an order of magnitude. The results are relevant to the coupling of electron-scale waves to ion-scale reconnection regions, and other systems such as collisionless shocks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Normalized wave electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Lavorenti, P

    F. Lavorenti, P. Henri, F. Califano, S. Aizawa, and N. Andr´ e, Astronomy & Astrophysics652, A20 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    D. B. Graham, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, M. An- dre, A. Vaivads, A. Chasapis, W. H. Matthaeus, A. Retino, F. Valentini, and D. J. Gershman, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 126, e2021JA029260 (2021), e2021JA029260 2021JA029260, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021JA029260

    doi:10.1029/2021ja029260 2021

  3. [2]

    P. Shi, P. Srivastav, M. H. Barbhuiya, P. A. Cassak, E. E. Scime, and M. Swisdak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 025002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    J. L. Burch and T. D. Phan, Geophysical Research Let- ters 43, 8327 (2016), 2016GL069787

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Raptis, T

    S. Raptis, T. Karlsson, A. Vaivads, M. Lind- berg, A. Johlander, and H. Trollvik, Geo- physical Research Letters 49, e2022GL100678 (2022), e2022GL100678 2022GL100678, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2022GL100678

    work page doi:10.1029/2022gl100678 2022

  6. [5]

    Maksimovic, I

    M. Maksimovic, I. Zouganelis, J.-Y. Chaufray, K. Is- sautier, E. E. Scime, J. E. Littleton, E. Marsch, D. J. McComas, C. Salem, R. P. Lin, and H. El- liott, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 110 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011119, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2005JA011119

    doi:10.1029/2005ja011119 2005

  7. [6]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, R. Kulsrud, G. Ham- mett, and P. Sharma, The Astrophysical Journal 629, 139 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    K. J. Bowers, B. J. Albright, L. Yin, B. Bergen, and T. J. T. Kwan, Physics of Plasmas 15, 055703 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2840133

    doi:10.1063/1.2840133 2008

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Markidis, G

    S. Markidis, G. Lapenta, and Rizwan-uddin, Mathemat- ics and Computers in Simulation 80, 1509 (2010), mul- tiscale modeling of moving interfaces in materials

    2010

  2. [9]

    R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Kat- souleas, et al., in Computational Sciences 2002: Inter- national Conference Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 21–24, 2002 Proceedings, Part III 2(Springer, 2002) pp. 342–351

    2002

  3. [10]

    Fujimoto, Frontiers in Physics 6, 119 (2018)

    K. Fujimoto, Frontiers in Physics 6, 119 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    J. Juno, A. Hakim, J. TenBarge, E. Shi, and W. Dorland, Journal of Computational Physics 353, 110 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Egedal, W

    J. Egedal, W. Daughton, and A. Le, Nature Physics 8, 6 321 (2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    A. Le, W. Daughton, L.-J. Chen, and J. Egedal, Geophysical Research Letters 44, 2096 (2017), 2017GL072522

    2017

  7. [14]

    Price, M

    L. Price, M. Swisdak, J. F. Drake, and D. B. Graham, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics 125, e2019JA027498 (2020), e2019JA027498 10.1029/2019JA027498, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019JA027498

    2020 doi

  8. [15]

    Lapenta, F

    G. Lapenta, F. Pucci, V. Olshevsky, S. Servidio, L. Sorriso-Valvo, D. L. Newman, and M. V. Goldman, Journal of Plasma Physics 84, 715840103 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Q. Lu, A. Guo, Z. Yang, R. Wang, S. Lu, R. Chen, and X. Gao, The Astrophysical Journal 964, 33 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Savoini and B

    P. Savoini and B. Lembege, Journal of Geophys- ical Research: Space Physics 120, 7154 (2015), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JA021018

    2015 doi

  11. [18]

    Bessho, L.-J

    N. Bessho, L.-J. Chen, J. E. Stawarz, S. Wang, M. Hesse, L. B. Wilson, and J. Ng, Physics of Plasmas 29, 042304 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0077529

    2022 doi

  12. [19]

    S. R. Totorica and A. Bhattacharjee, Geophysical Re- search Letters 50, e2023GL105785 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Y.-H. Liu, J. Birn, W. Daughton, M. Hesse, and K. Schindler, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 119, 9773 (2014), 2014JA020492

    2014

  14. [21]

    Comisso and A

    L. Comisso and A. Bhattacharjee, Journal of Plasma Physics 82, 595820601 (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    J. Birn, J. F. Drake, M. A. Shay, B. N. Rogers, R. E. Denton, M. Hesse, M. Kuznetsova, Z. W. Ma, A. Bhat- tacharjee, A. Otto, and P. L. Pritchett, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics 106, 3715 (2001)

    2001

  16. [23]

    P. A. Cassak, Y.-H. Liu, and M. A. Shay, Journal of Plasma Physics 83, 715830501 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    A. Le, J. Egedal, O. Ohia, W. Daughton, H. Karimabadi, and V. S. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135004 (2013)

    2013

  18. [25]

    Jara-Almonte, W

    J. Jara-Almonte, W. Daughton, and H. Ji, Physics of Plasmas 21, 032114 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4867868

    2014 doi

  19. [26]

    Daughton, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 103, 29429 (1998)

    W. Daughton, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 103, 29429 (1998)

    1998

  20. [27]

    L. B. Wilson III, L.-J. Chen, and V. Roytershteyn, Fron- tiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 592634 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Electrostatic waves and electron holes in simula- tions of low-mach quasi-perpendicular shocks,

    A. Bohdan, A. Tran, L. Sironi, and L. B. W. I. au2, “Electrostatic waves and electron holes in simula- tions of low-mach quasi-perpendicular shocks,” (2024), arXiv:2408.01699 [physics.space-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. C. Davidson, N. T. Gladd, C. S. Wu, and J. D. Huba, The Physics of Fluids 20, 301 (1977), http://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.861867

    1977 doi

  23. [30]

    J. D. Huba and C. S. Wu, The Physics of Fluids 19, 988 (1976), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.861594

    1976 doi

  24. [31]

    N. A. Krall and P. C. Liewer, Phys. Rev. A 4, 2094 (1971)

    1971

  25. [32]

    R. C. Davidson and N. T. Gladd, The Physics of Fluids 18, 1327 (1975), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.861021

    1975 doi

  26. [33]

    Graham, Y

    D. Graham, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, M. Andr´ e, A. Vaivads, A. Divin, J. Drake, C. Norgren, O. Le Contel, P.-A. Lindqvist, A. Rager, et al., Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Mozer, M

    F. Mozer, M. Wilber, and J. Drake, Physics of Plasmas 18 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    J. Yoo, J. Ng, H. Ji, S. Bose, A. Goodman, A. Alt, L.-J. Chen, P. Shi, and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 145101 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    L.-J. Chen, S. Wang, O. Le Contel, A. Rager, M. Hesse, J. Drake, J. Dorelli, J. Ng, N. Bessho, D. Graham, L. B. Wilson, T. Moore, B. Giles, W. Paterson, B. Lavraud, K. Genestreti, R. Nakamura, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, R. E. Ergun, R. B. Torbert, J. Burch, C. Pollock, C. T. Russell,...

    2020

  30. [37]

    A. Le, W. Daughton, O. Ohia, L.-J. Chen, Y.-H. Liu, S. Wang, W. D. Nystrom, and R. Bird, Physics of Plasmas 25, 062103 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5027086

    2018 doi

  31. [38]

    Daughton, Physics of Plasmas 10, 3103 (2003), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1594724

    W. Daughton, Physics of Plasmas 10, 3103 (2003), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1594724

    2003 doi

  32. [39]

    Roytershteyn, W

    V. Roytershteyn, W. Daughton, H. Karimabadi, and F. S. Mozer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 185001 (2012)

    2012

  33. [40]

    Price, M

    L. Price, M. Swisdak, J. F. Drake, P. A. Cassak, J. T. Dahlin, and R. E. Ergun, Geophysical Research Letters 43, 6020 (2016), 2016GL069578

    2016

  34. [41]

    reconnection

    as E = nmeV 2 d / 4 1 + ω2 pe/ω2 ce , (1) where E is the electric field energy density, n is the local density, Vd is the relative velocity between electrons and ions, me is the electron mass, and ωpe/ωce is the ratio between electron plasma and cyclotron frequencies. This equ...

  35. [42]

    Winske and P

    D. Winske and P. C. Liewer, The Physics of Fluids 21, 1017 (1978), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.862321

    1978 doi

  36. [43]

    J. Ng, J. Yoo, L.-J. Chen, N. Bessho, and H. Ji, Physics of Plasmas 30 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    Ng, L.-J

    J. Ng, L.-J. Chen, A. Le, A. Stanier, S. Wang, and N. Bessho, Geophysical Research Let- ters 47, e2020GL090726 (2020), e2020GL090726 10.1029/2020GL090726

    2020 doi

  38. [45]

    Brackbill, D

    J. Brackbill, D. Forslund, K. Quest, and D. Winske, The Physics of fluids 27, 2682 (1984)

    1984

  39. [47]

    Karimabadi, W

    H. Karimabadi, W. Daughton, and J. Scud- der, Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030306, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030306

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    D. W. Hewett, C. W. Nielson, and D. Winske, The Physics of Fluids 19, 443 (1976)

    1976

  41. [49]

    J. D. Huba, N. T. Gladd, and K. Papadopoulos, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 83, 5217 (1978), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JA083iA11p05217

    1978 doi

  42. [50]

    A. T. Marshall, J. L. Burch, P. H. Reiff, J. M. Webster, R. E. Denton, L. Rastaetter, R. B. Torbert, R. E. Ergun, C. T. Russell, and D. J. Gershman, Physics of Plasmas 29, 012905 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0071159

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    I. H. Cairns and B. F. McMillan, Physics of Plasmas 12, 102110 (2005), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2080567/14687284/102110 1 online.pdf

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    Harris, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 23, 115 (1962), 10.1007/BF02733547

    E. Harris, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 23, 115 (1962), 10.1007/BF02733547

    1962 doi

  45. [53]

    Wang, L.-J

    S. Wang, L.-J. Chen, N. Bessho, J. Ng, M. Hesse, D. B. Graham, O. Le Contel, D. Gershman, and B. Giles, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 127, e2021JA030109 (2022), e2021JA030109 2021JA030109

    2022

Pith tools

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