Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Direct Evidence of a Highest Wave-Driven Energetic Electron Flux at the Earth's Magnetopause

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetopause crossing on 11 May 2024 recorded a prolonged enhancement of energetic electrons up to 650 keV driven by whistler, electron cyclotron harmonic, and Langmuir waves, with no magnetic reconnection.

desk verdict A credible first observation of 650 keV electrons at the magnetopause without reconnection, but the wave-acceleration claim lacks a quantitative energy budget; worth refereeing with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03492 v1 pith:32RXUPQ3 submitted 2024-12-04 physics.space-ph physics.plasm-ph

Shubhangi Lagad , Amar Kakad , Bharati Kakad This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords energeticelectronsmagnetopausewhistlerwaveselectroncyclotronharmonicLangmuirwave-particleinteractionsaccelerationmagneticreconnection
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 reports what it identifies as the first observation of a prolonged high-energy electron flux enhancement up to 650 keV at Earth's magnetopause, in a crossing that shows no magnetic reconnection signatures. The authors argue that the enhancement was produced locally by a set of electron-scale waves—whistler waves, electron cyclotron harmonic waves, and Langmuir waves—that appeared simultaneously with the flux increase. They support this by fitting the measured electron distribution to a loss-cone bi-Maxwellian model and showing through linear kinetic dispersion analysis that the observed background conditions naturally grow all three wave modes. If correct, this more than quintuples the previously observed 125 keV upper limit for magnetopause electron energization and establishes wave-particle interactions as a reconnection-independent route to very energetic electrons in near-Earth space.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three simultaneous electron-scale wave modes—whistler waves (right-hand circularly polarized, quasi-parallel, below half the electron cyclotron frequency $f_{ce}$), electron cyclotron harmonic (ECH) waves at multiples of $f_{ce}$, and Langmuir waves near the electron plasma frequency $f_{pe}$—together with the electron velocity distribution that generates them. The observed distribution is fit by a subtracted bi-Maxwellian with loss-cone parameters, and a linear kinetic dispersion analysis of that distribution predicts growth at the observed frequencies and wave-normal angles, roughly 10 degrees for whistler and 89.7 degrees for ECH. Wave identification is pinned by wave normal angle, ellipticity, and the FE ratio for Langmuir waves, the ratio of perpendicular to total electric field power with values below 0.5 indicating Langmuir waves. The energy-transfer quantity $\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$, computed from the turbulent electron currents and wave electric fields, provides the direct wave-to-electron energy exchange signature.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a particle-in-cell simulation seeded with the measured loss-cone and temperature-anisotropy electron distributions: if no electron tail near 650 keV forms when the simulated whistler, ECH, and Langmuir waves grow as observed, or if a magnetopause crossing with identical plasma parameters but no such waves still shows the 124–650 keV enhancement, the wave-driven interpretation would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 11 May 2024, during the recovery phase of a severe geomagnetic storm, the MMS spacecraft crossing the subsolar magnetopause recorded an enhancement of 124–650 keV electron fluxes that persisted across the burst-mode interval, with no signatures of magnetic reconnection. The paper's central claim is that this enhancement is a direct, local consequence of wave-particle interactions: whistler waves (right-hand circularly polarized, quasi-parallel), electron cyclotron harmonic waves at multiples of the electron cyclotron frequency, and Langmuir waves near the electron plasma frequency all appeared simultaneously with the flux increase. The observed electron velocity distribution contains a loss-cone and temperature-anisotropy component, and linear dispersion analysis of that distribution predicts positive growth rates for all three wave modes at the observed frequencies and wave-normal angles. The authors interpret the measured positive $\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$ values as net energy transfer from the waves to the electrons, with the electron cyclotron harmonic band contributing the largest transfer. This is presented as the first direct in-situ evidence that cascaded electron-scale waves, rather than reconnection, can drive energetic electrons up to the instrument's 650 keV limit at the magnetopause.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the short window of positive wave-to-electron energy transfer measured for these waves is what produced the prolonged 650 keV enhancement; the paper does not close a quantitative energy budget connecting the wave power to the electron energies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed 650 keV flux extends the previously reported magnetopause electron energization limit of about 125 keV by more than a factor of five, in a case with no magnetic reconnection.
  • Whistler, ECH, and Langmuir waves acting as a cascade provide a local, reconnection-independent acceleration pathway that future magnetopause energization models will need to include.
  • The loss-cone and temperature-anisotropy electron distribution measured at the crossing is a sufficient free-energy source to excite all three wave modes under the observed plasma conditions.
  • The positive $\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$ values identify the waves as transferring energy to electrons, with the ECH band carrying the largest energy exchange of the three modes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative energy budget is the natural next test: integrating the measured wave power and growth rates over the burst intervals would show whether the roughly two-second positive $\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$ signal can account for the number and energy of electrons raised to 650 keV, something the paper does not attempt.
  • If the mechanism is general, the same loss-cone-driven cascade should appear at other boundary layers with comparable free-energy sources; searching existing burst data for other magnetopause crossings with simultaneous whistler, ECH, and Langmuir waves and checking whether 124–650 keV flux enhancements accompany them would test this directly.
  • Because the FEEPS detector saturates at 650 keV, the reported value is a lower bound on the true peak energy; a wider-energy instrument or a re-analysis with deconvolution could reveal whether the enhancement extends even higher.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports MMS3 observations during the recovery phase of the May 10–11, 2024 geomagnetic storm, at a subsolar magnetopause crossing. It describes a prolonged FEEPS electron flux enhancement extending up to 650 keV, with simultaneous whistler, electron cyclotron harmonic (ECH), and Langmuir waves. The authors claim these waves are locally generated by temperature anisotropy and a loss-cone electron distribution, supported by a positive J·E measurement over one ~2-s interval and by linear dispersion analysis with KUPDAP using a subtracted bi-Maxwellian fit. The central claim is that wave–particle interactions, without magnetic reconnection, drove the electron energization to 650 keV.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would extend the reported magnetopause electron acceleration limit from ~125 keV to ~650 keV and would provide a rare example of local, wave-driven energization without reconnection. The paper has clear strengths: wave identifications follow established criteria (wave normal angle, ellipticity, FE index, harmonic structure), the analysis uses public MMS data, and the dispersion code is publicly available. The event itself, with 650 keV electrons and simultaneous multi-band waves at the magnetopause, is worth reporting. However, the causal attribution to local wave acceleration is not yet quantitatively established, so the significance hinges on the energy-budget and timing analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§Discussion / Energy Transfer Parameter (Supplementary Figure 3)] The only quantitative link between the observed waves and the 650 keV electrons is the positive J·E over a single ~2-s interval (0.0120 nW/m3 whistler, 0.1781 nW/m3 ECH, 0.0004 nW/m3 Langmuir). The paper does not integrate J·E over the ~11-min enhancement, nor does it compare the resulting energy with the FEEPS 124–650 keV electron energy content. Without such an energy budget, the positive J·E could represent local wave damping by a sub-population while the majority of the high-energy electrons were transported from elsewhere. This is load-bearing for the title claim of 'wave-driven' acceleration.
  2. [§Results, 'Prolonged High-Energy Flux Enhancement at the Magnetopause'] The paper repeatedly states that the event occurred 'notably without magnetic reconnection signatures,' but it does not present any dedicated reconnection identification: no LMN boundary normal analysis, no ion/electron outflow or current sheet analysis, no X-line criteria, and no discussion of what 'absence of reconnection signatures' was checked in the MMS data. The claim that reconnection was absent is central to the interpretation, so it needs explicit support rather than assertion.
  3. [§Generation Mechanism of the Waves / Table 1] The linear dispersion analysis feeds a fitted electron distribution (Table 1, component 4) that already contains the anisotropic loss-cone free energy into KUPDAP and recovers unstable modes at the observed frequencies and propagation angles. This confirms that the observed background distribution can generate the waves, but it does not establish that the waves accelerated the electrons to 650 keV. The same free energy could be supplied by a pre-existing high-energy electron population that was transported to the magnetopause. The manuscript needs a timing or spectral-evolution analysis (e.g., whether the high-energy flux appears after wave onset with a diffusion-consistent evolution) to break this degeneracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'first ever observation' is strong given that prior statistical studies (e.g., Chepuri et al., 2022) may not have covered the same energy range; a more precise statement such as 'first reported observation up to 650 keV' would be safer.
  2. [§Discussion / Energy Transfer Parameter] The sentence 'The parameter J·E remains predominantly positive indicating the continuous energy transfer from the waves to the electrons and vice versa' is ambiguous; a positive J·E convention usually indicates energy transfer from waves to particles, and 'vice versa' is confusing unless the sign convention is explicitly defined.
  3. [Methods, 'Linear Dispersion Analysis'] The phrase 'The growth of the fundamental band of waves around the fce and for harmonics around (n+1) fce, as well as the Langmuir waves is seen around 27 kHz' is syntactically unclear and should be reworded to specify which growth rates correspond to which wave modes.
  4. [§Results, Figure 1] The text refers to 'temperature anisotropy in the perpendicular direction' but Figure 1e is labeled 'Temperature anisotropy for 1 keV to 27.5 keV'; the definition (T_perp/T_par or T_perp - T_par) should be stated in the caption or text.
  5. [Code availability] The URL 'http://space.rish.kyoto-u. ac.jp/software' contains a stray space; it should be corrected to a single hyperlink.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wave-generation modeling is a consistency check, not a prediction, and the wave-driven attribution rests on direct J·E measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim is the detection of a 650 keV electron flux enhancement at the magnetopause without reconnection signatures, together with simultaneous whistler, ECH, and Langmuir waves. This is presented as an in-situ measurement, not as a derived quantity, so it is not circular. The wave-driven attribution is supported by the measured energy transfer parameter J·E, reported directly from the data for one ~2-s interval (0.0120, 0.1781, and 0.0004 nW/m3 for whistler, ECH, and Langmuir, respectively), and the paper explicitly concedes that 'It is difficult to reveal the quantitative effects of each observed wave separately from the data.' The theoretical modeling section fits a subtracted bi-Maxwellian with loss-cone parameters to the observed electron distribution and feeds it into the KUPDAP dispersion solver, finding growth rates near the observed wave frequencies. This is a standard linear-stability consistency check: the free energy (anisotropy and loss cone) is indeed taken from the same plasma population, so the calculation does not independently predict the observed waves, but neither is the result equivalent to its input by construction, since the dispersion relation can in principle yield stability or instability depending on the fitted parameters. The paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, does not rely on self-citations for any load-bearing uniqueness claim, and does not smuggle in an ansatz via citation. The gap between the short J·E interval and the claimed prolonged acceleration is an evidentiary limitation, not a circular reduction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The observational claim rests on standard MMS instrument data, which is publicly archived. The interpretive claim (wave-driven acceleration without reconnection) rests on a fitted multi-component electron distribution with about 20 free parameters, on the linear dispersion model KUPDAP, and on an unquantified energy budget. This ledger separates the robust observation from the parameter-heavy modeling assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • Electron component 1 (n=15 cm^-3, T≈5 eV) = n=15, T∥=T⊥=5 eV, Δ=0, β=0
    Fitted to the core/low-energy electron population in Figure 4a; defines the background plasma in KUPDAP.
  • Electron component 2 (n=10.5 cm^-3, T≈184 eV) = n=10.5, T∥=T⊥=184 eV, Δ=0, β=0
    Fitted intermediate electron component used in the dispersion analysis.
  • Electron component 3 (n=1 cm^-3, T≈500 eV) = n=1, T∥=T⊥=500 eV, Δ=0, β=0
    Fitted warm electron component in the subtracted bi-Maxwellian model.
  • Electron component 4 anisotropic loss-cone (n=0.3 cm^-3, T∥=2 keV, T⊥=3.2 keV) = n=0.3, T∥=2000 eV, T⊥=3200 eV, Δ=1, β=0.2
    The anisotropic, loss-cone electron component that drives the whistler, ECH, and Langmuir instabilities; fitted to the observed high-energy tail.
  • Electron component 5 (n=0.05 cm^-3, T≈19.5 keV) = n=0.05, T∥=T⊥=19500 eV, Δ=0, β=0
    Fitted hottest electron component, near the top of the observed range.
  • Proton component (n=26.85 cm^-3, T=2 keV) = n=26.85, T∥=T⊥=2000 eV
    Added to maintain quasineutrality in KUPDAP; not constrained by proton measurements shown in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Infinite, uniform, collisionless plasma with a consistent background magnetic field (KUPDAP assumption)
    Methods, Linear Dispersion Analysis: KUPDAP solves dispersion relations under this assumption, ignoring gradients and nonlinear effects at the magnetopause.
  • domain assumption The observed electron velocity distribution is gyrotropic and accurately represented by the 6-component subtracted bi-Maxwellian fit
    The fit in Figure 4a uses only parallel and perpendicular cuts; no uncertainty or goodness-of-fit is reported.
  • domain assumption The waves observed are locally generated rather than propagating from a distant source
    The Discussion states the waves are locally generated, but no Poynting flux or propagation analysis is presented.
  • domain assumption Quasineutrality is enforced by setting proton density equal to the total electron density
    Methods state the ion component is included to ensure quasineutrality in KUPDAP.
  • domain assumption The absence of obvious reconnection signatures in the presented MMS data is sufficient to conclude no reconnection occurred
    Central to the 'without reconnection signatures' claim; no explicit reconnection diagnostics (e.g., ion outflow, Hall field, J·E) are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Evidence of a Highest Wave-Driven Energetic Electron Flux at the Earth's Magnetopause." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32RXUPQ3

@misc{pith2026241203492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Evidence of a Highest Wave-Driven Energetic Electron Flux at the Earth's Magnetopause},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32RXUPQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03492}
}
read the original abstract

Spacecraft observations of high-energy electron flux enhancement up to 125 keV at Earth's magnetopause are typically linked to the magnetic reconnection. Here, we report the first ever observation of prolonged electron flux enhancement reaching very high energy up to 650 keV at magnetopause near the subsolar point, notably without reconnection signatures. The observation reveals that the high-energy electron flux enhancement near the magnetopause is associated with the simultaneous occurrence of electron cyclotron wave harmonics, whistler waves, and Langmuir waves. Theoretical modeling confirms the wave generation by electron temperature anisotropy and the electron loss cone distribution. This direct, in-situ observation of high-energy electron flux linked to cascaded wave-particle interactions will help us advance our understanding about the tiniest electron-scale intricacies affecting near-Earth space weather.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MMS parameters: (a) Magnetic field in GSE coordinate system, (b) Electron density, (c) Electron velocity, (d) Electron temperature for energy range 1 keV to 27.5 keV, (e) Temperature anisotropy for 1 keV to 27.5 keV. Magenta dashed lines indicate the availability of the burst mode dataset, (f) Electron omnidirectional energy spectrogram, (g) Pitch angle distribution of 6 eV - 1.4 keV electrons, (h) Pitch angle distr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Wave event 1: Simultaneous observation of whistler wave, electron cyclotron harmonics (ECH), and Langmuir wave: (a) Electric field in GSE coordinate system, (b) Electric field spectrogram (black and magenta dashed lines represent n fce, where n = 1 to 6 and fpe respectively), (c) Magnetic field in GSE coordinate system, (d) Magnetic field spectrogram, (e) Wave normal angle of whistler wave, (f) Ellipticity of whistl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Wave event 2: Simultaneous observation of whistler wave, electron cyclotron harmonics (ECH), and Langmuir wave: (a) Electric field in GSE coordinate system, (b) Electric field spectrogram (black and magenta dashed lines represent n fce, where n = 1, 2 and fpe respectively), (c) Magnetic field in GSE coordinate system, (d) Magnetic field spectrogram, (e) Wave normal angle of whistler wave, (f) Ellipticity of whistler… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The electron distributions and growth rates for wave event 1: (a) Electron phase space density vs electron velocity in parallel and perpendicular directions with red and blue representing 0◦ and 90◦ respectively, at 14:46:55.682 UT, (b) The growth rate of ECH and Langm…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Mende, S

    Frey, H., Phan, T., Fuselier, S. & Mende, S. Continuous magnetic reconnection at earth’s magnetopause. Nature 426, 533–537, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02084 (2003)

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02084 2003

  2. [2]

    & Cassak, P

    Hesse, M. & Cassak, P. Magnetic reconnection in the space sciences: Past, present, and future. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 125, e2018JA025935, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025935 (2020)

    doi:10.1029/2018ja025935 2020

  3. [3]

    Magnetopause waves controlling the dynamics of earth’s magnetosphere

    Hwang, K.-J. Magnetopause waves controlling the dynamics of earth’s magnetosphere. J. Astron. Space Sci. 32, 1–11, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2015.32.1.1 (2015)

    work page doi:10.5140/jass.2015.32.1.1 2015

  4. [4]

    Tang, X. et al. Themis observations of the magnetopause electron diffusion region: Large amplitude waves and heated electrons. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2884–2890, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50565 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1002/grl.50565 2013

  5. [5]

    & Bale, S

    Øieroset, M., Lin, R., Phan, T., Larson, D. & Bale, S. Evidence for electron acceleration up to 300 ke v in the magnetic reconnection<? format?> diffusion region of earth’s magnetotail. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 195001, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.195001 (2002)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.195001 2002

  6. [6]

    & Wang, S

    Wang, R., Lu, Q., Li, X., Huang, C. & Wang, S. Observations of energetic electrons up to 200 kev associated with a secondary island near the center of an ion diffusion region: A cluster case study. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 115, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015473 (2010). 4/13

    work page doi:10.1029/2010ja015473 2010

  7. [7]

    Zhang, X.-J. et al. Relativistic and ultra-relativistic electron bursts in earth’s magnetotail observed by low-altitude satellites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17299 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    V ., Graham, D

    Khotyaintsev, Y . V ., Graham, D. B., Norgren, C. & Vaivads, A. Collisionless magnetic reconnection and waves: Progress review. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 6, 70, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2019.00070 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Wei, X. et al. Cluster observations of waves in the whistler frequency range associated with magnetic reconnection in the earth’s magnetotail. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 112, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA011771 (2007)

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    & Goetz, K

    Farrell, W., Desch, M., Kaiser, M. & Goetz, K. The dominance of electron plasma waves near a reconnection x-line region. Geophys. research letters 29, 8–1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL014662 (2002)

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    & Goetz, K

    Farrell, W., Desch, M., Ogilvie, K., Kaiser, M. & Goetz, K. The role of upper hybrid waves in magnetic reconnection. Geophys. research letters 30, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017549 (2003)

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Jaynes, A. et al. Energetic electron acceleration observed by mms in the vicinity of an x-line crossing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7356–7363, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069206 (2016)

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Fu, H. et al. Evidence of electron acceleration at a reconnecting magnetopause. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5645–5652, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083032 (2019)

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Chepuri, S. N. et al. A statistical study of magnetopause boundary layer energetic electron enhancements using mms. Front. astronomy space sciences 9, 926660, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.926660 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Contel, O. L. et al. Whistler mode waves and hall fields detected by mms during a dayside magnetopause crossing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 5943–5952, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068968 (2016)

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Wilder, F. et al. Observations of whistler mode waves with nonlinear parallel electric fields near the dayside magnetic reconnection separatrix by the magnetospheric multiscale mission. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 5909–5917, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069473 (2016)

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Zhou, M. et al. Magnetospheric multiscale observations of an ion diffusion region with large guide field at the magnetopause: Current system, electron heating, and plasma waves. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 123, 1834–1852, DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/2017JA024517 (2018)

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Zhou, M. et al. Observation of high-frequency electrostatic waves in the vicinity of the reconnection ion diffusion region by the spacecraft of the magnetospheric multiscale (mms) mission. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4808–4815, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069010 (2016)

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Li, J. et al. Local excitation of whistler mode waves and associated langmuir waves at dayside reconnection regions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 8793–8802, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078287 (2018)

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Yu, X. et al. Simultaneous observation of whistler waves and electron cyclotron harmonic waves in the separatrix region of magnetopause reconnection. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 126, e2021JA029609, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2021JA029609 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Peng, Q. et al. Variation of dayside chorus waves associated with solar wind dynamic pressure based on mms observations. Adv. Space Res. 65, 2551–2558, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.006 (2020)

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Horne, R

    Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M. & Anderson, R. R. Survey of upper band chorus and ech waves: Implications for the diffuse aurora. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 114, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014230 (2009)

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    & Lou, Y

    Ni, B., Gu, X., Fu, S., Xiang, Z. & Lou, Y . A statistical survey of electrostatic electron cyclotron harmonic waves based on themis fff wave data. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 122, 3342–3353, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023433 (2017)

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Liu, X., Chen, L., Engel, M. A. & Jordanova, V . K. Global simulation of electron cyclotron harmonic wave instability in a storm-time magnetosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086368, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086368 (2020)

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Interplanetary shock induced intensification of electron cyclotron harmonic waves in the earth’s inner magnetosphere

    Xie, Y .et al. Interplanetary shock induced intensification of electron cyclotron harmonic waves in the earth’s inner magnetosphere. Front. Phys. 12, 1334531, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2024.1334531 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    & Giles, B.-h

    Burch, J., Moore, T., Torbert, R. & Giles, B.-h. Magnetospheric multiscale overview and science objectives. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 5–21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0164-9 (2016)

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Ergun, R. et al. The axial double probe and fields signal processing for the mms mission. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 167–188, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0115-x (2016)

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Lindqvist, P.-A. et al. The spin-plane double probe electric field instrument for mms. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 137–165, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0116-9 (2016). 5/13

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Russell, C. et al. The magnetospheric multiscale magnetometers. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 189–256, DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11214-014-0057-3 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Le Contel, O. et al. The search-coil magnetometer for mms. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 257–282, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11214-014-0096-9 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Pollock, C. et al. Fast plasma investigation for magnetospheric multiscale. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 331–406, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4 (2016)

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Blake, J. et al. The fly’s eye energetic particle spectrometer (feeps) sensors for the magnetospheric multiscale (mms) mission. Space Sci. Rev. 199, 309–329, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0163-x (2016)

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Graham, D. B. et al. Large-amplitude high-frequency waves at earth’s magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 123, 2630–2657, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA025034 (2018)

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Quantifying gyrotropy in magnetic reconnection

    Swisdak, M. Quantifying gyrotropy in magnetic reconnection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 43–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1002/2015GL066980 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Sugiyama, H. et al. Electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves in the earth’s magnetosphere with a kappa-maxwellian particle distribution. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 8426–8439, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021346 (2015)

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Liu, C. et al. Ultrafast measurement of field-particle energy transfer during chorus emissions in space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13156 (2024). Acknowledgments We thank the MMS Science Data Center (https://lasp.colorado.edu/mms/sdc/public/) for providing the data for this stu...

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Electron 10.5 184 184 0 0

  30. [38]

    Electron 1 500 500 0 0

  31. [39]

    Electron 0.3 2000 3200 1 0.2

    2000

  32. [40]

    Electron 0.05 1.95 ×104 1.95 ×104 0 0

  33. [41]

    Plasma parameters used in fitting the observed electron distribution shown in Figure 4a 6/13 Figure 1

    Proton 26.85 2000 2000 0 0 Table 1. Plasma parameters used in fitting the observed electron distribution shown in Figure 4a 6/13 Figure 1. MMS parameters: (a) Magnetic field in GSE coordinate system, (b) Electron density, (c) Electron velocity, (d) Electron temperature for ene...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.