Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Energy Dissipation in Strong Collisionless Shocks: The Crucial Role of Ion-to-Electron Scale Separation in Particle-in-Cell Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Reduced mass ratio in PIC shock simulations produces qualitatively wrong particle acceleration and heating.

desk verdict A useful warning that reduced mass ratio can flip electron acceleration efficiency in PIC shock runs, but the headline causal attribution to scale separation is not yet controlled because the upstream electron thermal speed changes with mr. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03530 v1 pith:GT4TYU4Z submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Mohamad Shalaby This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords particle-in-cellsimulationscollisionlessshocksion-to-electronmassratioelectronaccelerationthermalenergydissipationAlfvénMachnumberintermediate-scaleinstabilitycosmicray
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 argues that the common cost-cutting trick of lowering the ion-to-electron mass ratio in particle-in-cell simulations of strong collisionless shocks does not merely introduce quantitative error: it changes the physics. Comparing runs with mass ratio 100 against runs with the realistic 1836 in one-dimensional shock simulations, the author finds that the reduced ratio completely suppresses electron acceleration at low Alfvén Mach number and, at high Alfvén Mach number, produces an unrealistically strong ion flux and over-efficient electron acceleration. These differences appear in both thermal energy partitioning and non-thermal acceleration efficiencies. The paper's central claim is that correctly resolving the ion-to-electron scale separation is necessary to capture how shock kinetic energy is dissipated into heating and particle acceleration.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the comparison between two mass-ratio settings across two Alfvén Mach numbers, with the ion-to-electron scale separation expressed through the ratio of ion to electron skin depths and gyro-radii. The argument hinges on the intermediate-scale instability, a wave mode whose growth and resonant interaction with electrons is only captured when the mass ratio is large enough that the electron gyro-radius can match the unstable wavelength. The realistic-ratio runs resolve this instability, whereas the reduced-ratio runs either suppress it (low Mach number) or produce spurious resonant behavior (high Mach number), explaining the qualitative differences in electron acceleration and in the electron-to-ion temperature ratio.

What would settle it

Run a series of 1D3V particle-in-cell simulations at Alfvén Mach numbers 5.3 and 21.3 with a fixed upstream electron energy but varying the ion-to-electron mass ratio across 100, 400, 900, and 1836, and measure the downstream electron-to-ion temperature ratio and the non-thermal electron fraction; if these quantities change smoothly with mass ratio or match the realistic-ratio result already at intermediate ratios, the claim that only the full realistic ratio recovers the correct physics would be weakened. Additionally, perform a control run at mass ratio 100 with the electron thermal velocity artificially matched to that of the mass-ratio-1836 run; if the reduced-mass-ratio anomalies persist, the paper's attribution to ion-to-electron scale separation would be supported rather than the confound of different initial electron thermal spread.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that in 1D3V particle-in-cell simulations of strong, parallel, non-relativistic electron-ion shocks, the choice of ion-to-electron mass ratio qualitatively determines the simulated dissipation channels. At Alfvén Mach number 5.3, the reduced mass ratio (100) suppresses electron acceleration entirely, while the realistic ratio (1836) permits efficient electron acceleration through the destabilization of intermediate-scale unstable wave modes. At Alfvén Mach number 21.3, the reduced mass ratio yields more efficient electron acceleration and a nonphysical high-momentum ion flux relative to the realistic ratio. In the thermal sector, the reduced ratio over-heats electrons and under-heats ions (at low Mach number), so the downstream electron-to-ion temperature ratio comes out high in both reduced-mass-ratio runs, whereas the realistic-ratio runs show this temperature ratio to be independent of the upstream magnetic field. The paper concludes that reduced-mass-ratio simulations misrepresent both heating and acceleration, and that realistic mass ratios are required to infer the physics of astrophysical collisionless shocks.

Load-bearing premise

The upstream electron temperature is set to the same energy value in the reduced and realistic mass-ratio runs, so the electrons in the reduced-mass-ratio simulation start with a larger thermal velocity; the paper attributes all downstream differences to the mass-ratio scale separation, but this uncontrolled difference in initial electron thermal spread could contribute to the observed effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations with reduced mass ratios cannot be used to infer electron acceleration efficiencies or electron-to-ion temperature ratios in strong non-relativistic parallel shocks.
  • The downstream electron-to-ion temperature ratio is claimed to be independent of the upstream magnetic field strength when a realistic mass ratio is used, providing a new observational constraint for shock models.
  • Published results relying on reduced mass ratios for non-relativistic shock microphysics should be revisited, especially for predicting the electron injection into diffusive shock acceleration.
  • The study shows that roughly 78% of upstream kinetic energy is converted to downstream thermal energy (mostly ions) in realistic-ratio runs, with about 11-12% going to non-thermal ions, regardless of Alfvén Mach number.
  • Since the simulated physical time is only about 1.5 minutes for supernova-remnant conditions, the maximum particle energies reached are not yet in the regime of long-lived shocks, so conclusions about final maximum energies must wait for longer runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the electron-to-ion temperature ratio is independent of upstream magnetic field in realistic mass ratio simulations, the dominant heating balance may be set by the sonic Mach number and the compression ratio rather than by the Alfvénic Mach number; this could be tested by varying the sonic Mach number while keeping the mass ratio fixed.
  • The mass-ratio sensitivity at high Alfvén Mach number suggests that a resonant scale (likely the electron gyroradius relative to the wavelength of the unstable gyroscale wave) controls the electron acceleration efficiency; running simulations at intermediate mass ratios (e.g., 400 or 900) would reveal whether the transition is continuous or abrupt.
  • The upstream electron thermal velocity is larger in the reduced-mass-ratio runs because the temperature is fixed in energy units; an explicit control run matching the electron thermal velocity between mass ratios would isolate whether the observed differences come from scale separation or from the initial electron thermal spread.
  • The conclusion that the ion-to-electron temperature ratio is independent of the upstream magnetic field, if confirmed in higher-dimensional simulations, could be used as a calibration target for sub-grid models of collisionless shock heating in astrophysical fluid simulations.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 1D3V particle-in-cell simulations with the SHARP code to compare reduced (mr=100) and realistic (mr=1836) ion-to-electron mass ratios in strong, parallel, non-relativistic electron-ion shocks at Alfvén Mach numbers MA=5.3 and 21.3. It reports that the reduced mass ratio leads to qualitatively different particle acceleration and thermal energy dissipation: at low MA it suppresses electron acceleration, while at high MA it produces over-efficient electron acceleration and an unrealistically high ion flux at high momentum. The paper further claims that with the realistic mass ratio the downstream electron-to-ion temperature ratio is independent of the upstream magnetic field, a result not found in reduced-mass-ratio runs. The simulations are shown for long durations (~4e4 omega_i^-1) and made publicly available.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper is an important methodological caution for the PIC simulation community, and it provides a concrete physical result (the approximate constancy of the electron-to-ion temperature ratio with upstream magnetic field) that could be tested by other codes and extended to higher dimensions. The study's strengths include the use of a code specifically designed to minimize numerical heating over long runtimes, the long simulation durations relative to typical kinetic shock simulations, and the public release of visualization movies. The low-MA suppression of electron acceleration is anchored in a specific instability-threshold argument (Section 3.3) and is therefore a credible, mechanism-based claim. The quantitative acceleration efficiencies (11-12% into ions) are consistent with hybrid-simulation results, which lends plausibility. However, the high-MA comparison and the field-independence claim are currently under-controlled, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, footnote 3; Sections 4.2-4.3] The high-Mach-number comparison does not isolate the ion-to-electron scale separation from the change in upstream electron thermal velocity. The upstream electron temperature is fixed in energy units (kBTe = 4e-8 mi c^2) in all runs, so when mr is increased from 100 to 1836 the upstream electron thermal velocity increases by a factor sqrt(1836/100) ~ 4.3. Footnote 3 acknowledges this difference, but no simulation controls for it. Since electron injection, heating, and wave-particle interactions can depend on v_te/v_sh, the differences attributed to scale separation in Section 4.2 (electron acceleration and ion flux at MA=21.3) and Section 4.3 (excessive electron heating) could in part be caused by the different initial electron thermal spread. A run with mr=100 and kBTe scaled as 1/mr (so that the electron thermal velocity matches the mr=1836 case), or a scan over v_te at fixed mr, is needed before the title-level attribution to scale separation is justified. The low-MA conclusion is less affected because it is supported by the intermediate-scale instability threshold in Section 3.3, but the high-MA claim is load-bearing and currently under-controlled.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 5] The claim that the electron-to-ion temperature ratio is independent of the upstream magnetic field rests on only two Mach numbers (MA=5.3 and 21.3) with the realistic mass ratio. No error bars or run-to-run variability are provided, and the time series in Figure 5 show secular evolution, so the difference between the two curves could reflect a monotonic trend rather than independence. This claim is highlighted as a central result in the abstract and conclusion. The authors should either soften the wording to 'weakly dependent' or add at least one intermediate-MA simulation and a quantitative estimate of the temporal and sampling uncertainty to support the independence statement.
  3. [Equations (1) and (10); Figures 1-3] The normalization of momenta, Mach numbers, and temperatures relies on assuming a compression ratio R=4, but the actual downstream compression ratio is not reported, and the text and figures use inconsistent Alfvén Mach numbers (MA=5.3 and 21.3 in the text, MA=5.1 and 21 in Figures 1 and 3). If the actual R differs from 4, then the normalized momenta in Figure 2 and the thermal-energy normalization in Figure 4 shift correspondingly, which could affect the quantitative comparison. The paper should state the measured downstream compression ratio for each run and reconcile the Mach-number labels in the text and figures.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'necessitate' in the abstract should be 'necessitates' to agree with the singular subject 'complexity'.
  2. [Section 4.4, Figure 6] The non-thermal energy threshold ps > 5 ps,max is a free parameter; a brief sensitivity check (e.g., using 3 and 10 ps,max) would strengthen the quantitative acceleration-efficiency claims, even though the qualitative conclusions appear robust.
  3. [Section 5] The concluding statement that the time evolution of electron acceleration efficiency is 'contrary to what is incorrectly inferred from simulations run for much shorter physical times in the literature' is a strong claim that should be supported by a specific citation or a direct comparison to the earlier work.
  4. [Section 2, footnote 3] The issue of differing upstream electron thermal velocity between mass-ratio runs is currently confined to a footnote; given its potential impact on the high-MA results, it should be addressed in the main text with a clear statement of the confound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the mass-ratio comparisons are direct simulation outputs; theoretical scales and cited instability results are interpretive, not fitted to reproduce the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical simulation comparisons, not derivations from a fitted model. The m_r = 100 and m_r = 1836 runs, at M_A = 5.3 and 21.3, are executed with the stated SHARP-1D3V setup, and the reported particle spectra, temperatures, magnetic-field amplification, and acceleration efficiencies are read directly from the output. The non-thermal threshold p > 5p_max and the compression ratio R = 4 are explicit normalizations/definitions, not parameters adjusted to produce the findings. The theoretical scales in Section 3 (Eqs. 2-9) are used to mark resonant momenta and to interpret the low-M_A result via the intermediate-scale instability; the latter is attributed to Shalaby et al. (2021, 2022, 2023), which are self-citations. However, these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the cited linear-dispersion estimates are parameter-free and stated with assumptions, and the current simulations independently reproduce the mass-ratio dependence rather than importing it by construction. Footnote 3 does acknowledge a real confound: fixing k_BT_e in energy units makes the upstream electron thermal velocity about 4.3 times larger in the m_r = 100 runs than in the m_r = 1836 runs, so the causal attribution to ion-to-electron scale separation is not fully controlled, especially at high M_A. That is a correctness/design limitation, not a circular derivation: no equation in the paper makes the conclusion equivalent to its input by definition. No specific circular reduction can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. The main free parameters are definitions or assumed normalizations (threshold factor 5, compression ratio R=4) that affect reported efficiencies but not the central comparison. The key axioms are standard MHD jump conditions, the previously published instability dispersion relations, the adequacy of 1D3V geometry, and the attribution to scale separation despite the electron thermal-speed confound.

free parameters (2)
  • Non-thermal energy threshold factor = 5
    Energy in particles with momentum >5 times the peak momentum is defined as non-thermal; this choice, taken from Xu et al. (2020), sets the reported acceleration efficiencies.
  • Assumed shock compression ratio R = 4
    Assumed to compute shock speed vsh = R/(R-1) vu and the MHD temperature scale TMHD; absolute efficiency percentages depend on this normalization.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math MHD Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions give the thermal energy upper limit for the downstream plasma.
    Used in Section 4.3, Equation (10), to define TMHD as a normalization for measured temperatures.
  • domain assumption The linear dispersion relations for the intermediate-scale instability from Shalaby et al. (2021, 2023) determine the resonant momentum scale in Equation (9).
    The paper uses these relations to interpret the realistic-mass-ratio electron acceleration at low MA, but the instability theory is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption 1D3V PIC simulations of parallel shocks capture the relevant microphysics for energy dissipation and particle acceleration.
    The conclusions are drawn from 1D3V runs; the paper notes the geometry but does not demonstrate that 2D/3D effects would not alter the mass-ratio sensitivity.
  • ad hoc to paper The differences between mass-ratio runs are attributed to ion-to-electron scale separation, not to the changed upstream electron thermal velocity.
    The setup fixes kBTe = 4e-8 mi c^2, so the electron thermal speed is larger in the mr=100 runs (footnote 3); this confound is acknowledged but not controlled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy Dissipation in Strong Collisionless Shocks: The Crucial Role of Ion-to-Electron Scale Separation in Particle-in-Cell Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GT4TYU4Z

@misc{pith2026241203530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy Dissipation in Strong Collisionless Shocks: The Crucial Role of Ion-to-Electron Scale Separation in Particle-in-Cell Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GT4TYU4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03530}
}
abstract

Energy dissipation in collisionless shocks is a key mechanism in various astrophysical environments. Its non-linear nature complicates analytical understanding and necessitate Particle-in-Cell (PIC) simulations. This study examines the impact of reducing the ion-to-electron mass ratio ($m_r$), to decrease computational cost, on energy partitioning in 1D3V (one spatial and three velocity-space dimensions) PIC simulations of strong, non-relativistic, parallel electron-ion collisionless shocks using the SHARP code. We compare simulations with a reduced mass ratio ($m_r = 100$) to those with a realistic mass ratio ($m_r = 1836$) for shocks with high ($\mathcal{M}_A = 21.3$) and low ($\mathcal{M}_A = 5.3$) Alfv$\acute{\text{e}}$n Mach numbers. Our findings show that the mass ratio significantly affects particle acceleration and thermal energy dissipation. At high $\mathcal{M}_A$, a reduced mass ratio leads to more efficient electron acceleration and an unrealistically high ion flux at higher momentum. At low $\mathcal{M}_A$, it causes complete suppression of electron acceleration, whereas the realistic mass ratio enables efficient electron acceleration. The reduced mass ratio also results in excessive electron heating and lower heating in downstream ions at both Mach numbers, with slightly more magnetic field amplification at low $\mathcal{M}_A$. Consequently, the electron-to-ion temperature ratio is high at low $\mathcal{M}_A$ due to reduced ion heating and remains high at high $\mathcal{M}_A$ due to increased electron heating. In contrast, simulations with the realistic $m_r$ show that the ion-to-electron temperature ratio is independent of the upstream magnetic field, a result not observed in reduced $m_r$ simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Amplification and spatial structure of the perpendicular magnetic field component By in various simulations. The top panels show simulations with MA = 5.1, and the bottom panels show simulations with MA = 21. The left panels present simulations with a reduced ion-to-electron mass ratio mr = 100, while the right panels show simulations with the realistic mass ratio mr = 1836. The normalization is such that the square… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The time evolution of particle spectra (solid lines: electrons; dashed lines: ions) at the downstream region defined as the region to the left of white curved in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The time evolution of the maximum energy for ions and electrons normalized by their rest-mass energy, i.e., γmax, at the shock front region which is defined as 400 c/ωi region cen￾tered at the wave intensity jump locations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The time evolution of downstream ion (left panel) and electron (right panel) temperatures in various simulations. The values are normalized with TMHD, which is computed using Equation (10) assuming a compression ratio of R = 4. Initially, when the compression is less t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The time evolution of the ratio of downstream electron￾to-ion temperatures in various simulations. In the case of a low Alfv´enic Mach number (MA = 5.3) with a reduced mass ratio (represented by the black curve), the high electron-to-ion tempera￾ture ratio is due to si…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The time evolution of the acceleration efficiency, i.e., the ability of various shocks to dissipate upstream kinetic energy into non-thermal ion (shown as dashed curves) and electron (shown as solid curves) energies. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I., Leer, E., et al

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., et al. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550

    2004

  3. [3]

    Birdsall, C. K. & Maron, N. 1980, Journal of Computational Physics, 36, 1

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    & Eichler, D

    Blandford, R. & Eichler, D. 1987, Phys. Rep., 154, 1

    1987

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Bohdan, A., Weidl, M. S., et al. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 052301

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Boyd, T. J. M. & Sanderson, J. J. 2003, The Physics of Plasmas, 544

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Braginskii, S. I. 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1, 205

    1965

  8. [8]

    & Dieckmann, M

    Bret, A. & Dieckmann, M. E. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 032109

    work page 2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    E., Chang, P., et al

    Broderick, A. E., Chang, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 22

    2012

  2. [10]

    E., Tiede, P., et al

    Broderick, A. E., Tiede, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 87

    2018

  3. [11]

    E., Tiede, P., et al

    Broderick, A. E., Tiede, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 109

    2016

  4. [12]

    & Jones, T

    Brunetti, G. & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  5. [13]

    1959, Physical Review, 115, 503

    Buneman, O. 1959, Physical Review, 115, 503

    1959

  6. [14]

    Bykov, A. M. & Uvarov, Y . A. 1999, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 88, 465

    1999

  7. [15]

    & Spitkovsky, A

    Caprioli, D. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, 91

    2014

  8. [16]

    E., et al

    Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 23

    2012

  9. [17]

    E., et al

    Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 110

    2014

  10. [18]

    E., et al

    Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 118

    2016

  11. [19]

    1962, Physics of Fluids, 5, 445

    Dawson, J. 1962, Physics of Fluids, 5, 445

    1962

  12. [20]

    K., Engel, R., et al

    Gaisser, T. K., Engel, R., et al. 2016, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics

    2016

  13. [21]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042

    2018

  14. [22]

    2016, ApJ, 816, L19

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, L19

    2016

  15. [23]

    Guo, F. & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251

    2008

  16. [24]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16071

    Gupta, S., Caprioli, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16071

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., Vink, J., et al

    Helder, E. A., Vink, J., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 719

    2009

  18. [26]

    Hockney, R. W. & Eastwood, J. W. 1988, Computer simulation using particles

    1988

  19. [27]

    A., Daly, P

    Kronberg, E. A., Daly, P. W., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e29273

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Pearce, W

    Kulsrud, R. & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445

    1969

  21. [29]

    & Reville, B

    Kumar, N. & Reville, B. 2021, ApJ, 921, L14

    2021

  22. [30]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 19

    Lamberts, A., Chang, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 19

    2015

  23. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3045

    Lamberts, A., Puchwein, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3045

    2022

  24. [32]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04400

    Lemmerz, R., Shalaby, M., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04400

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lipatov, A. S. 2002, The hybrid multiscale simulation technology an introduction with application to astrophysical and laboratory plasmas

    2002

  26. [34]

    Malkov, M. A. & Drury, L. O. 2001, Reports on Progress in Physics, 64, 429

    2001

  27. [35]

    2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 046901 Neergaard Parker, L

    Marcowith, A., Bret, A., et al. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 046901 Neergaard Parker, L. & Zank, G. P. 2012, ApJ, 757, 97

    2016

  28. [36]

    2015, Physical Review Letters, 114, 085003

    Park, J., Caprioli, D., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 114, 085003

    2015

  29. [37]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 24

    Pfrommer, C., Chang, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 24

    2012

  30. [38]

    Riquelme, M. A. & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 733, 63

    2011

  31. [39]

    2017, Cosmological beam plasma instabilities

    Shalaby, M. 2017, Cosmological beam plasma instabilities

    2017

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Shalaby, M., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 45

    2018

  33. [41]

    E., et al

    Shalaby, M., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2020, Journal of Plasma Physics, 86, 535860201

    2020

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 86

    Shalaby, M., Lemmerz, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 86

    2022

  35. [43]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 206

    Shalaby, M., Thomas, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 206

    2021

  36. [44]

    2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890603

    Shalaby, M., Thomas, T., et al. 2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890603

    2023

  37. [45]

    M., Pakmor, R., et al

    Simpson, C. M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, L29

    2016

  38. [46]

    A., Eraker, J

    Simpson, J. A., Eraker, J. H., et al. 1974, Science, 185, 160

    1974

  39. [47]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    Spitkovsky, A. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    2005

  40. [48]

    E., et al

    Tiede, P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 157

    2017

  41. [49]

    E., et al

    Tiede, P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 123

    2020

  42. [50]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 43 van Weeren, R

    Vafin, S., Rafighi, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 43 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 16

    2018

  43. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 930, L8

    Vanthieghem, A., Lemoine, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L8

    2022

  44. [52]

    G., et al

    Willingale, R., West, R. G., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 749

    1996

  45. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 897, L41

    Xu, R., Spitkovsky, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L41

    2020

  46. [54]

    Zweibel, E. G. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 055402

    2017

Pith tools

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