Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Modeling the astrosphere of LHS~1140

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper claims that a full 3D GCR modulation model yields essentially unmodulated cosmic-ray proton intensities at the habitable-zone exoplanet LHS 1140 b, opposite to the strong modulation and nose-tail variation produced by the 1D…

desk verdict First 3D GCR run for LHS 1140 says the spectrum at planet b is unmodulated, overturning 1D estimates—but the result leans on an untested turbulence scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04018 v1 pith:AVNJDF2A submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HE

K. Scherer , K. Herbst , N.E. Engelbrecht , S.E.S. Ferreira , J. Kleimann , J. Light This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.HE
keywords astrospheresgalacticcosmicrayscosmic-raymodulationLHS1140M-dwarfstellarwindsmultifluidMHDsimulationsexoplanethabitabilityatmosphericionization
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 models the astrosphere of the M dwarf LHS 1140 with 3D multifluid MHD simulations, then computes the galactic cosmic-ray (GCR) proton spectrum reaching the habitable-zone planet LHS 1140 b with both a 1D and a 3D stochastic modulation code. Its central result is that the 3D code yields essentially unmodulated GCR intensities at the planet, nearly equal to the local interstellar spectrum, while the 1D code fed with the same MHD inputs predicts strong modulation and large nose-versus-tail differences. The difference matters because atmospheric ionization, radiation dose, and the chemistry and biosignatures inferred from transmission spectra all depend directly on the GCR spectrum at the top of the atmosphere. The paper concludes that 3D GCR modulation is necessary for astrospheres and that earlier 1D-based estimates of cosmic-ray effects on this planet's atmosphere are unrealistic. It also finds that the astrosphere is so small that the planet is submerged in the interstellar neutral-hydrogen flow.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the 3D stochastic solver of the Parker cosmic-ray transport equation, which uses the full diffusion tensor with parallel and perpendicular mean free paths computed from turbulence theory plus gradient and curvature drifts, whereas the 1D code has only a radial diffusion coefficient $\kappa_{rr}\sim 1/B$. The second load-bearing piece is the 3D multifluid MHD astrosphere simulation that supplies the large-scale wind speed, its divergence, and the astrospheric magnetic field, while small-scale turbulence quantities such as magnetic variances and correlation lengths are scaled from heliospheric observations by the ratio of the astrospheric to heliospheric magnetic field magnitude. Because the star rotates slowly with a period near 131 days, the Parker spiral is underwound, which strengthens the inward transport channels that the 3D code captures. The chain ends with the GEANT4-based atmospheric radiation interaction simulator, which converts the arrival spectra into ion-pair production and water-phantom dose rates.

What would settle it

Recompute the 3D GCR proton spectra at LHS 1140 b with the magnetic variance and correlation length inputs reduced by an order of magnitude relative to the heliospheric-scaled values while keeping all other MHD inputs fixed; if the spectrum at the planet drops noticeably below the local interstellar spectrum, the essentially unmodulated claim is wrong. Alternatively, any future observational constraint on M-dwarf wind turbulence levels, such as scintillation or radio measurements that place these quantities below the assumed scaling, would settle the issue.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing discovery, stated in Section 7, is that the fully 3D stochastic solver of the Parker transport equation, run on the 3D multifluid MHD astrosphere of LHS 1140, gives GCR proton intensities at LHS 1140 b that are essentially unmodulated, equal to the assumed local interstellar spectrum, in both nose and tail directions and for both single-fluid and multifluid MHD inputs. This directly contradicts the 1D solver's output, which shows substantial modulation and order-of-magnitude nose-to-tail variation. The authors attribute the difference to transport mechanisms that a 1D radial code cannot represent: perpendicular diffusion and drift effects, which are particularly effective because LHS 1140's slow rotation winds the Parker spiral field only loosely, easing GCR entry. The same modeling chain yields atmospheric ion-pair production rates up to 25% higher at the surface than the 1D multifluid result and up to 220% higher in the upper atmosphere, with surface radiation dose rates an order of magnitude above an Earth-like TRAPPIST-1e scenario. The paper's conclusion is that shock distances for cosmic-ray work must come from 3D multifluid MHD models, and that 1D modulation estimates for astrospheres can be unrealistically small.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small-scale magnetic turbulence in LHS 1140's astrosphere can be scaled from heliospheric measurements by the ratio of the astrospheric to heliospheric magnetic field magnitude; if that turbulence is actually much weaker or differently configured than the scaling implies, the inward diffusion and drifts that produce the unmodulated spectrum would weaken and the central result would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 3D result is correct, the GCR background at LHS 1140 b is essentially the local interstellar spectrum, so previous 1D-based atmospheric ionization and radiation estimates for this planet are substantially wrong, generally too low in the upper atmosphere and artificially dependent on nose versus tail direction.
  • The termination shock, astropause, and bow shock distances used in exoplanet cosmic-ray studies must be taken from 3D multifluid MHD simulations, because analytic single-fluid HD estimates such as the Parker distance formula do not hold when magnetic fields and neutrals are included.
  • Because the astrosphere is tiny, the planet is submerged in the interstellar neutral-hydrogen flow, meaning the atmosphere receives a largely unshielded hydrogen influx that can participate in atmospheric chemistry.
  • The combination of unmodulated GCRs and the hydrogen flood makes atmospheric ionization and secondary particle cascades stronger than previously modeled, affecting chemistry, radiation dose, and the interpretation of transmission spectra and biosignature information.
  • The slow rotation of LHS 1140 is the key parameter easing cosmic-ray entry; larger astrospheres around faster-rotating or more strongly magnetized stars would show more modulation, though the authors expect it would not be dramatically lower.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the unmodulated result generalizes, planets around other slowly rotating, magnetically quiet M dwarfs may also receive nearly unmodulated GCR fluxes, so their atmospheric chemistry should be modeled with the interstellar spectrum rather than a heavily shielded spectrum.
  • Beyond the paper: the central conclusion has an untested flank in the turbulence scaling assumption; running the 3D modulation code with magnetic variances and correlation lengths reduced by an order of magnitude would directly test how sensitive the unmodulated spectrum is to that assumption.
  • Beyond the paper: 1D-based astrospheric GCR estimates for other exoplanets, many of which have reported negligible intensities, may need to be re-examined with 3D transport before habitability or biosignature conclusions are drawn.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper models the astrosphere of the M dwarf LHS 1140 with four MHD/HD variants (single-fluid vs. multifluid, with and without magnetic fields) using the Cronos code, and then uses the resulting large-scale plasma parameters as inputs to 1D and 3D stochastic solvers of the Parker GCR transport equation. The authors find that the multifluid MHD termination shock, astropause, and bow shock distances (2.2, 3.7, and 11.4 au for the fiducial run) are smaller than the single-fluid HD analytic estimate, and that the neutral hydrogen flux penetrates the astrosphere nearly unperturbed. The 1D GCR code yields energy-dependent modulation with large nose-tail differences, whereas the 3D code yields essentially unmodulated proton intensities equal to the local interstellar spectrum at the planet. The authors then use the AtRIS atmospheric code to compute ionization rates and water-phantom dose rates, concluding that a 3D approach is necessary to avoid unrealistic GCR intensity estimates for exoplanetary habitability studies.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper overturns previous 1D-based conclusions that GCR effects at LHS 1140 b are modest, and it provides a clear example where the dimensionality of the modulation model matters despite a tiny astrosphere. The manuscript is transparent about its inputs and methods: all four MHD model classes are compared on the same grid, the parameter tables (Table A.1) are complete enough to reproduce the simulations, and the atmospheric calculations use a well-established GEANT4-based code. The comparison of 1D and 3D codes with identical MHD inputs is a useful methodological contribution, and the paper explicitly identifies the role of perpendicular diffusion and drifts that are absent from the 1D approach. However, the headline 'unmodulated spectrum' result is not yet supported to the level of the paper's categorical conclusions, because it depends on turbulence scalings that are not sensitivity tested and because the more realistic larger-astrosphere cases are not run through the 3D GCR code.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Eq. 5) and Section 7] The central claim in Section 7 that the 3D GCR code yields 'essentially unmodulated' intensities at LHS 1140 b rests on the diffusion tensor in Eq. (5), whose parallel and perpendicular mean free paths are computed from small-scale turbulence quantities (magnetic variances and correlation lengths) that Section 4 states are 'modeled analytically based on heliospheric observations ... scaled down by the ratio of the magnitude of the astrospheric magnetic field at 1 au to that of the heliospheric magnetic field.' No sensitivity test is presented for this scaling: varying B* in Section 6.1 changes the large-scale field but is stated to leave modulation unaffected without a figure, and the mass-loss/wind-speed runs in Section 6.2 are not used to recompute the 3D spectra. If the actual turbulence in the LHS 1140 wind is weaker, or configured differently, the perpendicular diffusion and drift terms that allow GCRs to stream inward would be reduced, and the spectrum at the planet could show significant modulation. The categorical conclusion that 1D estimates are 'unrealistic' is therefore stronger than the evidence presented.
  2. [Section 6.1, Table 2] The sentence 'the modulation of GCRs within, however, is unaffected by these changes (not shown here)' is not an adequate substitute for a quantitative test. Since the turbulence scaling in Section 4 directly ties magnetic variances to the background magnetic field magnitude, increasing B* from 1 G to 10 G or 50 G changes the diffusion tensor inputs, not just the shock distances. The authors should either show the 3D spectra for these cases or give a specific argument for why the relevant dimensionless ratios (e.g., variance-to-B^2, parallel-to-perpendicular mean free path) remain unchanged.
  3. [Section 7 and Figures 8 / Table 2] The 3D GCR calculation is performed only for the fiducial small-wind case (vsw = 250 km/s, Mdot = 5e-17 Msun/yr). The runs with more realistic parameters (e.g., vsw = 430 km/s, Mdot = 2.6e-16 Msun/yr in Table 2, with TS = 7.8 au) produce substantially larger astrospheres, but the paper does not report 3D GCR spectra for them. The statement that such spectra 'could be expected to be more modulated ... but would not be significantly lower, due to the slow rotation of LHS 1140' is an unquantified expectation. Because the conclusion that 3D modulation remains negligible for the realistic parameter set is part of the paper's central claim, this needs to be demonstrated rather than asserted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table A.1] The distance to LHS 1140 is given as (12.47 ± 0.42) pc in the abstract and Section 1, but Table A.1 lists d_star = 14.98 pc; these values should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 2.1] The sentence beginning 'the inner boundary of the integration area can be chosen to be one-third' is garbled by the footnote insertion; it should read 'one-third of the analytic TS distance r_TS given by Eq. (3).'
  3. [Section 6.1, Eq. (8)] The inequality direction appears reversed: for the ram pressure to dominate over magnetic pressure one needs M_A^2 = (rho u^2/2)/(B^2/8pi) > 1, not < 1, as the text itself requires super-Alfvenic flow at the inner boundary.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.7)] The stellar wind density is said to be taken 'at LHS1140 b (rp = 0.0270 au),' but Section 1 gives the planet's orbital distance as 0.0875 au; since the mass-loss rate derived from this equation scales as rp^2, this discrepancy should be corrected.
  5. [Section 6.3] The sentence 'This assumes that the ISM is at rest relative to the' breaks off and appears incomplete.
  6. [Figure 7 caption] The phrase 'The number density in the rest of the star is shown' is unclear; presumably the outer parts of the computational domain are meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3D unmodulated GCR result is a genuine simulation output; the main risk is an untested turbulence scaling assumption, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the 3D GCR modulation code yields essentially unmodulated intensities at LHS 1140 b whereas the 1D code does not—is a computed model comparison, not a self-fulfilling definition. The 3D result follows from solving the Parker transport equation (Eq. 5) with a full diffusion tensor whose parallel and perpendicular mean free paths are constructed from explicitly stated quasilinear/NLGC expressions and from small-scale turbulence parameters that are scaled from heliospheric observations (Sec. 4). No parameter is fitted to the predicted unmodulated spectrum, and the 1D and 3D codes are run with the same MHD inputs, so the difference between them is a genuine numerical output. The self-citations to Engelbrecht et al. (2024) and Light et al. (2022) supply the numerical solvers, but the computations are re-executed here rather than being imported as a theorem; there is no uniqueness argument or ansatz whose only support is a same-author citation. The weaker points are robustness concerns rather than circularity: the heliospheric scaling of magnetic variances and correlation lengths is untested for an M-dwarf wind, the magnetic-field-strength runs are stated to leave GCR modulation 'unaffected (not shown here)' (Sec. 6.1), and Sec. 7 asserts without quantification that larger astrospheres 'could be expected to be more modulated... but would not be significantly lower.' These omissions weaken empirical support for the categorical 3D-necessity conclusion, but they do not reduce any equation to its own input or rename a known result as a prediction. Accordingly, no definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a chain of modeling assumptions: the MHD equations and source terms, the Parker spiral stellar wind field, the transport coefficients of the GCR codes, the choice of the local interstellar spectrum, and the atmospheric interaction model. Most quantitative inputs are 'sophisticated guesses' (Table A.1 notes). The ledger lists the parameters and axioms that carry the load.

free parameters (9)
  • Stellar wind speed v_sw = 250 km/s (baseline), 430 km/s (MEV estimate)
    Assumed lower limit and model-derived value; sets astrosphere size and GCR convection; varying it by a factor of 4 changes TS distances by a factor of 3-4 (Section 6.2, Table 2).
  • Stellar mass-loss rate Mdot = 5e-17 Msun/yr (baseline), 2.6e-16 Msun/yr (MEV), 1.2e-15 in sensitivity runs
    Chosen from slow-rotator arguments and from the Modi et al. (2023) scaling; directly sets ram pressure and TS distance via Eq. (3) and in the simulations.
  • Surface magnetic field strength B_star = 1 G baseline, 10 G and 50 G in sensitivity runs
    Described as a 'sophisticated guess' (Table A.1, note d); affects magnetosonic speeds and astrosphere asymmetry, and the paper claims it does not affect GCR modulation.
  • ISM proton density n_ism,p = 0.06 cm^-3
    Assumed local ISM value from heliospheric estimates; participates in ram-pressure balance and sets the TS/BS distances.
  • ISM neutral hydrogen density n_ism,H = 0.1 cm^-3 (baseline), 1 cm^-3 for run MM1
    Assumed, with a factor-10 variation tested; controls the hydrogen flux onto the planet and the charge-exchange coupling (Section 3, Table 1).
  • ISM flow speed u_ism = 48 km/s
    Derived from Simbad radial velocity and proper motion; uncertain, and the paper notes the ISM velocity direction can vary dramatically.
  • ISM magnetic field B_ism = 0.3 nT with phi=150 deg, theta=30 deg
    Assumed from heliospheric LISM estimates; breaks symmetry in the MHD runs and shapes the outer astrosheath.
  • GCR local interstellar spectrum = Strauss et al. (2011) LIS
    Assumed boundary condition for both modulation codes; the paper notes the LIS may vary within the Galaxy, and a different LIS would linearly shift fluxes and ionization rates.
  • Atmospheric ionization energy and cutoff energy = E_ion = 36 eV, E_C = 1 MeV
    Assumed values for the H2-H2O atmosphere and a weak planetary magnetic field; directly enter Eq. (6) and the dose calculations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Plasma is described by single-fluid or multifluid ideal MHD with gamma=5/3, with neutral hydrogen coupled via charge exchange, electron impact, and photoionization source terms (Eq. 1).
    Standard for astrosphere modeling; invoked in Section 2 as the governing framework.
  • ad hoc to paper The stellar wind magnetic field is a Parker spiral with B_star=1 G at r0, and the ISM field is uniform; both are joined by a vector-potential transition between r1=r_TS/2 and r2=2 r_TS.
    Initial and boundary setup in Appendix A; chosen for numerical convenience and not observationally constrained for LHS 1140.
  • domain assumption The Parker (1965) GCR transport equation with a full diffusion tensor is the correct model for GCR modulation, with turbulence quantities scaled from heliospheric observations by the ratio of magnetic field magnitudes.
    Section 4; central to the 3D code result, and the scaling is an untested transfer of solar-system turbulence relations to another star.
  • domain assumption The local interstellar GCR spectrum at LHS 1140 equals the heliospheric LIS of Strauss et al. (2011).
    Section 4; the paper notes the LIS may vary within the Galaxy but adopts this as a first assumption.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric interaction simulations (AtRIS/GEANT4) with an H2-H2O composition and E_ion=36 eV adequately represent LHS 1140 b's atmosphere.
    Section 5; the atmospheric composition is taken from Wunderlich et al. (2021), not from direct observation of this planet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the astrosphere of LHS~1140." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVNJDF2A

@misc{pith2026241204018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the astrosphere of LHS~1140},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVNJDF2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04018}
}
read the original abstract

The cosmic ray (CR) flux, as well as the hydrogen flux into the atmosphere of an exoplanet, can change the composition of the atmosphere. Here, we present the CR and hydrogen flux on top of the atmosphere. To do so, we have to study the 3D multifluid MHD structure of astrospheres. We discuss the shock structure of the stellar wind of LHS 1140 using four different models: HD and MHD single-fluid models, as well as multifluid models for both cases, including a neutral hydrogen flow from the interstellar medium. The CR flux in a multifluid model as well as the ionization rate in an exoplanetary atmosphere are also presented. The astrosphere is modeled using the 3D Cronos code, while the CR flux at LHS 1140 b is calculated using both a 1D and a 3D stochastic galactic CR modulation code. Finally, the atmospheric ionization and radiation dose is estimated using the AtRIS code. Results. It is shown that the 3D multifluid positions of the termination shock differ remarkably from those found in the 3D ideal-single fluid hydrodynamic case. CR fluxes computed using a 1D approach are completely different from those calculated using the 3D modulation code and show an essentially unmodulated spectrum at the exoplanet in question. Utilizing these spectra, ionization rates and radiation exposure within the atmosphere of LHS 1140 b are derived. The termination shock, astropause, and bow shock distances must be taken from the 3D multifluid MHD model to determine the CR fluxes correctly. Moreover, because of the tiny astrosphere, the exoplanet is submerged in the neutral hydrogen flow of the interstellar medium, which will influence the exoplanetary atmosphere. A 3D approach to Galactic\0 cosmic ray (GCR) modulation in astrospheres is also necessary to avoid unrealistic estimates of GCR intensities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proton number density for HD runs. Left: single-fluid results (model SH). Right: multifluid results (model MH). 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 n [cm-3] -30 -20 -10 0 10 x [au] -10 -20 0 10 20 y [au] -30 -20 -10 0 10 x [au] -10 -20 0 10 20 y [au] BS TS AP BS TS AP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proton number density for MHD runs. Left: single-fluid results (model SM). Right: multifluid results (model MM). 3. HD vs. MHD results The results of our simulations are shown in Figures 1 to 4. In the left panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The astrosphere of LHS 1140 compared to the heliosphere (left; e.g., Herbst et al. 2020b) with a zoom-in (right) showing the astrosphere of LHS 1140 in comparison to the Solar system. Shown is the number density in units of cm−3 . Colors are not to scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multifluid runs. Upper panel: The xz-plane showing the asym￾metry in the tail (with the hydrogen density increased to 1 cm−3 ). Lower panel: The hydrogen density along the x-axis. The termination shock (TS), astropause (AP), the bow shock (BS), and the termination shoc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GCR proton differential intensities calculated using a 1D (left panel) and a 3D (right panel) GCR modulation code for the various MHD models under consideration, in the nose and tail directions, as a function of kinetic energy. Also shown are observations of GCR proton…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: GCR-induced atmospheric ionization of LHS 1140 b based on the 1D single- and multifluid runs (in black and blue, respectively) in noseward (solid lines) and tailward (dashed lines) direction. The results utilizing the 3D GCR fluxes are shown in purple. In …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the TS, AP, and BS distance changes due to variable stellar magnetic field strengths (1 G in black, 10 G in red, and 50 G in blue). The number density in the rest of the star is shown. M stars, GJ 406 (M4.5, rotation period ∼ 40 days) is listed with th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: TS, AP, and BS distance changes caused by different stellar wind speeds: vsw = 250 km/s (black line) and vsw = 1000 km/s (red line). In both runs a stellar mass loss rate of M˙ = 1.2·10−15 M⊙/yr was assumed. The blue line shows the distances for vsw = 430 km/s and M˙ =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Stellar impact on exoplanetary atmospheric evolution and habitability

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    This is a review, not a new result: it consolidates stellar-evolution, atmospheric-escape, photochemistry, and magnetic-shielding literature for exoplanet habitability and biosignature interpretation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al

    Airapetian, V. S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136-194

    2020

  2. [2]

    Althukair , A. K. & Tsiklauri , D. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 115015

    2023

  3. [3]

    D., Drake , J

    Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., Drake , J. J., Moschou , S. P., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L13

    2019

  4. [4]

    & Blasi , P

    Amato , E. & Blasi , P. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2731

    2018

  5. [5]

    2020, , 492, L28

    Atri , D. 2020, , 492, L28

    2020

  6. [6]

    R., Scherer , K., Fichtner , H., et al

    Baalmann , L. R., Scherer , K., Fichtner , H., et al. 2020, , 634, A67

    2020

  7. [7]

    R., Scherer , K., Kleimann , J., et al

    Baalmann , L. R., Scherer , K., Kleimann , J., et al. 2022, , 663, A10

    2022

  8. [8]

    2019, JGR: Space Phys., 124, 50

    Banjac , S., Herbst , K., & Heber , B. 2019, JGR: Space Phys., 124, 50

    2019

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    F., McArthur , B., Nelan , E., et al

    Benedict , G. F., McArthur , B., Nelan , E., et al. 1998, , 116, 429

    1998

  2. [10]

    Bondar , N. I. 2019, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 31, 295

    2019

  3. [11]

    A., Kr \"u ger , T

    Burger , R. A., Kr \"u ger , T. P. J., Hitge , M., & Engelbrecht , N. E. 2008, Astrophys. J., 674, 511

    2008

  4. [12]

    A., Nel , A

    Burger , R. A., Nel , A. E., & Engelbrecht , N. E. 2022, , 926, 128

    2022

  5. [13]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15490

    Cadieux , C., Plotnykov , M., Doyon , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15490

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J

    Chebly , J. J., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., Poppenh \"a ger , K., & Garraffo , C. 2023, , 524, 5060

    2023

  7. [15]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    Chen, H., Zhan, Z., Youngblood, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 298

    2021

  8. [16]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2592

    Cohen, O. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2592

    2011

  9. [17]

    & Friedrichs , K

    Courant , R. & Friedrichs , K. O. 1948, Supersonic flow and shock waves (New York: Interscience)

    1948

  10. [18]

    & Kleimann , J

    Czechowski , A. & Kleimann , J. 2017, Annales Geophysicae, 35, 1033

    2017

  11. [19]

    A., Irwin , J

    Dittmann , J. A., Irwin , J. M., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2017, , 544, 333

    2017

  12. [20]

    L., Wood , B

    Edelman , E., Redfield , S., Linsky , J. L., Wood , B. E., & M \"u ller , H. 2019, , 880, 117

    2019

  13. [21]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 44

    Edwards, B., Changeat, Q., Mori, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 44

    2020

  14. [22]

    Engelbrecht , N. E. & Di Felice , V. 2020, , 102, 103007

    2020

  15. [23]

    E., Effenberger , F., Florinski , V., et al

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Effenberger , F., Florinski , V., et al. 2022, , 218, 33

    2022

  16. [24]

    E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R. D. T., et al. 2024, , 964, 89

    2024

  17. [25]

    E., Mohlolo , S

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Mohlolo , S. T., & Ferreira , S. E. S. 2019, , 884, L54

    2019

  18. [26]

    Engelbrecht , N. E. & Moloto , K. D. 2021, Astrophys. J., 908, 167

    2021

  19. [27]

    Engelbrecht , N. E. & Wolmarans , C. P. 2020, , 66, 2722

    2020

  20. [28]

    Engle , S. G. & Guinan , E. F. 2023, , 954, L50

    2023

  21. [29]

    M., Steele, L

    Etheridge, D. M., Steele, L. P., Francey, R. J., & Langenfelds, R. L. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 103, 15979

    1998

  22. [30]

    V., & Bera , R

    Fraternale , F., Pogorelov , N. V., & Bera , R. K. 2023 a , , 953, 121

    2023

  23. [31]

    V., & Bera , R

    Fraternale , F., Pogorelov , N. V., & Bera , R. K. 2023 b , , 946, 97

    2023

  24. [32]

    P., Keppens , R., & Poedts , S

    Goedbloed , J. P., Keppens , R., & Poedts , S. 2010, Advanced Magnetohydrodynamics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Grenfell , J. L. 2019, in Biosignatures for Astrobiology, ed. B. Cavalazzi & F. Westall , 223

    2019

  26. [34]

    2019, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 9, A2

    Guo , J., Banjac , S., R \"o stel , L., et al. 2019, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 9, A2

    2019

  27. [35]

    2022, , 218, 29

    Herbst , K., Baalmann , L., Bykov , A., et al. 2022, , 218, 29

    2022

  28. [36]

    Herbst , K., Banjac , S., Atri , D., & Nordheim , T. A. 2020 a , , 633, A15

    2020

  29. [37]

    Herbst , K., Banjac , S., & Nordheim , T. A. 2019 a , , 624, A124

    2019

  30. [38]

    L., et al

    Herbst , K., Bartenschlager , A., Grenfell , J. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 164

    2024

  31. [39]

    L., Sinnhuber , M., et al

    Herbst , K., Grenfell , J. L., Sinnhuber , M., et al. 2019 b , , 631, A101

    2019

  32. [40]

    Herbst , K., Scherer , K., Ferreira , S. E. S., et al. 2020 b , , 897, L27

    2020

  33. [41]

    L., Bott, K., Dalba, P

    Hill, M. L., Bott, K., Dalba, P. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 34

    2023

  34. [42]

    V., Kiefer , R., & Metcalfe , T

    Jeffers , S. V., Kiefer , R., & Metcalfe , T. S. 2023, , 219, 54

    2023

  35. [43]

    Johnstone , C. P. & G \"u del , M. 2015, , 578, A129

    2015

  36. [44]

    Jokipii , J. R. & K \'o ta , J. 2000, Astrophys. Space Sci., 274, 77

    2000

  37. [45]

    Jokipii , J. R. & Parker , E. N. 1970, Astrophys. J., 160, 735

    1970

  38. [46]

    2018, , 236, 53

    Kissmann , R., Kleimann , J., Krebl , B., & Wiengarten , T. 2018, , 236, 53

    2018

  39. [47]

    2023, , 953, 133

    Kleimann , J., Oughton , S., Fichtner , H., & Scherer , K. 2023, , 953, 133

    2023

  40. [48]

    Korolkov , S. D. & Izmodenov , V. V. 2024, , 528, 2812

    2024

  41. [49]

    2013, Space Sci

    K \'o ta , J. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 176, 391

    2013

  42. [50]

    T., Donati , J

    Lehmann , L. T., Donati , J. F., Fouqu \'e , P., et al. 2024, , 527, 4330

    2024

  43. [51]

    Light , J., Ferreira , S. E. S., Engelbrecht , N. E., Scherer , K., & Herbst , K. 2022, MNRAS , 516, 3284

    2022

  44. [52]

    2020, , 642, A121

    Lillo-Box , J., Figueira , P., Leleu , A., et al. 2020, , 642, A121

    2020

  45. [53]

    H., Qin, G., Bieber, J

    Matthaeus, W. H., Qin, G., Bieber, J. W., & Zank, G. P. 2003, Astrophys. J., 590, L53

    2003

  46. [54]

    McDonald , F. B. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 83, 33

    1998

  47. [55]

    B., Moraal , H., Reinecke , J

    McDonald , F. B., Moraal , H., Reinecke , J. P. L., Lal , N., & McGuire , R. E. 1992, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 1557

    1992

  48. [56]

    1981, Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals, 18, 1398

    McNair, A. 1981, Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals, 18, 1398

    1981

  49. [57]

    L., Rodgers-Lee , D., & Vidotto , A

    Mesquita , A. L., Rodgers-Lee , D., & Vidotto , A. A. 2021, , 505, 1817

    2021

  50. [58]

    L., Rodgers-Lee , D., Vidotto , A

    Mesquita , A. L., Rodgers-Lee , D., Vidotto , A. A., & Kavanagh , R. D. 2022, MNRAS , 515, 1218

    2022

  51. [59]

    2023, , 525, 5168

    Modi , A., Estrela , R., & Valio , A. 2023, , 525, 5168

    2023

  52. [60]

    D., Engelbrecht , N

    Moloto , K. D., Engelbrecht , N. E., & Burger , R. A. 2018, Astrophys. J., 859, 107

    2018

  53. [61]

    A., Dartnell , L

    Nordheim , T. A., Dartnell , L. R., Desorgher , L., Coates , A. J., & Jones , G. H. 2015, , 245, 80

    2015

  54. [62]

    N., Katsova , M

    Obridko , V. N., Katsova , M. M., & Sokoloff , D. D. 2022, , 516, 1251

    2022

  55. [63]

    F., Zank , G., et al

    Opher , M., Drake , J. F., Zank , G., et al. 2021, , 922, 181

    2021

  56. [64]

    Parker , E. N. 1963, Interplanetary dynamical processes. (New York, Interscience Publishers, 1963.)

    1963

  57. [65]

    Parker , E. N. 1965, , 13, 9

    1965

  58. [66]

    S., Benaglia , P., Brookes , D

    Peri , C. S., Benaglia , P., Brookes , D. P., Stevens , I. R., & Isequilla , N. L. 2012, , 538, A108

    2012

  59. [67]

    S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N

    Peri , C. S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N. L. 2015, , 578, A45

    2015

  60. [68]

    V., Fichtner , H., Czechowski , A., et al

    Pogorelov , N. V., Fichtner , H., Czechowski , A., et al. 2017, , 212, 193

    2017

  61. [69]

    Quenby , J. J. 1984, Space Sci. Rev., 37, 201

    1984

  62. [70]

    D., Bykov , A., Effenberger , F., et al

    Richardson , J. D., Bykov , A., Effenberger , F., et al. 2023, , 219, 6

    2023

  63. [71]

    M., Vidotto , A

    Rodgers-Lee , D., Taylor , A. M., Vidotto , A. A., & Downes , T. P. 2021 a , MNRAS , 504, 1519

    2021

  64. [72]

    A., & Mesquita , A

    Rodgers-Lee , D., Vidotto , A. A., & Mesquita , A. L. 2021 b , , 508, 4696

    2021

  65. [73]

    R., Fichtner , H., et al

    Scherer , K., Baalmann , L. R., Fichtner , H., et al. 2020, , 493, 4172

    2020

  66. [74]

    J., Bzowski , M., & Ferreira , S

    Scherer , K., Fichtner , H., Fahr , H. J., Bzowski , M., & Ferreira , S. E. S. 2014, , 563, A69

    2014

  67. [75]

    Scherer , K., Fichtner , H., Heber , B., Ferreira , S. E. S., & Potgieter , M. S. 2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 1171

    2008

  68. [76]

    2022, , 663, A67

    Scherer , K., Husidic , E., Lazar , M., & Fichtner , H. 2022, , 663, A67

    2022

  69. [77]

    L., Wunderlich , F., et al

    Scheucher , M., Grenfell , J. L., Wunderlich , F., et al. 2018, , 863, 6

    2018

  70. [78]

    2020 a , ApJ, 893, 12

    Scheucher , M., Herbst , K., Schmidt , V., et al. 2020 a , ApJ, 893, 12

    2020

  71. [79]

    L., et al

    Scheucher , M., Wunderlich , F., Grenfell , J. L., et al. 2020 b , ApJ, 898, 44

    2020

  72. [80]

    2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics (Berlin: Springer)

    Schlickeiser , R. 2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics (Berlin: Springer)

    2002

  73. [81]

    2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Shalchi, A. 2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 362, Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories (Berlin: Springer)

    2009

  74. [82]

    W., & Matthaeus , W

    Shalchi , A., Bieber , J. W., & Matthaeus , W. H. 2004, Astrophys. J., 604, 675

    2004

  75. [83]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 82

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Lionello, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 82

    2023

  76. [84]

    2011, Annales Geophysicae, 29, 187

    Simon Wedlund, C., Gronoff, G., Lilensten, J., M\'enager, H., & Barth\'elemy, M. 2011, Annales Geophysicae, 29, 187

    2011

  77. [85]

    D., Potgieter , M

    Strauss , R. D., Potgieter , M. S., Kopp , A., & B \"u sching , I. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A12105

    2011

  78. [86]

    B., Sadovski , A

    Struminsky , A. B., Sadovski , A. M., & Zharikova , M. S. 2018, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 58, 1108

    2018

  79. [87]

    L., Grie meier , J

    Tabataba-Vakili , F., Grenfell , J. L., Grie meier , J. M., & Rauer , H. 2016, A&A, 585

    2016

  80. [88]

    & Schlickeiser , R

    Teufel , A. & Schlickeiser , R. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 397, 15

    2003

  81. [89]

    A., Segura, A., Meadows, V., Hawley, S., & Davenport, J

    Tilley, M. A., Segura, A., Meadows, V., Hawley, S., & Davenport, J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64

    2019

  82. [90]

    Vidotto, A. A. & Bourrier, V. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4026

    2017

  83. [91]

    2015, , 805, 155

    Wiengarten , T., Fichtner , H., Kleimann , J., & Kissmann , R. 2015, , 805, 155

    2015

  84. [92]

    2014, Astrophys

    Wiengarten , T., Kleimann , J., Fichtner , H., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J, 788, 80

    2014

  85. [93]

    Wilkin , F. P. 1996, , 459, L31

    1996

  86. [94]

    L., Kasper , J

    Wilson , Lynn B., I., Stevens , M. L., Kasper , J. C., et al. 2018, , 236, 41

    2018

  87. [95]

    Wood , B. E. & Linsky , J. L. 1998, , 492, 788

    1998

  88. [96]

    E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al

    Wood , B. E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al. 2021 a , , 915, 37

    2021

  89. [97]

    E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al

    Wood , B. E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al. 2021 b , , 915, 37

    2021

  90. [98]

    L., et al

    Wunderlich , F., Scheucher , M., Grenfell , J. L., et al. 2021, , 647, A48

    2021

Pith tools

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