Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Interplay of large-scale drift and turbulence in the heliospheric propagation of solar energetic particles

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 Turbulence in the heliosphere cuts solar-energetic-particle drifts by only 20–90%, far less than theory predicts, so drifts remain a major force in SEP and cosmic-ray transport.

desk verdict First full-orbit test of drift reduction in a Parker spiral with 2D-slab turbulence, but the headline numbers rest on a scatter-model baseline that may understate the true no-turbulence drift and inflate fs. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13895 v1 pith:MQUUW6GZ submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

T. Laitinen (1) , S. Dalla (1) ((1) Jeremiah Horrocks Institute , University of Central Lancashire , UK) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticlesguidingcentredriftheliosphericturbulenceParkerspiraltestparticlesimulationsreductionfactorcosmicraytransportpitch-anglescattering
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

The paper asks how strongly the plasma turbulence of the solar wind suppresses the large-scale guiding-centre drift that the Parker-spiral magnetic field imposes on energetic particles. The authors run full-orbit test-particle simulations of 10, 100 and 1000 MeV protons in a newly developed analytic heliospheric turbulence model, and measure the drift reduction factor $f_s$ against a no-turbulence scattering baseline. They find $f_s$ between 0.2 and 0.9, depending on energy and turbulence amplitude, which is a much weaker suppression than the decorrelation-based theoretical models of 1997 and 2017 predict, especially at low proton energies. If this result holds, guiding-centre drifts are a significant factor in the evolution of solar energetic particle intensities and in cosmic-ray transport in the inner heliosphere.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the drift reduction factor $f_s = \Omega^2\tau^2/(1+\Omega^2\tau^2)$ from the Taylor-Green-Kubo formalism, where $\Omega$ is the particle gyrofrequency and $\tau$ the gyromotion decorrelation timescale; theoretical models estimate $\tau$ from field-line or particle cross-field diffusion, while the paper extracts $f_s$ directly by comparing two sets of simulations. The turbulence model adds a 2D-slab composite fluctuation field to the Parker spiral, with the dominant 2D component's wave vector and magnetic field vector both normal to the spiral, and the drift is measured by a new method: the median change in colatitude between a particle's first and last crossings of the 1 au sphere, averaged over 100 turbulence realisations.

What would settle it

Run the same particle energies and turbulence parameters in a full-orbit simulation with a constant background field plus a transverse gradient, following the earlier gradient-field approach: if those simulations give drift reduction factors matching the theoretical curves rather than the paper's $f_s$ values, the Parker-spiral geometry would be the origin of the discrepancy. Observationally, multi-spacecraft measurements of the heliolatitude dependence of ~100 MeV SEP events would test whether latitudinal drifts survive at the level the simulations imply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that in a turbulent Parker-spiral heliosphere, the mean latitudinal drift velocity of energetic protons is reduced to a factor $f_s = 0.2$–$0.9$ of the drift expected in the same field without turbulence, with the least reduction at high energy and low turbulence amplitude: $f_s \approx 0.9$ for 1000 MeV protons and $\delta B^2/B^2 = 0.2$, down to $f_s \approx 0.2$ for 10 MeV protons and $\delta B^2/B^2 = 0.6$. The suppression is therefore real, but considerably weaker than the values below 0.1 that decorrelation-based theoretical models predict at low energies. The authors conclude that drifts should be retained in models of solar energetic particle propagation and cosmic-ray modulation, at least for protons above about 100 MeV and for heavier ions with larger Larmor radii.

Load-bearing premise

The drift reduction factor is measured relative to the scatter simulation, which replaces turbulence with ad-hoc isotropic pitch-angle scattering; if that baseline does not faithfully represent the turbulent run's parallel transport or the no-turbulence drift, the quoted values of $f_s$ would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models of solar energetic particle propagation should include guiding-centre drifts; at 100 MeV and above, drift reduction is only about 10–40%, so omitting drifts misplaces particles in heliolatitude and longitude.
  • The drift reduction factor for 100 MeV protons spans 0.91 at weak turbulence to 0.23 at strong turbulence, meaning solar-cycle variations in turbulence amplitude change how much drift matters.
  • Since drift speed scales with Larmor radius, heavier ions at the same energy per nucleon experience even less relative suppression than protons, strengthening drift effects in heavy-ion SEP events.
  • The theoretical drift-reduction models overpredict suppression at low energies, which indicates their decorrelation timescale is too short or is set by a different physical process than the one the models assume.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the modest suppression holds for galactic cosmic rays as well, modulation models that currently suppress drift coefficients to match observations may be attributing too much of the suppression to turbulence; the heliospheric current sheet and other large-scale structure may be doing more of the work.
  • The crossing-based drift-measurement method could be applied to spacecraft data by tracking the centroid of SEP intensity in latitude over successive solar rotations, offering a direct observational check of the simulated reduction factors.
  • A natural extension is to repeat the analysis with a pre-computed 3D turbulence grid rather than the analytic Fourier-mode model; a large change in $f_s$ would show the analytic model's strict transverse-2D geometry influences the result.
  • The present model excludes the heliospheric current sheet and the motional electric field, so the quoted $f_s$ values apply to unipolar-field regions; particles crossing the sector boundary may experience different effective drift reduction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates how magnetic turbulence reduces the large-scale gradient and curvature drifts of solar energetic protons in the inner heliosphere. The authors use full-orbit test particle simulations in a Parker spiral superposed with a new analytic 2D-slab composite turbulence model, and compare the latitudinal drift measured between first and last crossings of the 1 au sphere in these 'turbulence' runs with that in 'scatter' runs where the same Parker spiral is used but turbulence is replaced by ad-hoc isotropic pitch-angle scattering with a quasi-linear mean free path. They introduce a drift reduction factor fs defined as the fitted ratio of the turbulent drift to the scatter drift. The reported fs values range from 0.2 to 0.9 depending on proton energy and turbulence amplitude, and are substantially larger than the predictions of Bieber & Matthaeus (1997) and Engelbrecht et al. (2017). The authors conclude that drifts are much less suppressed by turbulence than previously thought.

Significance. If the quantitative result holds, the paper challenges the strong drift suppression adopted in many cosmic-ray modulation models and provides a new tool for SEP propagation studies. The study is the first to assess drift reduction in a realistic Parker spiral geometry rather than in a uniform or gradient-only background field, and it makes a useful comparison with earlier test-particle simulations. The method of estimating drift from 1 au crossing statistics is novel, and the data are publicly released. The main caveat is that the reference 'no turbulence' drift is itself model-dependent, so the numerical values of fs carry a systematic uncertainty that is not yet quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (16)] The reference drift used to define fs is not validated against a true no-turbulence limit. The scatter model randomises the velocity vector at a rate set by λ∥, and for the parameters in Table 1 the scattering time at 1 au is comparable to the adiabatic focusing timescale in the Parker spiral. In a genuinely turbulence-free spiral, adiabatic focusing would make the pitch-angle distribution anisotropic, with (1/2 v⊥² + v∥²) approaching v² rather than the isotropic 2v²/3 used in Eq. (B3). The paper's justification that τ = λ∥/v ≫ 1/Ω only addresses gyrophase decorrelation, not the pitch-angle distribution. Because vd,scat may therefore underestimate the true no-turbulence drift, fs could be systematically overestimated; for set 4, vd,scat = 120 km/s versus the theoretical isotropic value 160 km/s at 1 au, and the focusing contribution to this discrepancy is not quantified. Please run a scatter-free Parker spiral control using the same first-last crossing analysis, or provide an analytic estimate of the focusing enhancement, to support the reported fs values.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (16)] The first-last crossing estimator excludes all particles that cross the 1 au sphere fewer than two times, but the paper does not report the fraction of excluded particles or how this selection differs between the turbulence and scatter simulations. At 10 MeV, where the B+ and B- distributions in Fig. 3(a) overlap substantially, this censorship could bias the median drift. Please report the crossing statistics for each simulation set and test the sensitivity of fs to the minimum-crossing criterion.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (18)] The fit forces a single constant fs across all ∆t. Figure 2 suggests that the ratio of the turbulence to scatter drift is not obviously constant in ∆t: the turbulence curve appears flatter than the scatter curve, and both decline with ∆t for different reasons (turbulent decoupling vs. spatial sampling of weaker drift regions). The weighting by particle number mitigates the influence of large-∆t bins, but if the true ratio is time-dependent, the fitted fs is a weighted average whose physical meaning is unclear. Please present fs(∆t) or test the constancy of the ratio, for example by fitting in separate ∆t intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The TGK validity argument contains a reversed inequality: from Eq. (10), fs < 0.90 implies τΩ < 3, not τΩ > 3. The conclusion that ∆t > 100 s is much larger than τ is unaffected, but the logic as written is wrong.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] Typo: 'condider' should be 'consider'.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to panel '(d) 1000 MeV' but the figure has only panels (a)-(c); the 1000 MeV panel is (c).
  4. [Table 1] Column 4 header has a double bracket 'km s−1]]'.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] Averaging the SQLT mean free path over 2 r⊙ to 1 au is a crude approximation; please state the resulting radial variation or justify that the average is representative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the drift reduction factor fs is measured from full-orbit simulations via Eq. (18), not obtained from a self-cited theory that contains the answer; self-citations are model inputs and the results are checked against external simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity fs is defined in Sec. 3.2 by Eq. (18) as the ratio of the turbulent-simulation drift to the scatter-simulation drift, obtained by fitting. This is a measurement of two independently integrated simulation ensembles, not a quantity derived from a model that already assumes the conclusion. The theoretical drift velocity (Appendix B, Eqs. B1-B4) is taken from Dalla et al. (2013) and is used only for normalization and comparison, not for constructing fs. The comparison values from Bieber & Matthaeus (1997) and Engelbrecht et al. (2017) are external formulas evaluated with parameters from the authors' turbulence model; this is a parameter application, not a circular reduction. Laitinen et al. (2023a,b) are self-cited as the turbulence model and its parameters, but these are inputs to the simulation, described in Appendix A, and the simulation is benchmarked against the independent results of Minnie et al. (2007) and Tautz & Shalchi (2012). The one vulnerable step is the choice of the scatter simulation as the 'without turbulence' reference (Sec. 3.2): the scatter model is not turbulence-free and its lambda_parallel is computed from the same turbulence model via quasi-linear theory; a physical bias in this baseline (e.g., prevention of adiabatic focusing) would shift fs. However, that is a modeling and correctness concern, not circularity: Eq. (18) does not reduce to an input assumption, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No self-citation is used as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of the central claim. A score of 0 is therefore appropriate.

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

The central result depends on a set of turbulence-model inputs inherited from prior work, a QLT-derived scattering baseline, and a new drift estimator. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is the realism of the turbulence model and the choice of the scatter baseline as the no-turbulence reference.

free parameters (5)
  • Turbulence amplitude at 1 au dB^2/B^2 = 0.2, 0.6, 2.0 (varied across sets)
    Chosen by hand in Table 1 to define weak, moderate, and strong turbulence; fs decreases monotonically with this parameter, so the central result depends on these choices.
  • 2D-to-slab power ratio = 80:20
    Fixed turbulence model parameter from Laitinen et al. (2023a); not fitted here but determines the turbulence geometry that produces drift suppression.
  • Turbulence spectral indices and breakpoint scales = Kolmogorov 8/3 (2D), 5/3 (slab); lc_perp = 0.04 (r/r_sun)^0.8 r_sun, lc_par = 2 lc_perp
    From the prior model; these scales set the Larmor-radius-to-breakpoint ratios that control fs in the comparison with theoretical models.
  • Parallel scattering mean free path for scatter baseline lambda_parallel = 0.17-1.6 au (Table 1)
    Computed from the turbulence model via quasi-linear theory and averaged over 2 r_sun to 1 au; this parameter defines the no-turbulence reference drift, so it directly influences the inferred fs.
  • Solar wind speed and Parker spiral parameters = v_sw = 400 km/s, a_eq ≈ 0.93 au
    Inputs to the background field model; the theoretical drift velocity scales with these values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lorentz force equation governs test-particle motion in a prescribed magnetic field.
    Used throughout; the simulations integrate the full equation of motion for each charged particle.
  • domain assumption Parker spiral model of the interplanetary magnetic field (Eq. 13).
    Assumes a monopolar Archimedean spiral with no heliospheric current sheet and no convective electric field; the gradient and curvature drifts of this field are the target of the study.
  • ad hoc to paper Laitinen et al. (2023a) 2D-slab composite heliospheric turbulence model.
    The turbulent fields are generated according to the authors' prior analytic model; its fidelity to real solar wind turbulence is not validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption Quasi-linear theory for the parallel mean free path used in the scatter baseline.
    lambda_parallel in the scatter runs is derived from SQLT applied to the turbulence parameters; if SQLT is inaccurate, the baseline calibration shifts.
  • domain assumption The scatter model with decorrelation time tau = lambda_parallel / v has tau >> 1/Omega, so fs approaches unity for that baseline.
    Used in Section 3.2 to justify treating the scatter model as the no-turbulence drift reference.
  • standard math Taylor-Green-Kubo formalism and Bieber & Matthaeus (1997) drift reduction theory.
    Basis for the theoretical fs values compared with the simulations in Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay of large-scale drift and turbulence in the heliospheric propagation of solar energetic particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQUUW6GZ

@misc{pith2026241213895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay of large-scale drift and turbulence in the heliospheric propagation of solar energetic particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQUUW6GZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13895}
}
read the original abstract

The gradient and curvature of the Parker spiral interplanetary magnetic field give rise to curvature and gradient guiding centre drifts on cosmic rays. The plasma turbulence present in the interplanetary space is thought to suppress the drifts, however the extent to which they are reduced is not clear. We investigate the reduction of the drifts using a new analytic model of heliospheric turbulence where the dominant 2D component has both the wave vector and the magnetic field vector normal to the Parker spiral, thus fulfilling the main criterion of 2D turbulence. We use full-orbit test particle simulations of energetic protons in the modelled interplanetary turbulence, and analyse the mean drift velocity of the particles in heliolatitude. We release energetic proton populations of 10, 100 and 1000~MeV close to Sun and introduce a new method to assess their drift. We compare the drift in the turbulent heliosphere to drift in a configuration without turbulence, and to theoretical estimates of drift reduction. We find that drifts are reduced by a factor 0.2-0.9 of that expected for the heliospheric configuration without turbulence. This corresponds to a much less efficient suppression than what is predicted by theoretical estimates, particularly at low proton energies. We conclude that guiding centre drifts are a significant factor for the evolution of cosmic ray intensities in the heliosphere including the propagation of solar energetic particles in the inner heliosphere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel (a): The distribution of the latitudinal displacements ∆θ between the first and last 1-au crossings of 100 MeV protons (simulation set 4) as a function of the time ∆t between the first and last crossings, ensemble-averaged over all turbulence realisations (Note that the interval of ∆θ ∈ [−1, 1] on the vertical axis is linear). In panel (b), the red crosses in the top panel show ∆θ, and the dashed line the theo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The drift velocity vdθ (in units of the theoretical drift velocity, Equation B3)) of 100 MeV protons in moderate turbulence for (a) B+ -polarity (simulation set 4) and (b) B- -polarity (simulation set 6) protons as a function of time interval ∆t between the first and last 1-au crossing. atically, demonstrating a macroscopic, systematic drift of the particle population in time. We compare the drift in [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probability density of ⟨vdθ⟩ r , the medians of the vdθ of the 100 different turbulence realisations, for dB2 /B2 = 0.6 at 1 au for (a) 10 MeV, (b) 100 MeV and (d) 1000 MeV protons, in units of vdθ,theor. The cyan and magenta curves show ⟨vdθ⟩ r distribution for B+ and B- po￾larities, respectively. The crosses and horizontal error bars show the median and uncertainty for the turbulence simula￾tions, and the filled c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) vdθ, in units of vdθ,theor, of 100 MeV protons (simulation sets 4) as a function of ∆t with symbols showing the turbulence simulations and cyan line the scatter simulations. The dashed black line shows the result of fitting Equation (18). (b) The number of particle…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Drift reduction factor for 100 MeV protons as a function of relative turbulence variance, from our simulations (black diamonds) and for the models by Bieber & Matthaeus (1997) (dashed curves) and Engelbrecht et al. (2017) (dot￾ted curves). The red circles and blue squa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Drift reduction factor for turbulence amplitude dB2 /B2 = 0.6 at 1 au, as a function of proton energy, from our simulations (black diamonds) and for Bieber & Matthaeus (1997) (dashed curves) and Engelbrecht et al. (2017) (dotted curves) theoretical models. The red circ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The theoretical drift velocity in heliolatitude, vdθ,theor, of 100 MeV protons in units of (a) km/s and (b) ◦ /48 h, as a function of heliocentric distance in the heliospheric equatorial plane, for the solar wind speed and Parker spiral magnetic field strength used in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    w ! * Ivh8 z/?xg OS1pC 9 9rb[ 2 Q ֤nU BJ VU-A )kM)[D\ CޤV` LlhqC6& ĜF<Ճ ؄ H& u =Wm6/P yر: řM)q!> _9 An xSF^ kw D 6 / u , eΘag\ ð p o;fmU) 6@* LEA;8ft

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Battarbee , M., Dalla , S., & Marsh , M. S. 2017, , 836, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/138

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/138 2017

  5. [5]

    2018, , 854, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fa

    ---. 2018, , 854, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fa 2018

  6. [6]

    W., & Matthaeus , W

    Bieber , J. W., & Matthaeus , W. H. 1997, , 485, 655, 10.1086/304464

    doi:10.1086/304464 1997

  7. [7]

    A., & Visser , D

    Burger , R. A., & Visser , D. J. 2010, , 725, 1366, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1366

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/1366 2010

  8. [8]

    A., & Halpern , G

    Burns , J. A., & Halpern , G. 1968, , 73, 7377, 10.1029/JA073i023p07377

    work page doi:10.1029/ja073i023p07377 1968

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    2004, , 2004, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/10/007

    Candia , J., & Roulet , E. 2004, , 2004, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/10/007

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    V., et al

    Chhiber , R., Subedi , P., Usmanov , A. V., et al. 2017, , 230, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa74d2

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Dalla , S., & Browning , P. K. 2005, , 436, 1103, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042589

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Kelly , J., & Laitinen , T

    Dalla , S., Marsh , M. S., Kelly , J., & Laitinen , T. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 5979, 10.1002/jgra.50589

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    S., & Laitinen , T

    Dalla , S., Marsh , M. S., & Laitinen , T. 2015, , 808, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/62

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Strauss , R

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Strauss , R. D., le Roux , J. A., & Burger , R. A. 2017, , 841, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7058

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Engelbrecht, N. E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 33, 10.1007/s11214-022-00896-1

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Jokipii , J

    Forman , M. A., Jokipii , J. R., & Owens , A. J. 1974, , 192, 535, 10.1086/153087

    1974 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Ruffolo , D., Chuychai , P., et al

    Ghilea , M. C., Ruffolo , D., Chuychai , P., et al. 2011, , 741, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/16

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Giacalone , J., & Jokipii , J. R. 1999, , 520, 204, 10.1086/307452

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    R., & K\'ota , J

    Giacalone , J., Jokipii , J. R., & K\'ota , J. 1999, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 7, 26th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC26), Volume 7, 37

    1999

  12. [20]

    Gleeson , L. J. 1969, , 17, 31, 10.1016/0032-0633(69)90121-4

    1969 doi

  13. [21]

    Green , M. S. 1951, , 19, 1036, 10.1063/1.1748449

    1951 doi

  14. [22]

    Jokipii , J. R. 1966, , 146, 480, 10.1086/148912

    1966 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Levy , E

    Jokipii , J. R., Levy , E. H., & Hubbard , W. B. 1977, , 213, 861, 10.1086/155218

    1977 doi

  16. [24]

    1957, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 12, 570, 10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    Kubo , R. 1957, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 12, 570, 10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    1957 doi

  17. [25]

    Laitinen , T., Dalla , S., Waterfall , C. O. G., & Hutchinson , A. 2023 a , , 943, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca892

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2023 b , , 673, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346384

    ---. 2023 b , , 673, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346384

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Dalla , S., Kelly , J., & Laitinen , T

    Marsh , M. S., Dalla , S., Kelly , J., & Laitinen , T. 2013, , 774, 4, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/4

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Qin , G., Bieber , J

    Matthaeus , W. H., Qin , G., Bieber , J. W., & Zank , G. P. 2003, , 590, L53, 10.1086/376613

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Smith , C

    Matthaeus , W. H., Smith , C. W., & Bieber , J. W. 1999, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 471, Solar Wind Nine, ed. S. R. Habbal , R. Esser , J. V. Hollweg , & P. A. Isenberg , 511--514, 10.1063/1.58686

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Matthaeus , W

    Minnie , J., Bieber , J. W., Matthaeus , W. H., & Burger , R. A. 2007, , 670, 1149, 10.1086/522026

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Parker , E. N. 1958, , 128, 664, 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  24. [32]

    1965, , 13, 9, 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    ---. 1965, , 13, 9, 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    1965 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Le Roux , J

    Potgieter , M. S., Le Roux , J. A., & Burger , R. A. 1989, , 94, 2323, 10.1029/JA094iA03p02323

    1989 doi

  26. [34]

    1970, Introduction to the physics of space

    Rossi , B., & Olbert , S. 1970, Introduction to the physics of space

    1970

  27. [35]

    H., & Chuychai , P

    Ruffolo , D., Pianpanit , T., Matthaeus , W. H., & Chuychai , P. 2012, , 747, L34, 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L34

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Shalchi , A

    Tautz , R. C., & Shalchi , A. 2012, , 744, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/125

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Taylor, G. I. 1922, Proceedings of the london mathematical society, 2, 196

    1922

  30. [38]

    P., Engelbrecht , N

    van den Berg , J. P., Engelbrecht , N. E., Wijsen , N., & Strauss , R. D. 2021, , 922, 200, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2736

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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