Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Simulations of Astrophysically Relevant Pair Beam Instabilities in a Laboratory Context

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that plasma instabilities remove only about 4 percent of the energy of blazar-induced pair beams and cause negligible angular broadening, because electrostatic oblique modes dominate over electromagnetic filamentation…

desk verdict Lab-scale threshold mapping is solid and worth publishing; the astrophysical 4% energy-loss and 6.7e-4 rad broadening claims are extrapolations from three gamma=3 runs and should be conditional until backed by broader simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14518 v2 pith:D53QINIE submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE

Suman Dey , Günter Sigl This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords laboratoryastrophysicsastrophysicalplasmablazarsbeam-plasmainstabilitiesparticle-in-cellmethodhigh-energypairbeamsintergalacticmedium
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 uses particle-in-cell simulations to ask how much of a blazar-induced electron-positron beam's energy is drained by plasma instabilities and whether those instabilities spread the beam sideways. It argues that for warm, broad beams — the kind a realistic pair beam approximates — the electrostatic oblique instability, not the electromagnetic filamentation instability, dominates as long as the beam is dilute. Extrapolating saturation scalings measured at $\gamma=3$ to the very dilute, very relativistic beams of sources like 1ES 0229+200, the authors conclude that instability removes roughly 4 percent of the beam energy and produces only about $6.7\times10^{-4}$ rad of angular broadening. If correct, plasma instability is a minor, not dominant, energy-loss channel for such cascades and does not significantly affect the angular structure of gamma-ray halos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the density contrast $\alpha = n_{b0}/n_{\mathrm{bg}}$ and the two competing instabilities: the electrostatic oblique instability and the electromagnetic current filamentation instability. The beam distribution is a broad relativistic Cauchy (Breit-Wigner) function, chosen over a Maxwellian to model the non-thermal high-energy tail of blazar pair beams. The machinery that connects laboratory to astrophysics is the pair of power-law fits, Eqs. (10) and (11), extracted from saturation values of PIC runs at $\gamma=3$ and $\alpha=0.0005,\,0.005,\,0.05$, which are then extrapolated to the very low $\alpha$ of real blazar beams.

What would settle it

Run fully kinetic simulations (or a laboratory measurement) at a density contrast near $10^{-10}$–$10^{-7}$ with the highest feasible Lorentz factor and check whether the fractional energy loss and angular broadening continue to follow the $\alpha^{0.07}$ and $\alpha^{0.19}$ scalings; a break in either scaling would invalidate the 4 percent and $6.7\times10^{-4}$ rad extrapolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, across the density contrasts simulated, the dominant instability changes from the electrostatic oblique mode to the electromagnetic filamentation mode as the beam density contrast $\alpha$ increases past roughly 0.005–0.05. With a Cauchy momentum distribution that mimics the broad, non-Maxwellian character of astrophysical pair beams, the electrostatic mode saturates by transferring about 7 percent of the beam kinetic energy into fields for the most dilute case, while the total fractional beam energy loss at saturation follows a power law $\Delta U/U_{\mathrm{beam},0}\sim 0.48\,\alpha^{0.07}$ and the nonlinear angular broadening follows $\Delta\theta_{\mathrm{non-lin}}\sim 0.75\,\alpha^{0.19}$ radians. Applying these fits to a 1ES 0229+200-like blazar with $\alpha\simeq9.1\times10^{-17}(\gamma/10^7)$, the paper obtains a 4 percent energy loss and a $6.7\times10^{-4}$ rad angular spread, concluding that instability feedback is a weak energy-loss and broadening mechanism for realistic pair beams.

Load-bearing premise

The astrophysical numbers rest on assuming that the power-law scalings measured at Lorentz factor 3 and density contrast $10^{-4}$–$10^{-2}$ remain valid when extrapolated to Lorentz factor $10^7$ and density contrast $10^{-17}$, meaning that neither the linear growth nor the saturation mechanism changes character across those seven orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For blazar-induced pair beams with $\alpha\sim10^{-17}$, plasma instability removes roughly 4 percent of the beam kinetic energy, so inverse-Compton cooling rather than instability dominates the cascade energetics.
  • The angular broadening of about $6.7\times10^{-4}$ rad for $\gamma=10^7$ is small enough that instability feedback will not erase or reshape gamma-ray halo morphology.
  • Laboratory experiments using warm pair beams with $\alpha\lesssim0.005$ and initial angular spread $\theta_0=0.5$ should enter the same electrostatic-dominated regime as the astrophysical case, making them valid testbeds.
  • Across the simulated $\alpha$ range, the fractional energy loss varies only weakly with density contrast as $\alpha^{0.07}$, so even extremely dilute beams keep a non-negligible energy loss of a few percent.
  • The threshold near $\alpha=0.005$–$0.05$ identifies where electromagnetic filamentation overtakes electrostatic oblique instability for warm beams, guiding both experiment design and analytic modeling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same power-law scalings imply that at intermediate density contrasts near $\alpha\sim10^{-6}$, the energy loss would still be several percent while angular broadening would be of order $10^{-3}$ rad; a dedicated run at such parameters would test the extrapolation without reaching astrophysical $\alpha$.
  • If the electrostatic saturation mechanism weakens at very low $\alpha$ because nonlinear Landau damping or background inhomogeneity becomes relatively stronger, the 4 percent estimate could be an upper limit, making instability even less consequential for cascade spectra.
  • The two-orders-of-magnitude gap between this paper's $6.7\times10^{-4}$ rad and reference [64]'s $5\times10^{-6}$ rad estimates indicates an unresolved discrepancy between PIC saturation and analytic steady-state treatments, which has direct consequences for intergalactic magnetic field constraints.
  • The Cauchy distribution's Debye-screening length nearly matches that of a Maxwellian beam, so the instability selection may be insensitive to the exact tail shape; a test with a kappa distribution having harder power-law tails could check whether the energy-loss scalings survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 2D particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, performed with the EPOCH code, to study the linear and nonlinear evolution of a warm, non-Maxwellian (Cauchy-distributed) relativistic pair beam propagating through a background plasma. The simulations are run at a fixed Lorentz factor gamma=3, fixed initial angular spread theta0=0.5, and three values of the density contrast alpha (0.0005, 0.005, 0.05). The authors report that for alpha at or below 0.005 the electrostatic oblique instability dominates, while at alpha=0.05 electromagnetic filamentation becomes important, and they compare the measured oblique growth rate at alpha=0.005 to the theoretical value. They then fit power laws to the fractional beam energy loss and the angular broadening as functions of alpha, given in Eqs. (10) and (11), and extrapolate these fits to the parameters of 1ES 0229+200-like blazar-induced pair beams (gamma=10^7, alpha~9.1e-17). This extrapolation yields a fractional energy loss of about 4% and an angular broadening of about 6.7e-4 rad, which the paper characterizes as negligible.

Significance. The laboratory-scale finding—that a warm beam with alpha at or below 0.005 is in the electrostatic-oblique-dominated regime and that the measured growth rate matches linear theory to about 10%—is a useful, well-documented result that can guide future laboratory experiments on relativistic pair beams. The paper also includes a comparison of Cauchy versus Maxwellian beam distributions and reports numerical convergence checks in Appendix B, both of which are strengths. The astrophysical extrapolation, however, is the headline claim of the abstract and conclusions, and it rests on power-law fits obtained at only three alpha values at gamma=3 and theta0=0.5. As such, the significance of the paper hinges on whether that extrapolation can be justified; in its present form, the astrophysical numbers are not supported by the simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Eqs. (10)-(15)] The central astrophysical claims—approximately 4% energy loss and 6.7e-4 rad angular broadening—are obtained by inserting alpha from Eq. (13) into power-law fits Eqs. (10) and (11), which were fitted at gamma=3, theta0=0.5, sigma_par,0=1 MeV, sigma_perp,0=0.5 MeV, over alpha=0.0005 to 0.05. The extrapolation to gamma=10^7 and alpha~9.1e-17 spans roughly seven orders of magnitude in both alpha and gamma, and about six orders of magnitude in theta0. The gamma dependence in Eq. (14) comes solely from the assumption alpha proportional to gamma in Eq. (13); no simulation at higher gamma is presented. Moreover, the angular-broadening fit is made at theta0=0.5, whereas the astrophysical beam has theta0~1e-7, and Fig. 7 shows that the transverse magnetic field, and hence the filamentation contribution, depends strongly on sigma_perp,0 at fixed alpha. Without a physics-based justification for the scalings, or additional simulations at higher gamma and smaller theta0, the numbers in Eqs. (14) and (15) are unsupported.
  2. [Section 7 and Conclusions, Eq. (15)] The abstract and conclusions state that the instability produces a 'negligible angular broadening' for blazar-induced beams, but the extrapolated value in Eq. (15) is Delta theta_nonlin ~ 6.7e-4 rad, which is about four orders of magnitude larger than the intrinsic opening angle theta0 ~ 10^-7 rad for gamma=10^7. The paper does not define the comparison basis for 'negligible.' If the instability broadens the beam from ~10^-7 rad to ~7e-4 rad, that is a large relative broadening and the statement as written is internally inconsistent. The authors should clarify what they mean by 'negligible' and, if the broadening is indeed large compared to the intrinsic angle, discuss the implications for cascade calculations.
  3. [Sections 5-6, Eqs. (10) and (11)] The power-law fits in Eqs. (10) and (11) are based on only three alpha values (0.0005, 0.005, 0.05), and the fitted coefficients and indices are reported without uncertainties. The error bars in Table 4 are time-window uncertainties, not fit uncertainties. Because the astrophysical conclusions inherit the power-law indices (0.07 and 0.19), the paper should report the fit uncertainties and demonstrate that the conclusions are robust to reasonable variations, for example by giving the confidence intervals, by showing a fit with one point removed, or by comparing to a theoretical scaling. With three points, the indices are poorly constrained and the extrapolated 4% and 6.7e-4 rad values are therefore fragile.
  4. [Sections 3 and 4.1, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The paper argues that the simulation setup 'closely resembles the characteristics of an astrophysical pair beam,' but the simulated beam has sigma_par,0=1 MeV and sigma_perp,0=0.5 MeV, giving theta0=0.5, while the astrophysical beam has theta0~1e-7. Equation (9) derives sigma_perp,0 ~ m_e c for the astrophysical case, which matches the simulated sigma_perp,0, but the ratio theta0 also depends on the longitudinal momentum spread; the simulated beam's relative energy spread at gamma=3 is large, whereas at gamma=10^7 the same sigma_par,0 would represent a much narrower relative spread. The paper does not explain how the gamma=3, theta0=0.5 configuration maps to the astrophysical regime, and this lack of a scaling argument is part of the extrapolation problem. Please either provide such an argument or temper the claim that the simulations replicate astrophysical pair-beam conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data availability] The 'Data availability' statement says 'No data is used for the research described in the article.' Since the paper reports PIC simulation results, the input decks, analysis scripts, and simulation outputs would be useful for reproducibility; the statement should be clarified or the data should be made available.
  2. [Section 4.2] The comparison of the measured oblique growth rate (about 0.064 omega_p) to the theoretical value (about 0.071 omega_p) is reported only for alpha=0.005. Reporting the same comparison for all three alpha values would strengthen the validation of the linear-theory prediction.
  3. [Equation (9)] Equation (9) writes sigma_perp,0 = p sin(theta0) = gamma m_e sin(gamma^{-1}) ~ m_e, but the argument of the sine should be the opening angle theta0 ~ gamma^{-1}, not gamma^{-1} itself; the notation is confusing and should be rewritten.
  4. [Table 3 and text] The dominant instability for alpha=0.05 is called 'Transverse current filamentation' in Table 3 but 'current filamentation instability (Cfi)' and 'electromagnetic filamentation' elsewhere; the terminology should be made consistent.
  5. [Section 5, Fig. 10 caption] The caption states 'The fitted power-law index for the alpha scaling is 0.07' without any uncertainty; please include the fit parameters and their errors in the figure or table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the astrophysical numbers are conditional extrapolations of the PIC-derived scalings, not quantities forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's only fitted quantities are the two three-point power-law scalings of the fractional beam energy loss and angular broadening (Eqs. (10) and (11)), obtained from EPOCH-2D runs at gamma=3, theta0=0.5 with alpha = 0.0005, 0.005, and 0.05. The 1ES 0229+200 estimates in Eqs. (14) and (15) are obtained by evaluating those scalings at alpha ~ 9.1e-17 (gamma/1e7), using Eq. (13). That is an extrapolation across many orders of magnitude and should be treated as conditional, but it is not circular: the predicted point is not included in the fit, the fit was not constructed from the target quantity, and no astrophysical datum is used to set the fitted constants. The lab-scale dominance claim (oblique instability for alpha <= 0.005) is supported by the simulations themselves, with the simulated growth rate matching the independent linear-theory formula (Eq. (2)) to about 10%. Self-citations ([22], [33], [45], [50]) are contextual or technical; none is the sole carrier of the central instability/energy-loss argument. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The weak point is the unvalidated assumption that the alpha power laws hold at astrophysical gamma and theta0, which is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extrapolated numbers are not self-contained: they rest on power-law fits from three gamma=3 runs, on the Rafighi et al. selection criteria, and on the assumption that no new physics intervenes between the laboratory and astrophysical regimes. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced, but no code or output data are shipped to independently verify the numerical claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Energy-loss power-law amplitude A_E = 0.48
    Fitted in Eq. (10) to the fractional beam energy loss from three PIC runs with alpha=0.0005, 0.005, and 0.05.
  • Energy-loss power-law index n_E = 0.07
    Fitted in Eq. (10); controls the weak alpha scaling and directly enters the extrapolated 4 percent astrophysical energy loss.
  • Angular-broadening power-law amplitude A_theta = 0.75
    Fitted in Eq. (11) to the nonlinear transverse momentum broadening measured in the three PIC runs.
  • Angular-broadening power-law index n_theta = 0.19
    Fitted in Eq. (11); used in Eq. (15) to obtain the 6.7e-4 rad astrophysical broadening estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The linear growth rates for oblique and filamentation instabilities, Eqs. (1) and (2) from Bret et al. [32], apply to the simulated ultra-relativistic warm beam.
    Used in Section 4.2 to compare with measured growth rates and to support the simulation-theory consistency check.
  • standard math The electrostatic kinetic dispersion relation, Eq. (3), with the resonance condition omega minus k dot v equals zero, describes the plasma response.
    Used in Section 3 to compute plasma screening lengths for Maxwellian and Cauchy beam distributions.
  • domain assumption The background plasma is unmagnetized, collisionless, and neutral, with immobile protons and no external magnetic field.
    Adopted in Section 2 and Table 1; the authors note in the conclusions that a magnetized background could suppress the instability and modify the dilute-beam condition.
  • domain assumption Physically relevant laboratory simulations must satisfy the two criteria from Rafighi et al. [31]: kinetic energy density ratio epsilon less than one and electrostatic instability dominating over electromagnetic instability.
    Defines what the paper means by a physically relevant configuration and by a dilute beam; Section 1 and Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The power-law scalings fitted at gamma=3 and alpha from 5e-4 to 5e-2 remain valid when extrapolated to gamma=1e7 and alpha near 1e-17.
    Section 7, Eqs. (14) and (15), assumes the fitted Eqs. (10) and (11) hold across many orders of magnitude not covered by the simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulations of Astrophysically Relevant Pair Beam Instabilities in a Laboratory Context." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D53QINIE

@misc{pith2026250114518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulations of Astrophysically Relevant Pair Beam Instabilities in a Laboratory Context},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D53QINIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14518}
}
abstract

The interaction of TeV blazars emitted gamma-rays with the extragalactic background photons gives rise to a relativistic beam of electron-positron ($e^- e^+$) pairs propagating through the intergalactic medium, producing a cascade through up-scattering low-energy photons. Plasma instability is considered one of the underlying energy-loss processes of the beams. We employ particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations to study the plasma instabilities of relativistic pair beams propagating in a denser background plasma, using the parameters designed to replicate astrophysical jets under laboratory conditions. In an astrophysical scenario with a broad, dilute beam, electromagnetic instability is suppressed because the beam exhibits momentum anisotropy with a large longitudinal momentum spread compared to its transverse momentum. We find the range of density contrast at which electrostatic modes are dominating over electromagnetic modes with an anisotropic beam in laboratory scales, consistent with the physically relevant conditions for Blazar-induced beams. We have used a broad Cauchy distribution for the beam particles, which is more realistic in representing the non-Maxwellian nature of pair beams, improving upon previous studies. We investigate the interplay between the instability-generated magnetic field and the momentum anisotropy of the beam. We extrapolate the beam energy loss and the angular broadening due to non-linear feedback of instability. We find that the astrophysical beams have lost approximately 4\% of their total energy due to instability. Nevertheless, the instability generates a negligible angular broadening for Blazar-induced beams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution function described by Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fraction of beam kinetic energy converted into the (a) longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional snapshots of the growth rate of instability in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison of magnetic field to electric field strength across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of beam kinetic energy transferred into the transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of the transverse magnetic field with varying den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Momentum distribution in two dimensions for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The power-law scaling of the fractional beam energy loss, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The power-law scaling of ∆θnon-lin approximately at the end of non￾linear phase with α is observed at tωp ≃ {1940.1300, 670} respectively for α = {0.0005, 0.005, 0.05}. This indicates the moment when the beam starts to enter the saturation phase. The black dashed line…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. J. Gould, G. P. Schréder, Opacity of the universe to high-energy photons, Phys. Rev. 155 (5) (1967) 1408.do i:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1408

    doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1408 1967

  2. [2]

    G. R. Blumenthal, R. J. Gould, Bremsstrahlung, syn- chrotron radiation, and compton scattering of high-energy electrons traversing dilute gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42 (2) (1970) 237.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

  3. [3]

    F. A. Aharonian, TeV blazars and cosmic infrared back- ground radiation, in: 27th International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, 2001, pp. 250–261.arXiv:astro-ph/011231 4

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Neronov, D

    A. Neronov, D. V . Semikoz, Sensitivity of gamma-ray telescopes for detection of magnetic fields in intergalac- tic medium, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 123012.arXiv: 0910.1920,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123012

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Neronov, I

    A. Neronov, I. V ovk, Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from fermi observations of tev blazars, Science 328 (5974) (2010) 73–75.doi:10.1126/sc ience.1184192

    doi:10.1126/sc 2010

  6. [6]

    Elyiv, A

    A. Elyiv, A. Neronov, D. V . Semikoz, Gamma-ray induced cascades and magnetic fields in intergalactic medium, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 023010.arXiv:0903.3649, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.023010

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    A. M. Taylor, I. V ovk, A. Neronov, Extragalactic magnetic fields constraints from simultaneous GeV-TeV observa- tions of blazars, Astron. Astrophys. 529 (2011) A144. arXiv:1101.0932,doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/20 1116441

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Mori, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue, Lower Bounds on Intergalactic Magnetic Fields from Simultaneously Observed GeV-TeV Light Curves of the Blazar Mrk 501, 11 Astrophys. J. Lett. 744 (2012) L7.arXiv:1103.3835, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/744/1/L7

    arXiv 2012

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    V ovk, A

    I. V ovk, A. M. Taylor, D. Semikoz, A. Neronov, Fermi/LAT observations of 1ES 0229+200: implications for extragalactic magnetic fields and background light, Astrophys. J. Lett. 747 (2012) L14.arXiv:1112.2534, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L14

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Durrer, A

    R. Durrer, A. Neronov, Cosmological magnetic fields: their generation, evolution and observation, Astron. As- trophys. Rev. 21 (2013) 1–109.doi:10.1007/s00159 -013-0062-7

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    V . A. Acciari, I. Agudo, T. Aniello, S. Ansoldi, L. An- tonelli, A. A. Engels, M. Artero, K. Asano, D. Baack, A. Babi´c, et al., A lower bound on intergalactic magnetic fields from time variability of 1es 0229+200 from magic and fermi/lat observations, Astron. Astrophys. 670 ...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Aharonian, J

    F. Aharonian, J. Aschersleben, M. Backes, V . B. Mar- tins, R. Batzofin, Y . Becherini, D. Berge, B. Bi, M. Bouyahiaoui, M. Breuhaus, et al., Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field using fermi-lat and hess blazar observations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 950 (2) (2023) L16.do...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    A. E. Broderick, P. Tiede, M. Shalaby, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, P. Chang, A. Lamberts, Bow Ties in the Sky I: The Angular Structure of Inverse Compton Gamma-ray Halos in the Fermi Sky, Astrophys. J. 832 (2) (2016) 109. arXiv:1609.00387,doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/ 2/109

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bret, M.-C

    A. Bret, M.-C. Firpo, C. Deutsch, Electromagnetic insta- bilities for relativistic beam-plasma interaction in whole k space: Nonrelativistic beam and plasma temperature ef- fects, Phys. Rev. E 72 (1) (2005) 016403.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevE.72.016403

    2005

  7. [15]

    A. E. Broderick, P. Chang, C. Pfrommer, The Cosmolog- ical Impact of Luminous TeV Blazars I: Implications of Plasma Instabilities for the Intergalactic Magnetic Field and Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background, Astrophys. J. 752 (2012) 22.arXiv:1106.5494,doi:10.1088/0004 -637X/752/1/22

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Miniati, A

    F. Miniati, A. Elyiv, Relaxation of Blazar Induced Pair Beams in Cosmic V oids: Measurement of Magnetic Field in V oids and Thermal History of the IGM, Astrophys. J. 770 (2013) 54.arXiv:1208.1761,doi:10.1088/0004 -637X/770/1/54

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Schlickeiser, D

    R. Schlickeiser, D. Ibscher, M. Supsar, Plasma effects on fast pair beams in cosmic voids, Astrophys. J. 758 (2) (2012) 102.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/102

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Schlickeiser, S

    R. Schlickeiser, S. Krakau, M. Supsar, Plasma effects on fast pair beams. ii. reactive versus kinetic instability of parallel electrostatic waves, Astrophys. J. 777 (1) (2013) 49.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/49

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Sironi, D

    L. Sironi, D. Giannios, Relativistic Pair Beams from TeV Blazars: A Source of Reprocessed GeV Emission rather than Intergalactic Heating, Astrophys. J. 787 (2014) 49. arXiv:1312.4538,doi:10.1088/0004-637X/787/ 1/49

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vafin, I

    S. Vafin, I. Rafighi, M. Pohl, J. Niemiec, The electrostatic instability for realistic pair distributions in blazar/ebl cas- cades, Astrophys. J. 857 (1) (2018) 43.doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aab552

    2018

  13. [21]

    Alves Batista, A

    R. Alves Batista, A. Saveliev, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, The Impact of Plasma Instabilities on the Spectra of TeV Blazars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 489 (3) (2019) 3836–3849.arXiv:1904.13345,doi:10.1093/mn ras/stz2389

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. E. E. Castro, S. Rossoni, G. Sigl (2024).arXiv:2405 .15390

    2024

  15. [23]

    Alawashra, M

    M. Alawashra, M. Pohl, Nonlinear Feedback of the Elec- trostatic Instability on the Blazar-induced Pair Beam and GeV Cascade, Astrophys. J. 964 (1) (2024) 82.arXiv: 2402.03127,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad24ea

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H. Chen, G. Fiksel, D. Barnak, P.-Y . Chang, R. Heeter, A. Link, D. Meyerhofer, Magnetic collimation of rela- tivistic positrons and electrons from high intensity laser– matter interactions, Phys. Plasmas 21 (4) (2014).doi: 10.1063/1.4873711

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    H. Chen, F. Fiuza, A. Link, A. Hazi, M. Hill, D. Hoarty, S. James, S. Kerr, D. Meyerhofer, J. Myatt, et al., Scaling the yield of laser-driven electron-positron jets to labora- tory astrophysical applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (21) (2015) 215001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.21 5001

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Liang, T

    E. Liang, T. Clarke, A. Henderson, W. Fu, W. Lo, D. Tay- lor, P. Chaguine, S. Zhou, Y . Hua, X. Cen, et al., High e+/e- ratio dense pair creation with 1021w. cm- 2 laser irradiating solid targets, Sci. Rep. 5 (1) (2015) 13968. doi:10.1038/srep13968

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Sarri, K

    G. Sarri, K. Poder, J. Cole, W. Schumaker, A. Di Piazza, B. Reville, T. Dzelzainis, D. Doria, L. Gizzi, G. Grittani, et al., Generation of neutral and high-density electron– positron pair plasmas in the laboratory, Nat. Commun. 6 (1) (2015) 6747.doi:10.1038/ncomms7747

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Hooker, J

    C. Hooker, J. Collier, O. Chekhlov, R. Clarke, E. Divall, K. Ertel, B. Fell, P. Foster, S. Hancock, A. Langley, et al., The astra gemini project–a dual-beam petawatt ti: Sap- phire laser system, in: J. Phys. IV (Proceedings), V ol. 133, EDP sciences, 2006, pp. 673–677.doi:10.1...

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    Peebles, G

    J. Peebles, G. Fiksel, M. Edwards, J. von der Lin- den, L. Willingale, D. Mastrosimone, H. Chen, Mag- netically collimated relativistic charge-neutral electron– positron beams from high-power lasers, Phys. Plasmas 28 (7) (2021).doi:10.1063/5.0053557

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    C. D. Arrowsmith, et al., Laboratory realization of rel- ativistic pair-plasma beams, Nature Commun. 15 (1) (2024) 5029.arXiv:2312.05244,doi:10.1038/s4 1467-024-49346-2

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rafighi, S

    I. Rafighi, S. Vafin, M. Pohl, J. Niemiec, Plasma effects on relativistic pair beams from tev blazars: Pic simulations and analytical predictions, Astron. Astrophys. 607 (2017) A112.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731127

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, M. E. Dieckmann, Multidimen- sional electron beam-plasma instabilities in the relativistic regime, Phys. Plasmas 17 (12) (2010).doi:10.1063/1. 3514586

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    M. Beck, O. Ghosh, F. Grüner, M. Pohl, C. B. Schroeder, G. Sigl, R. D. Stark, B. Zeitler (2023).arXiv:2306.168 39

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kempf, P

    A. Kempf, P. Kilian, F. Spanier, Energy loss in intergalac- tic pair beams: Particle-in-cell simulation, Astron. Astro- phys. 585 (2016) A132.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/20 1527521

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    D. Yan, J. Zhou, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, J. Wang, Impact of Plasma Instability on Constraint of the Intergalactic Mag- netic Field, Astrophys. J. 870 (1) (2019) 17.arXiv: 1810.07013,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef7d

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chang, The physics and cosmology of TeV blazars in a nutshell, 2013.arXiv:1308.6284

    P. Chang, The physics and cosmology of TeV blazars in a nutshell, 2013.arXiv:1308.6284

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chang, A

    P. Chang, A. E. Broderick, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, A. Lamberts, M. Shalaby, The Effect of Nonlinear Landau Damping on Ultrarelativistic Beam Plasma Instabilities, Astrophys. J. 797 (2) (2014) 110.arXiv:1410.3797, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/110

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Supsar, R

    M. Supsar, R. Schlickeiser, Plasma effects on fast pair beams. iii. oblique electrostatic growth rates for perpen- dicular maxwellian pair beams, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 783 (2) (2014) 96.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/ 2/96

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Chang, A

    P. Chang, A. E. Broderick, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, A. Lamberts, M. Shalaby, G. Vasil, The linear instability of dilute ultrarelativistic e±pair beams, The Astrophysical Journal 833 (1) (2016) 118.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 833/1/118

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Shalaby, A

    M. Shalaby, A. E. Broderick, P. Chang, C. Pfrommer, A. Lamberts, E. Puchwein, Importance of resolving the spectral support of beam-plasma instabilities in simula- tions, Astrophys. J. 848 (2) (2017) 81.arXiv:1704.000 14,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b17

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Tiede, A

    P. Tiede, A. E. Broderick, M. Shalaby, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, P. Chang, A. Lamberts, Bow Ties in the Sky. II. Searching for Gamma-Ray Halos in the Fermi Sky Us- ing Anisotropy, Astrophys. J. 850 (2) (2017) 157.arXiv: 1702.02585,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9375

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Shalaby, A

    M. Shalaby, A. E. Broderick, P. Chang, C. Pfrommer, A. Lamberts, E. Puchwein, Growth of Beam–Plasma In- stabilities in the Presence of Background Inhomogeneity, Astrophys. J. 859 (1) (2018) 45.arXiv:1804.05071, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe92

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Shalaby, A

    M. Shalaby, A. E. Broderick, P. Chang, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, A. Lamberts, The growth of the longitu- dinal beam–plasma instability in the presence of an in- homogeneous background, J. Plasma Phys. 86 (2) (2020) 535860201.arXiv:2003.02849,doi:10.1017/S002 2377820000215

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, D. Benisti, Exact relativistic ki- netic theory of the full unstable spectrum of an electron- beam–plasma system with maxwell-jüttner distribution functions, Phys. Rev. E 81 (3) (2010) 036402.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.036402

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Ghosh, In light and dark: Laboratory and astrophysical probes of the late universe, Ph.D

    O. Ghosh, In light and dark: Laboratory and astrophysical probes of the late universe, Ph.D. thesis, Staats-und Uni- versitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    E. M. Lifshitz, Physical kinetics, Landau and Lifshitz course of theoretical physics 10 (1981) Sec–22

    1981

  39. [47]

    Silin, On the electromagnetic properties of a relativistic plasma, Sov

    V . Silin, On the electromagnetic properties of a relativistic plasma, Sov. Phys. JETP 11 (5) (1960) 1136–1140. URLhttp://jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_011_05 _1136.pdf

    1960

  40. [48]

    C. P. Ridgers, et al., Contemporary particle-in-cell ap- proach to laser-plasma modelling, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57 (11) (2015) 113001.doi:10.1088/0741-3 335/57/11/113001

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    C. D. Arrowsmith, N. Shukla, N. Charitonidis, R. Boni, H. Chen, T. Davenne, A. Dyson, D. Froula, J. T. Gud- mundsson, B. Huffman, et al., Generating ultradense pair beams using 400 gev/c protons, Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (2) (2021) 023103.doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 3.023103

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Beck, Numerical studies for a laboratory astrophysics experiment of unstable electron-positron beams, Ph.D

    M. Beck, Numerical studies for a laboratory astrophysics experiment of unstable electron-positron beams, Ph.D. thesis, Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    A. V . Higuera, J. R. Cary, Structure-preserving second- order integration of relativistic charged particle trajec- tories in electromagnetic fields, Phys. Plasmas 24 (5) (2017).doi:10.1063/1.4979989. 13

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    J.-L. Vay, B. B. Godfrey, Modeling of relativistic plasmas with the particle-in-cell method, Comptes Rendus Mé- canique 342 (10-11) (2014) 610–618.doi:10.1016/ j.crme.2014.07.006

    2014

  45. [53]

    R. C. Davidson, D. A. Hammer, I. Haber, C. E. Wagner, Nonlinear development of electromagnetic instabilities in anisotropic plasmas, The Physics of Fluids 15 (2) (1972) 317–333

    1972

  46. [54]

    Achterberg, J

    A. Achterberg, J. Wiersma, C. Norman, The weibel insta- bility in relativistic plasmas-ii. nonlinear theory and stabi- lization mechanism, Astronomy & Astrophysics 475 (1) (2007) 19–36

    2007

  47. [55]

    J. R. Peterson, S. Glenzer, F. Fiuza, Magnetic field am- plification by a nonlinear electron streaming instability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (21) (2021) 215101.arXiv:2104 .08246,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.215101

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    J. R. Peterson, S. Glenzer, F. Fiuza, Magnetic Field Am- plification by a Plasma Cavitation Instability in Relativis- tic Shock Precursors, Astrophys. J. Lett. 924 (1) (2022) L12.arXiv:2201.03547,doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ ac44a2

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E. S. Weibel, Spontaneously growing transverse waves in a plasma due to an anisotropic velocity distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (3) (1959) 83.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLet t.2.83

    1959 doi

  50. [58]

    P. H. Yoon, R. C. Davidson, Exact analytical model of the classical weibel instability in a relativistic anisotropic plasma, Phys. Rev. A 35 (6) (1987) 2718.doi:10.110 3/PhysRevA.35.2718

    1987

  51. [59]

    Sakai, T

    J.-i. Sakai, T. Nakayama, Y . Kazimura, S. Bulanov, Mag- netic field generation and subsequent field dissipation with plasma heating in relativistic streaming pair plas- mas, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69 (8) (2000) 2503–2513.doi: 10.1143/jpsj.69.2503

    2000 doi

  52. [60]

    L. O. Silva, R. A. Fonseca, J. W. Tonge, W. B. Mori, J. M. Dawson, On the role of the purely transverse weibel insta- bility in fast ignitor scenarios, Phys. Plasmas 9 (6) (2002) 2458–2461.doi:10.1063/1.1476004

    2002 doi

  53. [61]

    Jaroschek, H

    C. Jaroschek, H. Lesch, R. Treumann, Ultrarelativistic plasma shell collisions inγ-ray burst sources: dimen- sional effects on the final steady state magnetic field, As- trophys. J. 618 (2) (2005) 822

    2005

  54. [62]

    Groselj, L

    D. Groselj, L. Sironi, A. Spitkovsky, Long-term Evolution of Relativistic Unmagnetized Collisionless Shocks, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 963 (2) (2024) L44.arXiv:2401.02392, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2c8c

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    T. M. Kneiske, T. Bretz, K. Mannheim, D. H. Hartmann, Implications of cosmological gamma-ray absorption. 2. Modification of gamma-ray spectra, Astron. Astrophys. 413 (2004) 807–815.arXiv:astro- ph/0309141, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031542

    2004

  56. [64]

    Alawashra, I

    M. Alawashra, I. V ovk, M. Pohl (2024).arXiv:2412.0 1406. 14

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.