Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A comparison of the turbulent dynamo in weakly-collisional and collisional plasmas: from subsonic to supersonic turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the weakly-collisional turbulent dynamo is physically equivalent to the collisional MHD dynamo, with hybrid-PIC runs matching MHD runs at inferred kinetic Reynolds numbers of 480 (subsonic) and 690 (supersonic).

desk verdict First supersonic HPIC dynamo study with solid qualitative comparisons, but the inferred Reynolds numbers conflict with the paper's own growth-rate data. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05235 v1 pith:TLCNOKRQ submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COphysics.plasm-ph

Radhika Achikanath Chirakkara , Christoph Federrath , Amit Seta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COphysics.plasm-ph
keywords turbulentdynamoweakly-collisionalplasmahybridparticle-in-cellkineticReynoldsnumbersupersonicturbulencemagneticfieldamplificationintraclustermedium
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 whether the turbulent dynamo, the process that amplifies weak seed magnetic fields into dynamically strong ones, works the same way in weakly-collisional plasmas (where particle collisions are rare, as in the solar wind and the hot gas in galaxy clusters) as it does in ordinary collisional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) plasmas. Using hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) simulations, which treat ions kinetically and electrons as a fluid, it compares the kinematic growth phase of the dynamo to MHD simulations at fixed magnetic Reynolds number Rm = 500, in both subsonic (Mach 0.2) and, for the first time, supersonic (Mach 2) turbulence. It finds that the velocity and magnetic structures, probability distributions, and power spectra of the HPIC runs resemble the MHD runs at kinetic Reynolds numbers Re ~ 50–500 in the subsonic case and Re ~ 500 in the supersonic case. Applying MHD scaling relations, it infers Reinferred = 480(+170,−250) and 690(+360,−360) for the subsonic and supersonic weakly-collisional dynamos. A sympathetic reader would care because this suggests that the many MHD-based dynamo results for the intracluster medium and solar wind remain meaningful even where the plasma is weakly collisional.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) method, implemented in the AHKASH code, which evolves ions as particles while treating electrons as a massless isothermal fluid. Turbulence is driven by the same Ornstein–Uhlenbeck forcing (TurbGen) as the MHD comparison runs, and an isothermal cooling scheme keeps the ion temperature steady through the kinematic phase. The diagnostic that carries the quantitative claim is the magnetic dissipation wavenumber $k_\eta$, identified with the peak of the total-current power spectrum; inserting $k_\eta$ into the smoothly broken power-law scaling relation $$BP(q)=C\left(\frac{q}{q_b}\right)^\$\alpha$ \left[\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\left(\frac{q}{q_b}\right)^{1/\$\Delta$}\right)\right]^{(\$\beta$-\$\alpha$)\$\Delta$} \quad (\text{Eq.~21}),$$ fitted to MHD runs at Mach 0.2, 0.3, 1, and 2, yields the inferred kinetic Reynolds number and magnetic Prandtl number for the HPIC runs.

What would settle it

Measure the viscous stress tensor directly in the HPIC simulations from ion pressure anisotropy and compare the resulting dissipation scale with the MHD scaling relation: if the effective viscosity is strongly anisotropic or time-dependent, the inferred Reynolds numbers of 480 and 690 would be invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the weakly-collisional turbulent dynamo is physically equivalent to the collisional MHD turbulent dynamo in the kinematic regime. For a fixed magnetic Reynolds number (Rm ≈ 500) and identical turbulent driving, HPIC simulations of a weakly-collisional plasma produce magnetic field growth rates, density/velocity/magnetic-field morphologies, PDF shapes, and power spectra that match MHD simulations with kinetic Reynolds numbers Re ~ 50–500 (subsonic, Mach 0.2) and Re ~ 500 (supersonic, Mach 2). Because the kinetic Reynolds number of a weakly-collisional plasma is not set by hand but emerges from wave–particle interactions, the paper infers it from the magnetic dissipation wavenumber k_eta, measured from the peak of the electric-current spectrum, using MHD scaling relations calibrated on the present MHD runs plus previous MHD simulations. The inferred values are Reinferred = 480(+170,−250) in the subsonic case and 690(+360,−360) in the supersonic case, corresponding to magnetic Prandtl numbers near unity (Pminferred ≈ 1.1 and 0.72). The paper presents the first study of the weakly-collisional dynamo in the supersonic regime.

Load-bearing premise

The central inference rests on assuming that what sets the small-scale dissipation in a weakly-collisional plasma obeys the same scaling laws as ordinary fluid viscosity and resistivity, with an isotropic viscosity that does not change during the kinematic phase; the paper itself flags that these assumptions may not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the equivalence holds, MHD dynamo predictions for the hot intracluster medium and the solar wind remain applicable even though those plasmas are weakly collisional.
  • The supersonic weakly-collisional dynamo behaves like an MHD dynamo at Re ≈ 500, so compressibility and shocks do not destroy the correspondence between kinetic and fluid descriptions.
  • The inferred magnetic Prandtl numbers near unity mean that viscosity and resistivity act on comparable scales in weakly-collisional plasma, which sets where magnetic energy is dissipated.
  • The k^{3/2} Kazantsev scaling holds in the kinematic phase of both HPIC and MHD dynamos in subsonic and supersonic regimes, so the classical small-scale dynamo picture carries over.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper tests only Rm = 500; whether the inferred equivalence survives at higher Rm is left open, and a natural extension would be to check whether Reinferred stays near 500 or drifts with Rm.
  • The inferred Pm near unity suggests kinetic microinstabilities (pressure anisotropy, firehose/mirror modes) do not dominate the kinematic dynamo at these parameters, a claim that could be tested by measuring pressure anisotropy in the HPIC runs, which the paper does not report.
  • Because the supersonic runs impose isothermal cooling that removes physical ion heating, an extension with variable temperature would test whether the Re ≈ 500 match is an artifact of the cooling scheme.
  • A transonic (Mach ≈ 1) HPIC run would provide a sharper interpolation between the subsonic and supersonic results and a stronger test of the MHD scaling relations.
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 compares hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) and MHD simulations of the turbulent dynamo in the kinematic growth phase, at fixed magnetic Reynolds number Rm=500, for subsonic (M=0.2) and supersonic (M=2) turbulence. The MHD runs span kinetic Reynolds numbers Re=5, 50, and 500 (magnetic Prandtl numbers Pm=100, 10, and 1). Through visual, probability-density-function, and power-spectrum comparisons, the authors argue that the HPIC dynamo qualitatively resembles the MHD dynamo at Re~50--500 in the subsonic case and at Re~500 in the supersonic case. They then use smooth broken power-law fits to MHD scaling relations (Eq. 21, calibrated with MHD data from this work and from Kriel et al. 2023) to infer Re=480(+170,-250) for the subsonic HPIC run and Re=690(+360,-360) for the supersonic HPIC run, together with implied viscous dissipation scales and magnetic Prandtl numbers. The paper concludes that the weakly-collisional dynamo shares similar physical properties with the collisional MHD dynamo.

Significance. If the qualitative similarity holds, this is an important result for interpreting magnetic-field observations in the ICM and solar wind, and it is the first HPIC study of the supersonic turbulent dynamo. The paper presents a useful parameter study with dedicated resolution and particle-number convergence tests, and the direct comparisons (Figs 1--9, Tables 1--2) are clearly presented and reproducible. The qualitative conclusion of overall similarity is plausible and independently grounded in the structure, PDF, and spectral comparisons. However, the headline quantitative claim, the inferred Reynolds numbers, rests on an unvalidated transfer of MHD scaling relations to weakly-collisional plasmas and is internally inconsistent with the paper's own growth-rate comparison in Sec. 3.2. The qualitative conclusion may survive, but the quantitative Re values need additional support or much stronger caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 1, Sec. 4.2, Table 5] The inferred Reynolds number for the supersonic HPIC run is inconsistent with the paper's own growth-rate comparison. For M=2, the HPIC growth rate is Gamma=0.37±0.05, which is within ~1.2 sigma of the MHD Re=50 run (Gamma=0.44±0.03) and about 3.2 sigma above the MHD Re=500 run (Gamma=0.14±0.05); yet Eq. (21) gives Reinferred=690, i.e., the Re~500 regime. The subsonic case shows a similar tension: HPIC Gamma=0.49±0.05 lies between the Re=5/50 runs (Gamma=0.54--0.55) and the Re=500 run (Gamma=0.38±0.02), while Reinferred=480 is close to Re~500. The manuscript does not reconcile this tension. Either the growth rate is not a valid similarity metric, which would contradict its use in Secs. 3.2 and 5, or the MHD scaling relations do not transfer to the weakly-collisional plasma, which would invalidate the headline Reinferred. The abstract presents Reinferred without this caveat, so the quantitative claim is unsupported as stated.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (21), Table 4] The cross-check of the inference method on the MHD simulations is circular. Equation (21) was fitted to the same MHD data that appear in Table 4 (together with the Kriel et al. 2023 data), so the recovery of Re and Pm in Table 4 only demonstrates internal consistency of the fit, not the validity of applying the relation to HPIC runs. The text explicitly acknowledges this ('as expected, since the relations were calibrated (fitted) with those data'), but the abstract's unqualified Reinferred values depend precisely on this transfer. A direct MHD run at the inferred Re (~500--700) for both Mach numbers, not used in the fit, would be needed to validate the inference; alternatively, the abstract and conclusions should present Reinferred as a model-dependent estimate with the caveat prominently stated.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The inference assumes that the effective viscosity in the HPIC runs is isotropic and remains unchanged during the kinematic phase. For weakly-collisional plasmas this is a strong assumption, because viscosity emerges from wave-particle interactions and can be anisotropic with respect to the local magnetic field (Braginskii-type viscosity). The paper acknowledges this caveat in the closing paragraph of Sec. 4.2, but it does not test the sensitivity of Reinferred, (k_nu)_inferred, or Pminferred to anisotropic or time-varying viscosity. Without such a test, the quoted values should be regarded as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than precise measurements, and the abstract and conclusions should reflect that level of certainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 vs Abstract / Sec. 5] The text in Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 3 states that the HPIC growth rate is similar to the Re=5--500 MHD runs in the subsonic regime, while the abstract and Sec. 5 quote 'Re~50--500'. Please reconcile the quoted range.
  2. [Table 4] The inferred values for the MHD Re=5 runs (Reinferred=10 for both Mach numbers) are a factor of two above the true value, and the Re=50 runs give Reinferred=74 and 41, showing substantial scatter. Consider noting this spread explicitly when assessing the precision of the HPIC inferences.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The MCMC fitting of Eq. (21) is not described in terms of prior choices, chain length, or convergence diagnostics; a few sentences or a reference to the fitting procedure would aid reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The choice of the cooling timescale coefficient (0.1 t_cool for subsonic and 0.01 t_cool for supersonic) is stated, but the reasoning behind these particular values is not given; a brief justification of why these are sufficient to maintain isothermality would be helpful.
  5. [Sec. 3.4.1] The magnetic energy spectra are said to follow a k^{3/2} scaling, but the accessible dynamic range is small; showing compensated spectra or a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure would strengthen this claim.
  6. [General] There are minor typographical issues in the abstract ('Re= 500, 50, and 5' with inconsistent spacing) and the header year ('MNRAS 000, 1–16 (2024)' versus the 2025 preprint date); these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only disclosed cross-check is circular; HPIC Re inference is a flagged calibration transfer, not a by-construction result.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, after Eq. (21) and Tab. 3 (Table 4 cross-check)]
    "As a cross-check, this method is first applied on the MHD simulations themselves, with the results tabulated in Tab. 4, providing a reasonable recovery of Re and Pm in all cases, as expected, since the relations were calibrated (fitted) with those data (in addition to the data from Kriel et al. 2023). Furthermore, this analysis also helps us understand the level of uncertainties in these relations."

    Table 4's 'recovery' is not independent evidence: the MHD Re and Pm values in that table are the very data used to fit Eq. (21) (together with Kriel et al. 2023), so inverting the fitted broken power-law on the same points returns those values by construction. The authors explicitly acknowledge this, writing that the recovery is 'as expected, since the relations were calibrated (fitted) with those data.' This is the fitted-input-recovered-as-output pattern. The step is not, however, the basis of the HPIC Re inference, so it is a minor and disclosed circularity rather than a load-bearing one.

full rationale

The main HPIC-versus-MHD comparison is not circular. The structural, PDF, spectral, and growth-rate comparisons in Secs. 3.1-3.4 use simulation outputs directly, with no fitted relation interposed that would force the similarity conclusion. The HPIC Re inference in Sec. 4.2 is a calibration transfer: Eq. (21) is a broken power-law fitted to MHD data (the present MHD runs plus Kriel et al. 2023), and the measured HPIC magnetic dissipation wavenumber k_eta is mapped through that fit to obtain Reinferred. Because the HPIC k_eta values are not part of that fit, the inference is not tautological; it is an interpolative estimate whose validity depends on the unproven, explicitly flagged assumption that MHD viscous and resistive scaling relations remain valid in weakly collisional plasmas with isotropic and time-constant effective viscosity. The only genuinely circular element is the Table 4 cross-check, which recovers the very MHD parameters used to calibrate Eq. (21); the authors acknowledge this, and it does not carry the HPIC conclusion. Separately, the growth-rate comparison (HPIC supersonic growth rate near the Re=50 MHD run) is in tension with Reinferred~690, but that is an internal-consistency or model-transfer concern rather than a by-construction circularity. Overall, the central claim of similar physical properties rests on direct, independent comparisons, and the circular element is minor and disclosed; hence a low score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative Re inference rests on fitted MHD scaling relations that are assumed to transfer to the weakly-collisional regime. The qualitative similarity claim rests on standard numerical MHD and HPIC modeling assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • BP(Re) normalization C = 4.5 ± 1.0
    Fitted in Eq. 21 to MHD simulation data (Table 3), used to convert measured k_eta to inferred Re for HPIC runs.
  • BP(Re) break point q_b = 105 ± 18
    Break point in the smoothly broken power-law fit for k_nu/k_turb versus Re.
  • BP(Re) low-Re exponent alpha = 0.39 ± 0.02
    Fitted scaling exponent in Eq. 21 for k_nu/k_turb.
  • BP(Re) transition smoothness Delta = 1.8 ± 0.2
    Controls smoothness of the transition between the two power-law regimes in the Re fit.
  • BP(Pm) normalization C = 1.8 ± 0.3
    Fitted normalization in Eq. 21 for k_eta/k_nu versus Pm.
  • BP(Pm) break point q_b = 18 ± 4
    Break point in the Pm scaling relation.
  • BP(Pm) high-Pm exponent beta = 0.36 ± 0.02
    Fitted scaling exponent for the high-Pm branch of k_eta/k_nu.
  • BP(Pm) transition smoothness Delta = 0.25 ± 0.03
    Smoothness parameter for the Pm power-law break.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MHD viscous and resistive scaling relations (Eq. 21 fits) remain valid in weakly-collisional plasmas
    Sec. 4.2, needed to infer Re from the measured magnetic dissipation scale; the authors state this may not hold.
  • domain assumption Plasma viscosity in the HPIC runs is isotropic and time-independent during the kinematic phase
    Sec. 4.2 states the approach assumes isotropic viscosity that is unchanged in time, a caveat for weakly-collisional plasmas.
  • domain assumption The isothermal cooling method for ions does not perturb the dynamo evolution
    Sec. 2.2, the cooling rescales ion thermal speeds to maintain isothermality; the method is assumed not to alter the turbulent dynamo physics.
  • domain assumption Rm=500 is adequately resolved at 128^3 grid resolution in both HPIC and MHD
    Sec. 2.5.1 and Appendices A and B, supported by convergence tests in growth rate and Mach number, but the resolved inertial range is short.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comparison of the turbulent dynamo in weakly-collisional and collisional plasmas: from subsonic to supersonic turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TLCNOKRQ

@misc{pith2026250205235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comparison of the turbulent dynamo in weakly-collisional and collisional plasmas: from subsonic to supersonic turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TLCNOKRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05235}
}
abstract

Weakly-collisional plasmas, such as the solar wind or the intra-cluster medium (ICM) of galaxy clusters, evolve in the presence of dynamically strong magnetic fields. The turbulent dynamo can amplify magnetic fields to such levels by converting turbulent kinetic energy into magnetic energy. While extensively studied in collisional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, the weakly-collisional regime has only been explored recently. Here, we determine the properties of the weakly-collisional turbulent dynamo in the exponential ``kinematic" growth phase in both the subsonic and the previously unexplored supersonic regime of turbulence, using hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) and MHD simulations. We conduct a large parameter study, fixing the magnetic Reynolds number, Rm = 500, and the initial ratio of the magnetic to kinetic energy, $(E_{\rm{mag}}/E_{\rm{kin}})_{0} = 10^{-10}$, and then vary the kinetic Reynolds number, Re = 500, 50, and 5, for the MHD simulations. In the HPIC runs, only Rm = 500 is controlled, while Re emerges self-consistently from wave-particle interactions. We find that the velocity and magnetic field structures, probability distribution functions, and power spectra of the HPIC runs are similar to that of the MHD dynamo with Re ~ 50-500 and Re ~ 500 in the subsonic and supersonic regimes, respectively. Using MHD scaling relations, we infer $\text{Re}_{\rm inferred}=480^{+170}_{-250}$ and $690^{+360}_{-360}$ in the subsonic and supersonic weakly-collisional plasma, respectively. Overall, we find that the turbulent dynamo shares similar physical properties in both weakly-collisional and collisional plasmas. Our results of the weakly-collisional turbulent dynamo may have relevant applications to the solar wind, weakly-collisional shocks, and the hot ICM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Slice through the mass density, normalised to the mean mass density, 𝜌/⟨𝜌⟩ (first column), the magnitude of velocity, normalised to the root mean square velocity, 𝑢/𝑢rms (second column), and the magnitude of the magnetic field, normalised to the root mean square magnetic field, 𝑏/𝑏rms (third column), for the subsonic (M = 0.2) dynamo simulations in the middle of the kinematic regime (𝑡 = 10 𝑡0). The first row shows … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Mach number, M, and magnetic energy, normalised to the initial magnetic energy, 𝐸m/𝐸m0, as a function of time, normalised to the eddy turn-over time, 𝑡0, for the HPIC (solid lines) and MHD turbulent dynamo runs (dashed lines). The left and right panels show the M = 0.2 and 2 simulations, respectively. The measured Mach numbers and dynamo growth rates are reported in Tab. 1. The growth rate of the MHD runs increa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probability density functions (PDFs) of the log-density contrast (Eq. 16), for HPIC (solid lines) and MHD (dashed lines) with M = 0.2 (left panel) and 2 (right panel), respectively. The PDFs are time-averaged in the kinematic phase of the dynamo (𝑡/𝑡0 = 3 − 17), with t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic energy power spectra for the HPIC (solid lines) and MHD (dashed lines) simulations with M = 0.2 (left panel) and M = 2 (right panel). The spectra presented here are time-averaged in the kinematic phase of the dynamo (𝑡 = 3 − 17𝑡0), and normalised to the total …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Viscous dissipation wavenumber, 𝑘𝜈, normalized by the turbulent driving scale, 𝑘turb, as a function of the kinetic Reynolds number, Re (top panel), and ratio of magnetic to viscous dissipation wavenumber, 𝑘𝜂/𝑘𝜈, as a function of the magnetic Prandtl number, Pm (bottom…

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. Efficient Particle Acceleration in 2.5-Dimensional, Hybrid-Kinetic Simulations of Decaying, Supersonic, Plasma Turbulence

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Supersonic turbulence in hybrid-kinetic simulations efficiently produces non-thermal ion power-law tails with slopes near q≈2.5 and energy fractions up to ~10%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Achikanath Chirakkara R., Federrath C., Trivedi P., Banerjee R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvL.126i1103A 126, 091103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.091103 2021

  2. [2]

    W., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..937A 528, 937

    Achikanath Chirakkara R., Seta A., Federrath C., Kunz M. W., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..937A 528, 937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3967

  3. [3]

    Achikanath Chirakkara R., Federrath C., Seta A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3761A 534, 3761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2188

  4. [4]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aacdf7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...32A 237, 32

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aacdf7 2018

  5. [5]

    R., Federrath C., Kriel N., Mocz P., Seta A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3201B 524, 3201

    Beattie J. R., Federrath C., Kriel N., Mocz P., Seta A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3201B 524, 3201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1863 2023

  6. [6]

    Bhat P., Subramanian K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.2469B 429, 2469

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts516 2013

  7. [7]

    B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...513A..30B 513, A30

    Bonafede A., Feretti L., Murgia M., Govoni F., Giovannini G., Dallacasa D., Dolag K., Taylor G. B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...513A..30B 513, A30

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 2010

  8. [8]

    Bonafede A., Vazza F., Br \"u ggen M., Murgia M., Govoni F., Feretti L., Giovannini G., Ogrean G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.3208B 433, 3208

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt960 2013

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Bott A. F. A., et al., 2021a, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.2015729118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PNAS..11815729B 118, e2015729118

    doi

  2. [10]

    Bott A. F. A., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.175002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvL.127q5002B 127, 175002

    doi

  3. [11]

    Botteon A., et al., 2022, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.abq7623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022SciA....8.7623B 8, eabq7623

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Bouchut F., Klingenberg C., Waagan K., 2007, Numerische Mathematik, 108, 7

    2007

  5. [13]

    Bouchut F., Klingenberg C., Waagan K., 2010, Numerische Mathematik, 115, 647

    2010

  6. [14]

    Brandenburg A., Subramanian K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhR...417....1B 417, 1

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Castaing B., 1996, @doi [Journal de Physique II] 10.1051/jp2:1996172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996JPhy2...6..105C 6, 105

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..114C 892, 114

    Chen L. E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..114C 892, 114

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Beresnyak A., Lazarian A., Ryu D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1449C 693, 1449

    Cho J., Vishniac E. T., Beresnyak A., Lazarian A., Ryu D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1449C 693, 1449

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Fisher R., 2008a, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T132/014046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhST..132a4046D 132, 014046

    Dubey A., Reid L. B., Fisher R., 2008a, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T132/014046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhST..132a4046D 132, 014046

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    V., Audit E., Zank G

    Dubey A., et al., 2008b, in Pogorelov N. V., Audit E., Zank G. P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 385, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows. p. 145

  12. [20]

    Federrath C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1245F 436, 1245

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Federrath C., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816001069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JPlPh..82f5301F 82, 535820601

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Federrath C., Banerjee S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3297F 448, 3297

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Schmidt W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/595280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688L..79F 688, L79

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/595280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688L..79F 688, L79

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..81F 512, A81

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Schleicher D

    Federrath C., Chabrier G., Schober J., Banerjee R., Klessen R. S., Schleicher D. R. G., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.114504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvL.107k4504F 107, 114504

    doi

  18. [26]

    Federrath C., Sur S., Schleicher D. R. G., Banerjee R., Klessen R. S., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...62F 731, 62

    doi

  19. [27]

    Federrath C., Schober J., Bovino S., Schleicher D. R. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797L..19F 797, L19

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Iapichino L., Beattie J

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Iapichino L., Beattie J. R., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..365F 5, 365

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M. M., 2022, TG: Turbulence Generator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.001 ( @eprint ascl 2204.001 )

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ferri \`e re K., 2020, @doi [Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion] 10.1088/1361-6587/ab49eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PPCF...62a4014F 62, 014014

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Reyes L

    Finke J. D., Reyes L. C., Georganopoulos M., Reynolds K., Ajello M., Fegan S. J., McCann K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814...20F 814, 20

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..131..273F 131, 273

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Dennerl K., Pinto C., Fabian A

    Gatuzz E., Sanders J. S., Dennerl K., Pinto C., Fabian A. C., Tamura T., Walker S. A., ZuHone J., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4511G 511, 4511

    doi

  26. [34]

    Gatuzz E., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1932G 513, 1932

    1932 doi

  27. [35]

    Gatuzz E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2325G 522, 2325

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Mac Low M.-M., Korpi-Lagg M

    Gent F. A., Mac Low M.-M., Korpi-Lagg M. J., Singh N. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..176G 943, 176

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Haugen N. E. L., Brandenburg A., Mee A. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08127.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..947H 353, 947

    2004

  30. [38]

    Hew J. K. J., Federrath C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.6268H 520, 6268

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Hitomi Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.535..117H 535, 117

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1107H 471, 1107

    Hoang D. N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1107H 471, 1107

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1880H 430, 1880

    Hopkins P. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1880H 430, 1880

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Lazarian A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ebc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..133H 941, 133

    Hu Y., Xu S., Stone J. M., Lazarian A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ebc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..133H 941, 133

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    P., 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JETP...26.1031K 26, 1031

    Kazantsev A. P., 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JETP...26.1031K 26, 1031

    1968

  36. [44]

    S., Schmidt W., 2012, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/jfm.2011.503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JFM...692..183K 692, 183

    Konstandin L., Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., 2012, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/jfm.2011.503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JFM...692..183K 692, 183

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Kowal G., Lazarian A., Beresnyak A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..423K 658, 423

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.tmp..948K

    Kriel N., Beattie J. R., Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.tmp..948K

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Federrath C., Krumholz M

    Kriel N., Beattie J. R., Federrath C., Krumholz M. R., Hew J. K. J., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.17036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231017036K p. arXiv:2310.17036

    2023 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    G., Norman M

    Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., Padoan P., Wagner R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..416K 665, 416

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics

    Kulsrud R. M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics

    2005

  42. [50]

    W., Jones T

    Kunz M. W., Jones T. W., Zhuravleva I., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220502489K p. arXiv:2205.02489

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    arXiv:2311.10350

    Malvadi Shivakumar L., Federrath C., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.10350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231110350M p. arXiv:2311.10350

    2023 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    K., 1978, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids

    Moffatt H. K., 1978, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids

    1978

  45. [53]

    Neronov A., Vovk I., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1184192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...328...73N 328, 73

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    Padoan P., Nordlund A., Jones B. J. T., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/288.1.145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.288..145P 288, 145

    1997 doi

  47. [55]

    Passot T., V \'a zquez-Semadeni E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PhRvE..58.4501P 58, 4501

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Valentini F., 2016, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1525194113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PNAS..113.3950R 113, 3950

    Rincon F., Califano F., Schekochihin A. A., Valentini F., 2016, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1525194113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PNAS..113.3950R 113, 3950

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Schekochihin A

    Rosin M. S., Schekochihin A. A., Rincon F., Cowley S. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17931.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413....7R 413, 7

    2011

  50. [58]

    A., Cowley S

    Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., 2006, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.2179053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhPl...13e6501S 13, 056501

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Cowley S

    Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., Taylor S. F., Maron J. L., McWilliams J. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612..276S 612, 276

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    Schober J., Schleicher D. R. G., Klessen R. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..87S 560, A87

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2076S 499, 2076

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2021a, @doi [Physical Review Fluids] 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.103701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvF...6j3701S 6, 103701

    doi

  55. [63]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2220S 502, 2220

    doi

  56. [64]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..957S 514, 957

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    J., Shukurov A., Wood T

    Seta A., Bushby P. J., Shukurov A., Wood T. S., 2020, @doi [Physical Review Fluids] 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.043702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvF...5d3702S 5, 043702

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Seta A., Rodrigues L. F. S., Federrath C., Hales C. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907....2S 907, 2

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    D., McClure-Griffiths N

    Seta A., Federrath C., Livingston J. D., McClure-Griffiths N. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..919S 518, 919

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    Simionescu A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SSRv..215...24S 215, 24

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Sironi L., Comisso L., Golant R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.055201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvL.131e5201S 131, 055201

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Kunz M

    St-Onge D. A., Kunz M. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..25S 863, L25

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Kunz M

    St-Onge D. A., Kunz M. W., Squire J., Schekochihin A. A., 2020, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377820000860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JPlPh..86e9003S 86, 905860503

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Subramanian K., Shukurov A., Haugen N. E. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366.1437S 366, 1437

    2006

  65. [73]

    Sur S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3439S 488, 3439

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Sur S., Schleicher D. R. G., Banerjee R., Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L.134S 721, L134

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    Tavecchio F., Ghisellini G., Foschini L., Bonnoli G., Ghirlanda G., Coppi P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00884.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406L..70T 406, L70

    2010

  68. [76]

    M., Vovk I., Neronov A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A.144T 529, A144

    Taylor A. M., Vovk I., Neronov A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A.144T 529, A144

    2011 doi

  69. [77]

    Tzeferacos P., et al., 2017, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4978628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhPl...24d1404T 24, 041404

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    Tzeferacos P., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-018-02953-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatCo...9..591T 9, 591

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Vazquez-Semadeni E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...423..681V 423, 681

    1994 doi

  72. [80]

    Vazza F., Brunetti G., Br \"u ggen M., Bonafede A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1672V 474, 1672

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Semikoz D., Neronov A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L..14V 747, L14

    Vovk I., Taylor A. M., Semikoz D., Neronov A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L..14V 747, L14

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    Waagan K., Federrath C., Klingenberg C., 2011, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCoPh.230.3331W 230, 3331

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    Xu S., Lazarian A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..215X 833, 215

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    W., Loureiro N

    Zhou M., Zhdankin V., Kunz M. W., Loureiro N. F., Uzdensky D. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b0f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...12Z 960, 12

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.