Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Numerical simulation of oscillatory magnetic reconnection modulated by solar convective motions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Solar convective motions, not the reconnection itself, drive oscillatory current-sheet reversals, and the longest simulated oscillation period matches the observed 30-minute period.

desk verdict A novel radiative MHD simulation with a plausible but under-supported convective-driving mechanism; worth refereeing with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24335 v1 pith:C5BIQL2Q submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Yifu Wang , Lei Ni , Guanchong Cheng , Jialiang Hu , Yuhao Chen , Abdullah Zafar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords oscillatorymagneticreconnectioncurrentsheetorientationreversalsolarconvectionfluxemergenceradiativeMHDsimulationcoronajetsp-modeoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that oscillatory magnetic reconnection in the low solar corona can be driven from outside rather than by the reconnection process itself. Using 2.5-dimensional radiative MHD simulations, the authors follow a magnetic flux rope emerging from the convection zone and reconnecting with a background field. They count 41 reversals of the current sheet's orientation, corresponding to 40 oscillation periods, with the longest period about 30 minutes. The reversals are attributed to quasi-periodic external forces from convectively driven plasma and magnetic field emergence, not to back-pressure from reconnection outflows as in earlier models. This offers a mechanism for observed 30-minute oscillation periods and for parallel shifting jets.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the quasi-periodic external force exerted on the reconnection region by convectively driven flux emergence, realized through self-consistent convection in the upper convection zone and photosphere that modulates the plasma pressure gradient, Lorentz force, and gravity under the lower reconnection outflow region. The driving signal is carried by the emergence of the inserted Gold-Hoyle flux rope, a uniformly twisted flux tube model with central field strength $B_1 = 6400$ G, twist $b = 3.0$, and decay factor $c = 0.055$. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the repeated collapse of the current sheet and its regrowth in the perpendicular direction, with the force balance at the current sheet determining which orientation is favored.

What would settle it

Run the same setup in a wider horizontal domain (for example 40 Mm or 80 Mm wide) and with different flux-rope twist and field strength values, then check whether the 30-minute first period and the 100-400 s reconnection-rate oscillations persist; if the periods shift substantially, the convective-driving claim is undermined. Also compare against a control run with the flux rope inserted at a different depth or with convection suppressed below the photosphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a 2.5D radiative MHD simulation that includes convective motions self-consistently, the current sheet at the interface between an emerging Gold-Hoyle flux rope and a vertical background field repeatedly shrinks to zero and regrows in the perpendicular direction. Over 5771 s the sheet orientation reverses 41 times, giving 40 oscillation periods whose first and longest period is about 30 minutes, matching the period reported by Hong et al. (2019). Force analysis shows the accumulated hot outflows produce only weak forces in the reconnection region; instead the orientation reversal is controlled by changes in gas pressure gradient, Lorentz force, and gravity below the lower outflow region, driven by the emergence of plasma and magnetic fields from the convection zone. The alternating inflow and outflow regions shift the upward reconnection outflows horizontally, explaining observed parallel shifting jets, and the reconnection rate at the main X-point oscillates with a 100-400 s period similar to p-mode oscillations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quasi-periodic forcing comes from self-consistent convection rather than from the artificial insertion of the flux rope, the periodic side boundaries, or numerical diffusivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed ~30-minute current-sheet oscillation periods can be produced by convective modulation, without invoking a self-sustained oscillator inside the reconnection site.
  • Parallel shifting jets observed in EUV and H-alpha bands can be explained by alternating outflow regions at a single reconnection site, rather than by multiple independent ejection sites.
  • 100-400 s oscillations in reconnection rate can explain 2.5-5 minute quasi-periodic brightenings and connect them to p-mode oscillations generated in the convection zone.
  • Because the driver is external, the oscillation period depends on the convective and emergence environment, so periods should vary with height and with the strength of the background magnetic field.
  • The modulation effect weakens for reconnection events at higher altitude, so the model predicts that the longest, most regular orientation-reversal periods occur low in the corona or near the base of open-field regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If convective driving is the controlling factor, observed oscillatory reconnection periods should correlate with the local granulation and p-mode power spectrum; this is testable by combining helioseismic observations with coronal imaging of reconnecting current sheets.
  • The single flux-rope insertion and 20 Mm-wide domain leave open the possibility that the 30-minute period is set by the emergence timescale of the specific inserted rope rather than by a universal convective timescale; more realistic continuous flux emergence could produce a spectrum of periods.
  • The model implies that oscillatory reconnection periods are not an intrinsic property of reconnection, so scaling laws based only on X-point plasma parameters may need to be supplemented by descriptions that couple the reconnection site to the external driver.
  • The synthesized AIA 17.1 nm images matching observed current sheets suggest that forward modeling of such simulations can help observers distinguish externally driven from internally driven oscillatory reconnection.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2.5D radiative MHD simulations of magnetic flux emergence from the convection zone into the lower corona, using the NIRVANA code with Spitzer-type resistivity, stratified radiative cooling, and field-aligned thermal conduction. A Gold-Hoyle flux rope (Eqs. 21-23) is inserted at t=2048 s into a convecting domain, and reconnection with a vertical 10 G background field produces 41 current-sheet orientation reversals over about 5771 s. The authors report a longest period of about 30 minutes matching Hong et al. (2019), parallel shifting jets in synthetic AIA 171 images, and 100-400 s oscillations in the X-point current density interpreted as p-mode-related. They attribute the reversals primarily to quasi-periodic external forces from convective emergence (Section 3.2), in contrast to earlier intrinsic back-pressure mechanisms.

Significance. If correct, the work would establish a new external-driving route to oscillatory reconnection: modulation by convective flux emergence, rather than the internal back-pressure mechanism of McLaughlin et al. (2009) and Murray et al. (2009). The 30-minute first period is an emergent output rather than an input parameter, which gives the comparison with Hong et al. (2019) real weight, and the synthetic AIA 171 images provide a concrete observable connection. The parallel-jet interpretation is a useful, falsifiable prediction. However, the central causal mechanism is currently supported only by qualitative force snapshots at two times, and the robustness of the periods to resolution and initial conditions is untested.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2, Fig. 4] The claim that quasi-periodic external forcing from convection is the main cause of current-sheet reversals is inferred from force arrows at only two times (t=4763.78 s and t=5097.2 s). No time-resolved series of the pressure-gradient, Lorentz, and gravitational forces below the current sheet is provided, and no phase analysis links these forces to the 41 reversal events. The presented snapshots therefore cannot exclude the intrinsic reconnection-outflow back-pressure mechanism of McLaughlin et al. (2009) and Murray et al. (2009), nor can they rule out a dominant role of numerical or coronal diffusion in setting the reconnection timescale. I request a quantitative force-budget time series (for example, integrated forces in a control volume below the X-point) and their cross-correlation with reversal times, or a control simulation with the convection disabled.
  2. [2.3, Eqs. (21)-(23); 3.1] The 20-Mm-wide periodic domain and the hand-inserted Gold-Hoyle flux rope (B1=6400 G, b=3.0, c=0.055) introduce several free parameters, and no sensitivity study or convergence test is reported. The 30-minute first period could be a transient of the rope insertion or of the periodic side boundaries rather than a robust convective signature. The statement that the current sheet is far from the side boundaries does not test whether the periodic boundary condition or the domain width affects the oscillation period or the force balance. I recommend additional runs at higher resolution and with varied domain width and rope parameters to establish that the 30-minute and 100-400 s periods are robust.
  3. [1, 3.1, 4] There is an internal inconsistency in the novelty claim. Section 1 states that Murray et al. (2009) 'mentioned that there is an oscillatory reconnection period lasting up to 30 minutes in the late reconnection phase,' while Section 3.1 says 'Such a long period of 30 minutes has not been displayed in the previous papers' and Section 4 repeats this. The authors should either credit Murray et al. (2009) explicitly as having produced a 30-minute period and then state what is new here, or correct the Section 1 description; as written, the claim of uniqueness is not self-consistent.
  4. [3.4, Fig. 6] The 100-400 s reconnection-rate oscillation is presented with a wavelet analysis using a 69% confidence threshold, which is low, and the attribution to p-mode oscillations is based on similarity to literature periods rather than on a demonstrated causal link within the simulation. The authors should report the wavelet significance more conservatively, show whether the 100-400 s peaks are robust to the choice of time-series window and detrending, and ideally test for a causal connection by comparing with the photospheric velocity spectrum in the same run.
minor comments (6)
  1. [3.1] The 41 listed phase durations sum to 5646 s, not to the stated 5771 s or to the interval from t=3357 s to t=9130 s (5773 s); please reconcile the phase list with the stated total duration.
  2. [2.1, Eq. (9)] The collision frequency is written as 'v_en' in Eq. (9) and surrounding text although the symbol is presumably ν_en; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [2.3] The claim that the system reaches a 'dynamic equilibrium state after 2000 s' is not supported by any diagnostics; a brief quantification of the temperature, density, or velocity drift before the flux-rope insertion would help.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'reconnetcion' should be 'reconnection'.
  5. [4] In conclusion item 4, 'solar ares' should be 'solar flares'.
  6. [Title page] The first author's name is rendered as 'Yifu W ang' in the header; the spacing should be corrected to 'Yifu Wang'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oscillation periods and force-balance conclusion are emergent outputs of a radiative MHD simulation, not fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are measured outputs rather than fitted parameters. The 30-minute first period is obtained by counting 41 current-sheet orientation reversals between t=3357 s and t=9130 s and summing adjacent phase durations; the 100-400 s reconnection-rate oscillation comes from a wavelet analysis of the time series of current density at the X-point. Neither quantity is used to adjust the simulation setup. The flux-rope parameters (B1=6400 G, b=3.0, c=0.055, Eq. 21-23), domain size, and boundary conditions are specified before the measurement and are not tuned to reproduce Hong et al. (2019); the agreement with the observed 30-minute period is post hoc. The causal attribution of the reversals to quasi-periodic external forcing is an interpretation of two force snapshots in Sec. 3.2, and one may question whether two snapshots establish a robust time-resolved mechanism, but that is an evidence-strength issue, not circularity: the conclusion is not encoded in the equations or initial conditions by construction. The self-citations to Ni et al. (2022) and Cheng et al. (2024) support the NIRVANA code and radiative-cooling implementation; they do not supply the periods or the force-balance result. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input, and no prediction is equivalent to a fitted value by definition.

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

The central claim rests on a single 2.5D radiative MHD run with many hand-chosen inputs: flux-rope field strength, twist, size, insertion position, background field, and an unspecified initial density perturbation. The radiative transfer is replaced by simplified cooling laws from the literature, and the initial state is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The causal inference relies on snapshots of forces at two times. These are not 'axioms' in a mathematical sense, but they are unproven assumptions on which the conclusion depends.

free parameters (6)
  • B1 (peak flux rope field) = 6400 G
    Hand-chosen field strength at the flux-rope center; controls emergence and reconnection energy. Not fitted to observations, but the period results may depend on it.
  • b (flux rope twist) = 3.0
    Hand-chosen twist number; controls flux rope stability and emergence dynamics.
  • c (flux rope decay factor) = 0.055
    Hand-chosen radial decay scale of the Gold-Hoyle-like flux tube; sets rope size.
  • flux rope center (x0,y0) = 2e6 m, -1e6 m
    Insertion location chosen so the left side of the rope is antiparallel to the 10 G background field, defining where the current sheet forms.
  • background field By = 10 G
    Uniform vertical background field; its direction sets the reconnection geometry.
  • initial density perturbation = not specified
    Perturbation at y=-2.6 Mm triggers faster evolution; amplitude is not given, so its influence on the convection and period cannot be assessed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MHD with Spitzer resistivity and radiative cooling models from Carlsson & Leenaarts (2012) and Abbett & Fisher (2012) adequately captures the low solar atmosphere.
    Equations (1)-(6) and Section 2.2 replace full radiative transfer with simplified cooling; the 30-minute period claim depends on this representation.
  • domain assumption The 2.5D setup with a uniform out-of-plane direction captures the essential reconnection dynamics of the 3D Sun.
    Reconnection is intrinsically 3D; the paper uses 2.5D and does not test 3D effects on the oscillation.
  • ad hoc to paper After 2000 s the non-equilibrium initial state reaches a dynamic equilibrium with self-consistently generated convection, and the inserted flux rope is a realistic representation of emerging flux.
    The simulation relies on this relaxation and the Gold-Hoyle tube insertion at t=2048.23 s; no comparison to observed subsurface flux rope properties is given.
  • domain assumption Numerical diffusivity in the corona, though larger than Spitzer diffusivity, does not dominate the reconnection oscillation periods.
    The authors state numerical diffusivity is much larger than physical in the corona (Section 2.1) but do not quantify its effect on the 30-minute period.
  • domain assumption The periodic side boundaries over 20 Mm do not artificially set the oscillation periods.
    With periodic left/right boundaries, wave and flow reflections could alias into the measured periods; no domain-size test is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical simulation of oscillatory magnetic reconnection modulated by solar convective motions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5BIQL2Q

@misc{pith2026250524335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical simulation of oscillatory magnetic reconnection modulated by solar convective motions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5BIQL2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24335}
}
read the original abstract

Oscillatory magnetic reconnection is a periodic magnetic reconnection process, during which the current sheet's orientation and the magnetic connections change periodically. This periodic variation is generally considered to originate from the magnetic reconnection itself rather than from external driving processes. We conduct 2.5-dimensional radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations to investigate the emergence of a magnetic flux tube from the convection zone into the lower corona, where the emerging magnetic fields reconnect with background ones. During the reconnection process within 5771 s, the current sheet's orientation has been reversed 41 times, corresponding to 40 oscillation periods. Notably, the longest period is 30 minutes, which is consistent with the previous observational results. We find that the main factor leading to the reversal of the current sheet's orientation is the quasi-periodic external force provided by the emergence of plasma and magnetic fields from the convection zone. We also find the shifting of the upward outflows from the reconnection region along the horizontal direction due to the alternating changes of the reconnection inflow and outflow regions. In addition to the quasi-periodic change of the current sheet orientation, the reconnection rate at the main X-point also oscillates with a period between 100-400 s, which corresponds to the period of p-mode oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial temperature (black solid) and density (red solid) profiles in height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of temperature, overlaid with magnetic fieldlines at t = 2048, 2994, and 3538 s are presented. -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.7 y [Mm] time=3774.22s 4 × 10 4ms 1 a -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.7 time=4973.07s b -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.7 time=5379.24s c -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.7 time=5613.31s d -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.7 time=6020.97s e -3.1 -2.5 -1.9 -1.2 x [Mm] … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)-(e) displays the current density distributions in the z direction at five different times, with the black solid line representing the magnetic field lines, the green arrows represent the velocity near the reconnection region; (f)-(j) show the corresponding synthesized images in the AIA 17.1 nm pass band. The magnetic flux rope in the convection zone rises to the base of the photosphere due to the magnetic buoyan… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The arrows with different colors in (a)-(d) represent the plasma pressure gradient, the Lorentz force per unit volume, and the negative gravity per unit volume better shows the effect of gravity originating from the photosphere and the resultant force per unit volume a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)-(d) show the distributions of the vertical velocity vy at four different reconnection stages. The alternating changes in the inflow and outflow regions during the oscillatory reconnection process direct the upward outflows to various locations with open field lines…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The time evolutions of the current density at the main reconnetcion X-point (JzX). (b) The wavelet profile for JzX. The horizontal green dashed line represents Jz = 0. The regions within the blue contours have a confidence level ≥ 69%. (c) The solid line is the glo…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Oscillatory reconnection and resonant response to wave excitation in 2D coronal null points

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In stratified coronal simulations, null-point reconnection oscillates at the null point's resonant-cavity frequency, distinct from the external driver frequency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., & Fisher, G

    Abbett, W. P., & Fisher, G. H. 2012, SoPh, 277, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9817-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9817-3 2012

  2. [2]

    H., & Loeser, R

    Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 2008, ApJS, 175, 229, doi: 10.1086/523671

    doi:10.1086/523671 2008

  3. [3]

    1963, ApJ, 137, 901, doi: 10.1086/147566

    Bahng, J., & Schwarzschild, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 901, doi: 10.1086/147566

    work page doi:10.1086/147566 1963

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 682, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348053

    Cai, Q., Ruan, G., Zheng, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348053

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348053 2024

  5. [5]

    2012, A&A, 539, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118366

    Carlsson, M., & Leenaarts, J. 2012, A&A, 539, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118366

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118366 2012

  6. [6]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 2002, ApJ, 572, 626, doi: 10.1086/340293

    doi:10.1086/340293 2002

  7. [7]

    2021, A&A, 650, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039510

    Cattell, C., Glesener, L., Leiran, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039510

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039510 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen, F., Cheung, M. C. M., Rempel, M., & Chintzoglou, G. 2023, ApJ, 949, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8c5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc8c5 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Priest, E

    Chen, P. F., & Priest, E. R. 2006, SoPh, 238, 313, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0215-1

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    F., & Shibata, K

    Chen, P. F., & Shibata, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 524, doi: 10.1086/317803

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    Chen, Y., Ye, J., Mei, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, A&A, 685, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347012

    Cheng, G., Ni, L., Chen, Y., & Lin, J. 2024, A&A, 685, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347012

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 229, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229

    Cheng, G.-C., Ni, L., Chen, Y.-J., Ziegler, U., & Lin, J. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 229, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Cheung, M. C. M., & Isobe, H. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-3

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 872, doi: 10.1002/asna.201211738

    Collados, M., L´ opez, R., P´ aez, E., et al. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 872, doi: 10.1002/asna.201211738

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Craig, I. J. D., & McClymont, A. N. 1991, ApJL, 371, L41, doi: 10.1086/185997 AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article13 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., Landi, E., &

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    Mason, H. E. 2015, A&A, 582, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526827

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Frazier, E. N. 1968, ApJ, 152, 557, doi: 10.1086/149572

    1968 doi

  11. [19]

    V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V

    Gudiksen, B. V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116520

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, A&A, 626, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935376

    Hansteen, V., Ortiz, A., Archontis, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935376

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Archontis, V., Pereira, T

    Hansteen, V. H., Archontis, V., Pereira, T. M. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6844

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Gallagher, P. T. 2020, ApJ, 895, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d40

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c9d

    Hong, J., Yang, J., Chen, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c9d

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590c

    Hong, Z., Wang, Y., & Ji, H. 2022, ApJ, 928, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590c

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, ApJL, 812, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L30

    Iijima, H., & Yokoyama, T. 2015, ApJL, 812, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L30

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Inhester, B., Axford, W

    Innes, D. E., Inhester, B., Axford, W. I., & Wilhelm, K. 1997, Nature, 386, 811, doi: 10.1038/386811a0

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    2017, SoPh, 292, 152, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1176-2

    Joshi, R., Schmieder, B., Chandra, R., et al. 2017, SoPh, 292, 152, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1176-2

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Botha, G

    Karampelas, K., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., & R´ egnier, S. 2022a, ApJ, 925, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b53 —. 2022b, ApJ, 933, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac746a —. 2023, ApJ, 943, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac90

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    1994

  22. [30]

    N., Kosovichev, A

    Kitiashvili, I. N., Kosovichev, A. G., Lele, S. K., Mansour, N. N., & Wray, A. A. 2013, ApJ, 770, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/37

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    T., Yurchyshyn, V., DeVore, C

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Yurchyshyn, V., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2024, ApJ, 973, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a2

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Lukin, V

    Leake, J. E., Lukin, V. S., & Linton, M. G. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 061202, doi: 10.1063/1.4811140

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cd1

    Li, D., Lu, L., Ning, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cd1

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 25053, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000046

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035006, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acafc3

    Liu, M., Ni, L., Cheng, G.-C., Ziegler, U., & Lin, J. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035006, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acafc3

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2001, ApJ, 549, 608, doi: 10.1086/319073 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al

    Magara, T. 2001, ApJ, 549, 608, doi: 10.1086/319073 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 847, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8866 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2017b, Science, 356, 1269, doi: 10.1126/science.aah5412

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A

    McLaughlin, J. A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A. W., & Brady, C. S. 2009, A&A, 493, 227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810465

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Thurgood, J

    McLaughlin, J. A., Thurgood, J. O., & MacTaggart, D. 2012a, A&A, 548, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220234

    doi

  31. [39]

    A., Verth, G., Fedun, V., & Erd´ elyi, R

    McLaughlin, J. A., Verth, G., Fedun, V., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2012b, ApJ, 749, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/30

    doi

  32. [40]

    M., Del Zanna, G., & Mason, H

    Mulay, S. M., Del Zanna, G., & Mason, H. 2017, A&A, 606, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730429

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    J., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Baker, D

    Murray, M. J., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Baker, D. 2009, A&A, 494, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810406

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 646, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    Ni, L., Chen, Y., Peter, H., Tian, H., & Lin, J. 2021, A&A, 646, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, A&A, 665, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243304

    Ni, L., Cheng, G., & Lin, J. 2022, A&A, 665, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243304

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/92

    Ni, L., Lin, J., Mei, Z., & Li, Y. 2015, ApJ, 812, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/92

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Ni, L., & Lukin, V. S. 2018, ApJ, 868, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb97

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    A., & Lin, J

    Ni, L., Zhang, Q.-M., Murphy, N. A., & Lin, J. 2017, ApJ, 841, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffe

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, SoPh, 289, 1239, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0405-6

    Ning, Z. 2014, SoPh, 289, 1239, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0405-6

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, SoPh, 297, 2, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01935-w

    Ning, Z., Wang, Y., Hong, Z., & Li, D. 2022, SoPh, 297, 2, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01935-w

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, Science, 346, 1255726, doi: 10.1126/science.1255726

    Peter, H., Tian, H., Curdt, W., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1255726, doi: 10.1126/science.1255726

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Iglesias, C

    Rogers, F. J., & Iglesias, C. A. 1992, ApJS, 79, 507, doi: 10.1086/191659

    1992 doi

  44. [52]

    Schiavo, L. A. C. A., Botha, G. J. J., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7600

    doi

  45. [53]

    Schiavo, L. A. C. A., Stewart, J., & Browning, P. K. 2024b, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 102903, doi: 10.1063/5.0226068

    doi

  46. [54]

    Shen, C., Lin, J., & Murphy, N. A. 2011, ApJ, 737, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/14

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    2007, Science, 318, 1591, doi: 10.1126/science.1146708

    Shibata, K., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1591, doi: 10.1126/science.1146708

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    Spitzer, L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    1962

  49. [57]

    K., & Gordovskyy, M

    Stewart, J., Browning, P. K., & Gordovskyy, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1286

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa3e

    Sun, X., Yan, X., Liang, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa3e

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Botha, G

    Talbot, J., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., & Hancock, M. 2024, ApJ, 965, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a5d

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    O., Pontin, D

    Thurgood, J. O., Pontin, D. I., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 844, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79fa 14W ang et al. —. 2019, A&A, 621, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834369

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    Tian, H., Xu, Z., He, J., & Madsen, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079⟨0061: APGTWA⟩2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  55. [63]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1135

    Xue, Z., Yan, X., Jin, C., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1135

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b5

    Ye, J., Cai, Q., Shen, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b5

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al

    Young, P. R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 120, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0551-0

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Dai, J., Xu, Z., et al

    Zhang, Q. M., Dai, J., Xu, Z., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038233

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2008, Computer Physics Communications, 179, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.02.017

    Ziegler, U. 2008, Computer Physics Communications, 179, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.02.017

    2008 doi

  60. [68]

    V., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 66, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.