Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Heating Mechanisms and Radio Response from the Solar Chromosphere to Corona

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Radio burst patterns reveal which mechanism heats the corona

desk verdict A clearly written hypothesis paper mapping radio burst morphologies to heating mechanisms, but the novel P-mechanism/fiber-burst link is asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07444 v1 pith:FNZ5KHAV submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR

Baolin Tan , Jing Huang , Yin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalheatingsolarchromospheretransitionregionmagnetic-gradientpumpingradiodynamicspectrumfiberburststypeIIIspike
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 the long-standing problem of why the solar chromosphere, transition region, and corona are so hot can be approached observationally through radio fingerprints. It claims that the two classic heating mechanisms—wave heating (W) and magnetic reconnection heating (X)—together with the proposed magnetic-gradient pumping mechanism (P) each generate energetic electrons with different origins and trajectories, and that these differences show up as distinct patterns in broadband dynamic radio spectra: random spike groups, bidirectional type III or spike pairs, and unidirectional fiber bursts with moderate negative drift, respectively. If this mapping is right, quiet-Sun radio observations can directly identify which heating mechanism dominates at each height, turning a century-old mystery into a measurable question.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the magnetic-gradient pumping (MGP) mechanism, a sorting process driven by the magnetic-gradient force: a particle with transverse kinetic energy $\epsilon_t$ feels an upward force $G_B \epsilon_t$, where $G_B = \nabla B / B$ is the relative magnetic gradient, which competes with downward gravity $mg(h)$. Particles with $\epsilon_t > \epsilon_0(h) = mg(h)/G_B$ escape upward as energetic upflows of roughly 10 eV to a few keV; these upflows are claimed to excite Langmuir waves and plasma emission, producing the fiber-burst signature. The complementary machinery is the radio diagnostic itself: for plasma emission the frequency drift rate satisfies $df/dt \propto (dn_e/dr) v_e$, and for cyclotron emission $df/dt \propto (dB/dr) v_e$, so the drift rate encodes both the emitting layer (chromosphere, transition region, or corona) and the speed of the exciting particles. That pairing is what lets the paper translate burst morphology into heating identity.

What would settle it

Count the drift-rate signs of quiet-Sun fiber bursts in high-cadence broadband spectra: the P mechanism predicts an essentially one-sided negative drift population, so a substantial population of positive-drift fiber bursts would falsify the proposed mapping. A second decisive test is spectral imaging: if fiber bursts are found to originate from regions where the magnetic gradient is too weak to pump keV particles, or from downward-moving beams, the P signature collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the heating mechanism of the solar atmosphere can be identified and verified from broadband dynamic spectral radio observations. Each mechanism has a characteristic non-thermal electron population: W heating accelerates electrons through shock waves into random flows, giving randomly distributed spike groups; X heating accelerates electrons in reconnecting electric fields into bidirectional flows, giving type III pairs or spike pairs with opposite frequency drifts; P heating sorts already-thermal high-energy particles upward without further acceleration, giving unidirectional energetic upflows that should excite fiber bursts with intermediate negative drift. The paper then uses these assignments to draw a height-dependent picture: wave heating dominates in the chromosphere and lower transition region, the P mechanism dominates in the transition region and corona, and reconnection heating contributes only a minor fraction. The conclusion is that observing quiet-Sun emission in the 100 MHz–100 GHz range can locate and verify the dominant heating process in each layer.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands or falls on whether the magnetic-gradient pumping mechanism actually exists in the solar atmosphere and whether its low-energy particle upflows, rather than some other process, are what produce fiber bursts with moderate negative drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mapping holds, a quiet-Sun dynamic spectrum becomes a height-resolved heating diagnostic: the burst type says which mechanism is active, and the drift rate says which atmospheric layer it comes from.
  • The P mechanism gains a concrete, searchable observable: fiber bursts with moderate negative drift, which current and planned broadband spectrometers between 400 MHz and about 36 GHz could look for outside flares.
  • The paper's height assignment becomes testable: chromospheric heating should show up as random spike groups at high frequencies, and transition-region and coronal heating as fiber groups and type III/spike pairs at lower frequencies.
  • The framework implies that reconnection heating's overall contribution is small, consistent with the paper's reading of recent flare-frequency statistics, and that the missing majority of heating energy is carried by magnetic-gradient upflows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated corollary is that the same spectral fingerprinting could be applied to other late-type stars: unresolved broadband radio spectra might reveal which heating process dominates their outer atmospheres.
  • The drift-sign distribution is a sharper test than the paper develops: the P mechanism predicts a one-sided, negative drift population among quiet-Sun fiber bursts, whereas shock-wave acceleration would produce symmetric positive and negative drifts; measuring that distribution would separate P from W without needing imaging.
  • The paper leaves the fiber-burst excitation mechanism at the level of plausibility; a quantitative model of how a 10 eV to a few keV upflow beam produces Langmuir waves and plasma emission, including collisional damping in the lower chromosphere, would sharpen the predicted burst frequency range and intensity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the dominant solar atmospheric heating mechanism can be identified from broadband radio dynamic spectra by associating each mechanism class with a distinct spectral signature: wave heating (W) with randomly distributed groups of spike bursts, magnetic-reconnection heating (X) with type III pairs or spike pairs showing bidirectional frequency drift, and the magnetic-gradient pumping mechanism (P) with unidirectional fiber bursts of moderate negative drift. The authors argue for a layered heating picture in which W heats the chromosphere, P dominates the transition region and corona, and X provides only a minor contribution, and they outline an observational program using current and future instruments, including the SUBMS spectrometer and a proposed space-based millimeter-wave array. The paper is primarily a qualitative hypothesis paper: the radio-emission mappings are motivated by physical arguments and three flare-associated example events, but no quantitative model is derived for the proposed P–fiber-burst connection, and the P mechanism itself is acknowledged to lack observational support.

Significance. If established, the proposed mapping would provide a direct and observationally testable diagnostic for a long-standing problem, and the paper's concrete Table 1 classification and specific observing recommendations are useful steps in that direction. The paper is explicit about which signatures it expects for each mechanism, which makes the proposals in principle falsifiable. The main contribution, however, rests on the identification of the P mechanism with fiber bursts; this link is asserted on the basis of plausibility rather than derived, so the central claim of verifiability is not yet supported. The paper also usefully draws attention to the need for high-sensitivity, wide-band spectral-imaging observations of the quiet Sun, and its proposed observational program may be a valuable roadmap. For these reasons, the manuscript is of interest to the solar physics community, but it requires substantial revision to substantiate the P signature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The connection between the MGP upflows and fiber bursts is asserted, not derived. The paragraph states that the upflows 'are sufficient to excite Langmuir waves' and that the resulting radio emission will have 'intermediate negative frequency drifting rates ... somewhat similar to the radio fiber bursts,' but it provides no growth-rate estimate, no condition for the excitation of Langmuir waves, and no calculation of the expected drift rate from the quoted upflow velocities and density models. Consequently, an observer detecting fiber bursts would have no quantitative basis to attribute them to the MGP mechanism, and the novel component of the tripartite diagnostic is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.4] The drift-rate criterion for distinguishing atmospheric layers conflicts with the proposed P signature. The paper states that the frequency drift rate is 'relatively small' in the chromosphere and corona and 'very high' in the TR because the density gradient is large there. However, the P mechanism is argued to dominate in the TR and corona, and its radio response is characterized in Table 1 and Section 3.3 as having 'moderate' negative drift. The paper does not reconcile these statements; if the drift rate is multiplied by the velocity of the upflows, this should be said explicitly, otherwise the layering criterion would make TR-generated fiber bursts fast, not moderate.
  3. [Figure 3 and Sections 3.1–3.3] All three illustrative radio events are taken from flaring periods (an X-class flare decay, an M8.6 flare, and an M1.9 flare), while the proposed identification and verification program is explicitly aimed at quiet-Sun observations. Using flare-associated burst groups as examples does not establish that these signatures appear in quiet regions, and the paper does not discuss how its classification would distinguish heating-related emission from the many radio bursts produced by flares. As it stands, the examples illustrate the spectral forms but not their occurrence in the quiet Sun, so the central observational claim remains untested.
  4. [Abstract and Section 2.2.2] The paper openly states that the MGP mechanism 'still lacks sufficient observational evidence,' and it is from this mechanism that the P radio signature is derived. Because the P signature is the only novel part of the proposed diagnostic, the conclusion that 'the heating mechanism can be identified and verified' is premature. The paper needs to re-frame the P mapping as a prediction to be tested, and to provide (or cite) independent evidence supporting the existence of the MGP mechanism before presenting it as an established diagnostic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the the broadband' should read 'the broadband'.
  2. [Section 3.4] The formula for the drift rate is written as 'd f/dt = 9s/2 n_e^{-1/2} dne/dr ve'; the subsequent proportionality 'd f/dt ∝ dne/dr' omits the factor n_e^{-1/2} and the electron velocity ve, which is misleading because the velocity differences between mechanisms are important to the argument.
  3. [Section 3.4] The wording 'the gradient dne/dr rapidly decreases' is ambiguous; the magnitude of the density gradient is large in the TR, and this is what the argument relies on.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 lists the frequency range for the P mechanism as 100 MHz - 28 GHz, while the text in Section 3.3 gives 280 MHz - 2.8 GHz for the plasma-emission contribution in the corona; these ranges should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The P-mechanism radio signature rests on an unverified self-cited ansatz; the W and X branches are independently grounded.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Abstract; Sec. 3.3 (Radio response of P mechanisms)]
    "Recently, we proposed a new mechanism, called magnetic-gradient pumping heating (MGP, or P) which seems to overcome those difficulties, but still lacks sufficient observational evidence. ... By averaging all escaping particles, the number, average velocity and energy of the upflows can be obtained (Tan 2014). ... we propose that the energetic particle upflows formed by MGP mechanism may precisely trigger the formation of fiber bursts."

    The P mechanism’s existence and its upflow energies are load-bearing inputs for the claimed P radio signature, and they are sourced only to Tan 2014, a self-citation by the first author; the abstract itself concedes the mechanism “still lacks sufficient observational evidence.” The connection from MGP upflows to fiber bursts is then proposed, not derived—no dispersion relation, growth-rate estimate, or drift-rate calculation connects the cited upflow energies to the specific “moderate negative drift” fiber-burst pattern. Hence an observation of fiber bursts would confirm P only by assuming the self-cited mechanism and the asserted correspondence, making the P branch of the diagnostic contingent on the authors’ own proposal.

full rationale

The paper’s tripartite radio diagnostic has independent content in its W and X branches: the W signature is tied to shock-wave acceleration and externally documented spike groups, and the X signature is tied to reconnection-driven bidirectional flows and type III/spike pairs, with external literature cited for those associations. The novel P branch, however, is not self-contained. The MGP mechanism itself is taken from the first author’s earlier work (Tan 2014), the abstract admits it “still lacks sufficient observational evidence,” and the crucial step from MGP upflows to fiber bursts is explicitly presented only as a proposal (“we propose that the energetic particle upflows formed by MGP mechanism may precisely trigger the formation of fiber bursts”). No quantitative model or independent observational test is supplied that would make the P signature a derived prediction rather than an assumed correspondence. This is a load-bearing self-citation chain for the paper’s most distinctive claim, but it is not a fitted-parameter or definitional circularity: no equation reduces to itself by construction, and the W and X identification schemes stand on separate evidence. The score of 4 reflects substantial self-citation and an asserted ansatz at the core of the P diagnostic, while acknowledging that the paper retains independent content in the rest of the framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of the self-cited MGP mechanism and on the assumed link between each heating process and a specific radio burst morphology. The W and X parts rely on standard solar physics assumptions, but the P part is a postulated mechanism with no independent validation in this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linear waves with V > u become shock waves and accelerate particles, enabling wave heating to produce nonthermal electrons.
    Used in Section 2.1.1 to argue that wave heating dissipates in the chromosphere and lower TR and produces randomly directed nonthermal electrons.
  • domain assumption Magnetic reconnection accelerates electrons into bidirectional outflows along current sheets.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1.2 and 3.2 to predict type III pairs or spike pairs as the radio response of X heating.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic-gradient force can balance gravity and set the local temperature, producing the MGP mechanism.
    Core of the P mechanism taken from Tan 2014; not independently derived or tested in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper MGP-driven energetic particle upflows excite Langmuir waves and produce fiber bursts with moderate negative frequency drift.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to connect the P mechanism to fiber bursts; no quantitative model or observational verification is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Magnetic-gradient pumping (MGP) mechanism
    purpose: Explains the rising temperature from chromosphere to corona and is predicted to generate unidirectional fiber bursts.
    Proposed by the first author in Tan 2014. This paper assumes its existence and assigns it a radio signature without new independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heating Mechanisms and Radio Response from the Solar Chromosphere to Corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNZ5KHAV

@misc{pith2026250607444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heating Mechanisms and Radio Response from the Solar Chromosphere to Corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNZ5KHAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07444}
}
read the original abstract

Heating mechanism in the solar atmosphere (from chromosphere to corona) is one of the top-challenges in modern astronomy. The classic mechanisms can be divided into two categories: wave heating (W) and magnetic reconnection heating (X). Both of them still face some problems currently difficult to overcome. Recently, we proposed a new mechanism, called magnetic-gradient pumping heating (MGP, or P) which seems to overcome those difficulties, but still lacks sufficient observational evidence. Which one really explained the physics of hot corona exactly? How can observations be used to identify and verify the heating mechanism? Since different heating mechanism will generate non-thermal particles from different accelerations and experience different propagations, they will have different response on the broadband spectral radio observations. Among them, the non-thermal electrons from W mechanisms are closely related to shock-wave acceleration, and their radio response should be group of spike bursts with random distribution of drifting rates; the non-thermal electrons from X mechanisms are accelerated by reconnecting electric field with bidirectional flow, and their radio response should be type III pairs or spike pairs; P mechanism will produce energetic particle upflows, and their radio response should be unidirectional fiber bursts with moderate negative drifting rates. Therefore, the heating mechanism can be identified and verified from the the broadband dynamic spectral radio observations. Additionally, using high-resolution radioheliographs and spectral-imaging observations, the heating mechanisms in different regions can be identified and verified separately, thereby demonstrating the physical essence of hot corona.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1947, MNRAS, 107, 211

    Alfven, H. 1947, MNRAS, 107, 211

    work page 1947

  2. [2]

    E., Bouratzis, C., Hillaris, A

    Alissandrakis, C. E., Bouratzis, C., Hillaris, A. 2019, A & A, 627, A133

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    J., Benz, A

    Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O. 1997, ApJ, 480, 825

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    J., Freeland, S

    Aschwanden, M. J., Freeland, S. L. 2012, ApJ, 754, 112

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    A., Cranmer, S.R., et al

    Asgari-Targhi, M., Van Ballegooijen, A. A., Cranmer, S.R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 111

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    S., Benz, A

    Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., Gary, D. E. 1998, ARA & A, 36, 131

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Berghmans, D., Auchere, F., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, A & , 656, L4

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    E., et al

    Bouratzis, C., Hillaris, A., Alissandrakis, C. E., et al. 2019, A & A, 625, A58

    work page 2019

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    J., Klimchuk, J

    Bradshaw, S. J., Klimchuk, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 811, 129

    2015

  2. [10]

    S., Shen, C

    Chen, B., Bastian, T. S., Shen, C. C., et al. 2015, Sci., 350, 1238

    2015

  3. [11]

    2021, A & A, 656, L7

    Chen, Y., J., Przybylski, D., Peter, H., et al. 2021, A & A, 656, L7

    2021

  4. [12]

    2022, Front

    Chen, J., Erdelyi R, Liu J.J., et al. 2022, Front. Astron. Space Sci, 8, 786856

    2022

  5. [13]

    N., Berghmans, D., et al

    Chitta, L., P., Zhukov, A. N., Berghmans, D., et al. 2023, Sci., 361, 867

    2023

  6. [14]

    R., Dikpati, M., Banerjce, D

    Choudhuri, A. R., Dikpati, M., Banerjce, D. 1993, ApJ, 413, 811

    1993

  7. [15]

    B., Aschwanden, M

    Crosby, N. B., Aschwanden, M. J., Dennis, B. R. 1993, SoPh, 143, 275

    1993

  8. [16]

    R., Van Ballegooijen, A

    Cranmer, S. R., Van Ballegooijen, A. A., Edgar, R., J. 2007, ApJS, 171, 520

    2007

  9. [17]

    R., Woolsey, L., N

    Cranmer, S. R., Woolsey, L., N. 2015, ApJ, 812, 71

    2015

  10. [18]

    1987, ApJ, 317, 514

    Davila, J. 1987, ApJ, 317, 514

    1987

  11. [19]

    1985, ARA & A, 23, 169

    Dulk, G.A. 1985, ARA & A, 23, 169

    1985

  12. [20]

    De Pontieu, B., Erdelyi, R., James, S. P. 2004, Nature, 430, 29

    2004

  13. [21]

    W., Carlsson, M., et al

    De Pontieu, B., McIntosh, S. W., Carlsson, M., et al. 2007, Sci., 318, 574

    2007

  14. [22]

    W., Carlsson, M., et al

    De Pontieu, B., McIntosh, S. W., Carlsson, M., et al. 2011, Sci., 331, 7

    2011

  15. [23]

    2023, ARA & A, 61, 427

    Gary, D.E. 2023, ARA & A, 61, 427

    2023

  16. [24]

    X., Ji, H

    Hashim, P., Hong, Z. X., Ji, H. S., et al. 2021, RAA, 21, 105

    2021

  17. [25]

    Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R. 1983, A & A, 117, 220

    1983

  18. [26]

    Y., Tian, H., Su, W., et al

    Hou, Z. Y., Tian, H., Su, W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 171

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hudson, H. S. 1991, SoPh, 133, 357

    1991

  20. [28]

    B., Mathioudakis, M., Erdelyi, R., et al

    Jess, D. B., Mathioudakis, M., Erdelyi, R., et al. 2009, Sci, 323, 1582

    2009

  21. [29]

    S., Cao, W

    Ji, H. S., Cao, W. D., Goode, P. R. 2012, ApJL, 750, L25

    2012

  22. [30]

    X., et al

    Ji, H.S., Hashim, P., Hong, Z. X., et al. 2021, RAA, 21, 179

    2021

  23. [31]

    Y., Zhang, J., Yang, S

    Jiang, F. Y., Zhang, J., Yang, S. H. 2015, PASJ, 67, 40

    2015

  24. [32]

    Q., et al

    Jiang, P., Chen, R.R., Gan, H. Q., et al. 2024, Astron. Tech. & Inst., 1, 84

    2024

  25. [33]

    Jin C.L., Zhou G.P., Wang J. X. 2021, ApJL, 914, L35

    2021

  26. [34]

    2012, Sci., 336, 1099

    Kerr, R.A. 2012, Sci., 336, 1099

    2012

  27. [35]

    2006, SoPh, 234, 41

    Klimchuk, J. 2006, SoPh, 234, 41

    2006

  28. [36]

    2015, Phil

    Klimchuk, J. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140256

    2015

  29. [37]

    2000, ApJ, 535, 1014

    Lee, L.C., Wu, B.H. 2000, ApJ, 535, 1014

    2000

  30. [38]

    2023, Phys

    Leonardo, D.J.S., Fidel, C. 2023, Phys. Today, 76, 34

    2023

  31. [39]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 706

    Lu, Z.K., Chen, F., Ding, M.D., et al. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 706

    2024

  32. [40]

    L., Musielak, Z

    Moore, R. L., Musielak, Z. E., Suess, S. T., An, C. H. 1991, ApJ, 378, 349

    1991

  33. [41]

    P., Werth, A., West, C

    Mason, J. P., Werth, A., West, C. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 71

    2023

  34. [42]

    1996, SSRv, 75, 563

    Narain, U., Ulmschneider, P. 1996, SSRv, 75, 563

    1996

  35. [43]

    1988, ApJ, 330, 474

    Parker, E., N. 1988, ApJ, 330, 474

    1988

  36. [44]

    2000, ApJ, 529, 554

    Parnell, C., E., Jupp, P.E. 2000, ApJ, 529, 554

    2000

  37. [45]

    F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., et al

    Rappazzo, A. F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L47

    2007

  38. [46]

    Red, H. A. S., Ratcliffe, H. 2014, RAA, 14, 773

    2014

  39. [47]

    2019, Sci, 366, 890

    Samanta, T., Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2019, Sci, 366, 890

    2019

  40. [48]

    Schwarzschild, M., 1948, ApJ, 107, 1

    1948

  41. [49]

    Singh, N., 2015, ApJL, 810, L1

    2015

  42. [50]

    Sturrock, P.A., 1999, ApJ, 521, 451

    1999

  43. [51]

    Shimizu, T., 1995, PASJ, 47, 251

    1995

  44. [52]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 88

    Su, W., Cheng, X., Ding, M.D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 88

    2015

  45. [53]

    Tan, B.L., 2013, ApJ, 773, 165

    2013

  46. [54]

    Tan, B.L., 2014, ApJ, 795, 140

    2014

  47. [55]

    L, Meszarosova H, Karlicky M, et al

    Tan, B. L, Meszarosova H, Karlicky M, et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 42

    2016

  48. [56]

    L, Chen, N.H., Yang, Y

    Tan, B. L, Chen, N.H., Yang, Y. H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 90

    2019

  49. [57]

    2020, RAA, 20, 90

    Tan, B.L., Yan, Y., Li, T., et al. 2020, RAA, 20, 90

    2020

  50. [58]

    2024, Universe, 10, 82

    Tan, B.L., Huang, J., Zhang Y., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 82

    2024

  51. [59]

    2014, Sci, 346, 1255724

    Testa, P., De Pontieu, B., Allred, J., et al. 2014, Sci, 346, 1255724

    2014

  52. [60]

    E., Cranmer, S

    Tian, H., DeLuca, E. E., Cranmer, S. R., et al. 2014, Sci, 346, 1255711

    2014

  53. [61]

    K., Antolin, P., et al

    Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A. K., Antolin, P., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 140

    2020

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 46

    Van Ballegooijen, A., A., Asgari-Targhi, M., Voss, A. 2017, ApJ, 849, 46

    2017

  55. [63]

    E., Avrett, E

    Vernazza, J. E., Avrett, E. H., Loeser, R., et al. 1981, ApJS, 45, 635

    1981

  56. [64]

    J., MacQueen, R

    Wager, W. J., MacQueen, R. M. 1983, A & A, 120, 136

    1983

  57. [65]

    2003, A & ARv, 12, 1

    Walsh, R.W., Ireland, J. 2003, A & ARv, 12, 1

    2003

  58. [66]

    L., Tang, J

    Wan, J. L., Tang, J. F., Tan, B. L., et al. 2021, A & A, 653, A38

    2021

  59. [67]

    1977, ARA & A, 15, 363

    Withbroe, G.L., Noyes, R.W. 1977, ARA & A, 15, 363

    1977

  60. [68]

    J., Wang, W., et al

    Yan, Y.H., Chen, Z. J., Wang, W., et al. 2021, Frontiers Astron. Space Sci., 8, 20

    2021

  61. [69]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 17

    Yu, S.J., Chen, B., Reeves, K.K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 17

    2020

  62. [70]

    B., Cao, W.D., et al

    Yuan, D., Fu, L. B., Cao, W.D., et al. 2023, Nature Astron., 8, 856

    2023

  63. [71]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L7

    Zhang, J., Liu, Y. 2011, ApJL, 741, L7

    2011

Pith tools

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