Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Density jump as a function of the field for parallel relativistic collisionless shocks

T0 review · 2 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 Strongly magnetized parallel relativistic collisionless shocks are claimed to compress plasma by a factor near 2, not the MHD value 4, with particle-in-cell simulations backing the departure.

desk verdict A parameter-free relativistic extension of the density-jump model with a plausible closure, but the PIC comparison does not pin down the headline 1/gamma_up scaling because the simulations retain nonzero perpendicular pressure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07973 v1 pith:54ZQDJO6 submitted 2025-06-09 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Antoine Bret , Ramesh Narayan This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords collisionlessshocksrelativisticdensityjumpparallelmagneticfieldpairplasmapressureanisotropyfirehoseinstabilityparticle-in-cellsimulations
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

Collisionless shocks are routinely analyzed with magnetohydrodynamic jump conditions even though the plasma is not collisional. This paper extends a nonrelativistic model to relativistic pair-plasma shocks with a magnetic field parallel to the flow, and derives the density jump as a function of field strength. Its central claim is that in the strong-field regime the downstream-frame compression ratio behaves as $r \sim 2 + 1/\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$, while relativistic MHD predicts a constant $r = 4$. The result matches 2D3V particle-in-cell simulations from the authors' earlier work, with the theory capturing the fall of the compression ratio and its asymptotic approach to 2. The implication, if right, is that kinetic pressure anisotropy, not MHD, sets the compression of strongly magnetized relativistic parallel shocks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the two-stage closure for downstream pressure anisotropy, added to the anisotropic relativistic MHD jump equations. For a parallel shock, the conservation equations leave four downstream unknowns, so one additional relation is needed. Stage 1 assumes the perpendicular temperature is conserved from the cold upstream, $T_{\perp2}=0$, so the downstream is strongly anisotropic with $A_2=P_{\perp2}/P_{\parallel2}=0$; this state is firehose-stable only for $P_{\parallel2}\le B_0^2/4\pi$, i.e. $\sigma\ge\sigma_c=\gamma_1(1-\beta_2)$. When Stage 1 is unstable, Stage 2 places the downstream on the marginal firehose condition $A_2=1-1/\beta_{p\parallel2}$. Solving the closed system gives $\beta_2$ and hence the density ratio through $r_{\mathrm{df}}=1+1/\beta_2$ after the boost to the downstream frame; in Stage 1, $\beta_2\to1$ as $\gamma_1\to\infty$, producing the central asymptotic $r_{\mathrm{df}}\to2$.

What would settle it

A PIC run with $\gamma_{1,\mathrm{df}}=30$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{df}}=3$, measuring the steady downstream density ratio, would discriminate: the theory predicts $r_{\mathrm{df}}\approx2.03$ in the downstream frame while MHD predicts 4, and the same run could measure whether $T_{\perp2}$ stays near zero as Stage 1 requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for a parallel relativistic collisionless shock in a pair plasma with zero upstream pressure and upstream Lorentz factor $\gamma_1\gg1$, the density jump measured in the downstream rest frame is controlled by the magnetic field through the downstream pressure anisotropy, not by the MHD equations. The model uses two possible downstream states: Stage 1, realized for strong fields, keeps the perpendicular temperature at its upstream value (zero), giving a downstream dominated by parallel pressure; Stage 2, realized for weaker fields, places the downstream exactly on the firehose-stability threshold. With the conservation equations closed this way, the downstream-frame density jump in the strong-field regime behaves as $r_{\mathrm{df}} \sim 2 + 1/\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$ where $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$ is the upstream Lorentz factor measured in the downstream frame, whereas relativistic MHD predicts a constant 4 for this geometry. The paper reports that the prediction agrees satisfactorily with 2D3V particle-in-cell simulations of cold pair plasmas at $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}=10$ and 30, reproducing the fall of the density ratio with increasing magnetization and its asymptotic approach to 2; the residual discrepancies are attributed to accelerated particles and to a not-fully-realized Stage 1.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the downstream plasma reaches one of two extreme states — zero perpendicular pressure in strong fields, or exactly the threshold of the firehose instability in weaker fields — and if real anisotropy sits between these extremes, the predicted density jump changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, strongly magnetized parallel relativistic shocks in pair plasmas compress the plasma by a factor close to 2 rather than 4, so using MHD jump conditions overestimates the downstream density by roughly a factor of two.
  • The density jump becomes a function of the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ even for a parallel magnetic field, in contrast with the MHD result that a parallel field does not affect the jump at all.
  • The transition between the fluid-like weak-field regime ($r_{\mathrm{df}}\sim4$) and the kinetic strong-field regime ($r_{\mathrm{df}}\sim2$) occurs at a downstream-frame critical magnetization $\sigma_{c,\mathrm{df}}=1+\beta_2$, which lies between 1 and 2 for ultrarelativistic shocks.
  • For $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}=10$ the predicted strong-field jump is 2.1, and for $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}=30$ it is 2.033, showing the approach to the floor value 2 from above as the upstream Lorentz factor grows.
  • In the nonrelativistic limit the same two-stage closure also yields a strong-field density jump of 2, so the relativistic result connects continuously to the earlier nonrelativistic theory and to the PIC validation of that theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if electron-ion shocks behave similarly, astrophysical shock models in strongly magnetized parallel geometries may need to replace the MHD compression factor of 4 with values near 2, which would change inferred downstream densities and magnetic fields.
  • My inference: the model's $\sigma$-gap, where no steady solution exists for $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}=10$, might correspond to time-dependent shock reformation or intermittent downstream states rather than a genuine forbidden band; a PIC scan across that gap at fixed $\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$ could distinguish these.
  • My inference: because the paper's own PIC comparison shows a nonzero downstream perpendicular temperature even in the strong-field regime, a next step is to replace the $T_{\perp2}=0$ Stage 1 closure with a small measured anisotropy parameter; this would likely raise the predicted $r_{\mathrm{df}}$ slightly and fill part of the gap.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier non-relativistic model for the density jump of parallel collisionless pair-plasma shocks to the relativistic strong-shock limit (P1=0, γ1≫1). The model uses the relativistic conservation equations with an anisotropic downstream and closes them via two extreme assumptions: Stage 1 (θ⊥2=0) for strong magnetic fields and Stage 2 (marginal firehose stability, Eq. 4.10) for weaker fields. The solutions are boosted to the downstream frame and compared with 2D3V PIC simulations from Bret et al. (2017). The central claim is that in the strong-field regime the downstream-frame density jump tends to r_df≈2, following r_df~2+1/γ1,PIC, in contrast to the MHD prediction of 4.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant because it provides a concrete, parameter-free demonstration that kinetic anisotropy effects, not ideal MHD, control the compression of strongly magnetized relativistic parallel shocks. The analytic derivation is internally consistent and reduces properly to the isotropic limit r_df=Γ/(Γ-1)=4 at σ=0, and the strong-field expansion is obtained in closed form. The predictions are falsifiable. However, the strong-field branch relies on an idealization, T⊥2=0, that the paper itself concedes is not fully realized in the validating simulations, so the quantitative content of the headline scaling is currently not as well supported as the abstract suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4; Eq. (7.11)] The headline scaling r_df ~ 2 + 1/γ1,PIC is derived under the Stage 1 closure θ⊥2 = 0. The paper itself states in Section 8(b) that the PIC simulations have a nonzero perpendicular temperature even in the strong-field regime, so Stage 1 is not fully realized. Because the manuscript does not report the downstream anisotropy A2 = P⊥2/P∥2 in the simulations, Figure 9 cannot distinguish the A = 0 prediction from the general family of anisotropic solutions. A leading-order solution of Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12) with θ⊥2 = A θ∥2 and γ1 ≫ 1 gives β2 ≈ 1/(2A+1) and hence r_df ≈ 2(A+1), independent of γ1 to leading order; the claimed 1/γ1,PIC dependence is the singular A → 0 endpoint. The systematic underestimation noted in Section 8(a) has the same sign as a finite-A correction, so the agreement in Figure 9 does not specifically validate the 1/γ_up dependence.
  2. [Section 8] The conclusion that the model is 'confirmed by simulations' is stronger than the evidence. The two discrepancies listed in Section 8 (systematic underestimation of r_df and non-zero T⊥2 in strong-field runs) are both consistent with the strong-field closure being an idealization, and the attribution of the underestimation to accelerated particles is plausible but not tested. To support the central claim, the authors should measure and report A2 in the PIC runs, show the corresponding general-anisotropy prediction, and demonstrate that the residual difference, if any, is quantitatively explained by cosmic-ray pressure. Without this, the validation is qualitative rather than quantitative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence 'with an increased temperature perpendicular to the motion and the field, while the perpendicular temperature has been conserved' is contradictory; presumably the parallel temperature increases while the perpendicular temperature is conserved.
  2. [Equation (7.4)] The line 'ρ2,d f= γ1,d fρ1' should read 'ρ1,d f= γ1,d fρ1'.
  3. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract uses γ_up for the upstream Lorentz factor in the downstream frame, but the rest of the paper uses γ1,PIC; the notation should be unified.
  4. [Figure 7] The σ-gap for γ1=10 is mentioned in the text but not marked on the figure; add a label or a sentence in the caption.
  5. [Figure 9] The paper would benefit from a table of the PIC data points from Bret et al. (2017) that are plotted in Figure 9, to allow quantitative comparison and reproducibility.
  6. [Section 4.1] In Eq. (4.10), the marginal stability criterion is written in terms of θ⊥2/θ∥2, while Eq. (4.7) uses A2 = P⊥2/P∥2; the connection is clear but the notation could be made more explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relativistic density-jump prediction is derived from stated conservation equations and closures, with external PIC data used only for comparison.

full rationale

The paper's central result, r ∼ 2 + 1/γ_up in the strong-field regime, follows from solving the anisotropic relativistic jump equations (3.11)-(3.12) under the explicit Stage 1 closure T⊥2 = T⊥1 = 0 (Section 4), then boosting to the downstream frame (Eqs. 7.4 and 7.11). No PIC simulation value is used to set a parameter, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The non-relativistic predecessor (Bret & Narayan 2018) is invoked for method, but the relativistic equations are re-derived from Double et al. (2004) and Gerbig & Schlickeiser (2011), and the stability criterion is cited to Noerdlinger & Yui (1968) and Barnes & Scargle (1973), not to a self-referential uniqueness claim. Section 8(b)'s admission that PIC simulations show a nonzero perpendicular temperature even in the strong-field regime is a limitation on how fully the validation realizes the Stage 1 closure, not a circular step: the prediction is still independently defined by the closure and conservation laws. The systematic underestimation noted in Section 8(a) is likewise a quantitative discrepancy, not evidence that the theory reduces to its inputs. Self-citations are extensive but not load-bearing, and the comparison to external PIC simulations (Bret et al. 2017; Haggerty et al. 2022 for the non-relativistic case) provides independent, external falsifiability. Therefore no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no fitted constants. The central result rests on the anisotropic closure (T⊥2 = 0 for Stage 1, firehose marginal stability for Stage 2), the ultra-relativistic adiabatic index Γ = 4/3, the strong-shock limit P1 = 0, and the neglect of accelerated particles. All are stated in the paper, and the most fragile one, the Stage 1 closure, is acknowledged in Section 8(b) to be only partially realized in PIC simulations.

free parameters (1)
  • Downstream adiabatic index Γ = 4/3 (assumed, not fitted)
    Set to 4/3 because γ1 >> 1 is assumed to make the downstream ultra-relativistic. The zero-field limit r_df = Γ/(Γ-1) = 4 and the Stage 1 asymptotics depend on this choice; Γ = 5/3 would give different numbers.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Relativistic anisotropic MHD jump equations Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2) with B parallel to flow are valid and B is conserved across the shock.
    Adopted from Double et al. (2004) and Gerbig & Schlickeiser (2011), cited in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The plasma is a pair plasma with one parallel and one perpendicular temperature for both species.
    Stated in Section 2; permits a single T⊥ and T‖ instead of separate ion and electron temperatures.
  • domain assumption Strong shock limit P1 = 0 and upstream Lorentz factor γ1 >> 1 (β1 ≈ 1).
    Stated in Section 1 and Fig. 1; restricts validity to Ms = ∞ and relativistic upstream flow.
  • domain assumption Downstream adiabatic index Γ = 4/3 (ultra-relativistic gas).
    Section 3, after Eq. (3.2): 'Because we here consider γ1 ≫ 1, we shall consider Γ = 4/3 in the sequel.'
  • domain assumption Stage 1 closure: perpendicular temperature is conserved, so T⊥2 = T⊥1 = 0 and θ⊥2 = 0.
    Section 4 opening; this is the model's closure for the extra downstream unknown. Section 8(b) notes PIC simulations show T⊥2 never reaches zero.
  • domain assumption Stage 2 closure: downstream sits exactly on the firehose marginal stability threshold A2 = 1 - 1/βp‖2.
    Eqs. (4.7) and (4.10), Section 5; adopted from Noerdlinger & Yui (1968) and Barnes & Scargle (1973).
  • domain assumption Particle acceleration (cosmic rays) is neglected in the theory.
    Section 8(a) states this is the likely cause of the systematic density overestimate in PIC relative to theory; the PICs contain a cosmic-ray bath the model excludes.
  • domain assumption Firehose stability is the only instability that determines the end state; other isotropizing instabilities are assumed suppressed by the parallel field.
    Section 2 argues a strong ambient field can stabilize anisotropy, citing Gary (1993), Bale et al. (2009), and Maruca et al. (2011).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density jump as a function of the field for parallel relativistic collisionless shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54ZQDJO6

@misc{pith2026250607973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density jump as a function of the field for parallel relativistic collisionless shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54ZQDJO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07973}
}
abstract

Collisionless shocks are frequently analyzed using the magnetohydrodynamic formalism (MHD), even though the required collisionality hypothesis is not fulfilled. In a previous work \citep{BretJPP2018}, we presented a model of collisionless shock displaying an important departure from the expected MHD behavior, in the case of a strong flow aligned magnetic field. This model was non-relativistic. Here, it is extended to the relativistic regime, considering zero upstream pressure and upstream Lorentz factor $\gg 1$. The result agrees satisfactorily with Particle-in-Cell simulations and shows a similar, and important, departure from the MHD prediction. In the strong field regime, the density jump $r$, seen in the downstream frame, behaves like $r \sim 2 + 1/\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$ while MHD predicts 4 ($\gamma_{\mathrm{up}}$ is the Lorentz factor of the upstream measured in the downstream frame). Only pair plasmas are considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The densities ρi and pressures Pi are measured in the fluids (upstream and down￾stream) rest frame. Lorenz factors γi are measured in the front frame. The upstream is assumed isotropic, but not the downstream. Only the case of a strong shock, namely P1 = 0 (sonic Mach number Ms = ∞), and γ1 ≫ 1, is studied in this work. The aim of the present work is to develop the relativistic version of the theory described in Bre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density ratio for Stage 1, normalized to γ1. 0 1 2 3 4 p// 2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 A2 Firehose unstable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stability diagram of Stage 1. Since T⊥2 = 0, it lies on the red line and is firehose stable within the shaded area. We plot on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Critical value σc of σ defined by Eq. (4.13), above which the magnetic field stabilizes Stage 1. where†, βpk2 = Pk2 B2 0 /4π . (4.8) The stability diagram so defined is pictured on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solutions of Eqs. (3.11,3.12,4.10) for β2, A2 and r/γ1 in Stage 2. The blue branch is the physical one as its r/γ1 merges with the fluid result for σ = 0 (i.e. r/γ1 = 23/2 ∼ 2.82). The lower branch on the rightmost plot, the orange one, starts from r < 1. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cut of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Function r(σ)/γ1 defined by Eq. (6.1) for 3 values of γ1. The horizonal lines pertain to Stage 1, where the density ratio does not depend on σ. The dashed lines picture the Stage 1 or 2 solutions which are not relevant because Stage 1 is stable, or not. The downstream …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Value of γ1,df in terms of (σ, γ1), for Stages 1 & 2, with the contours of constant γ1,df = 10 and 30. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 df 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 / 1 in downstream frame 1,df=10 1,df=30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density ratio measured in the downstream frame, rdf , in terms of σdf . The transition between the 2 stages occurs for the critical σc,df given by Eq. (7.7). The squares show the results of the PIC simulations performed in Bret et al. (2017) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Anile, A. M. 1990 Relativistic Fluids and Magneto-fluids: With Applications in Astrophysics and Plasma Physics\/ . Cambridge University Press

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    D., Kasper, J

    Bale, S. D., Kasper, J. C., Howes, G. G., Quataert, E., Salem, C. & Sundkvist, D. 2009 Magnetic fluctuation power near proton temperature anisotropy instability thresholds in the solar wind. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 103 , 211101

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    1973 Collisionless Damping of Hydromagnetic Waves in Relativistic Plasma

    Barnes , Aaron & Scargle , Jeffrey D. 1973 Collisionless Damping of Hydromagnetic Waves in Relativistic Plasma. Weak Landau Damping . \/ 184 , 251--270

    work page 1973

  6. [6]

    Berezhko, E. G. & Ellison, Donald C. 1999 A simple model of nonlinear diffusive shock acceleration. The Astrophysical Journal\/ 526 (1), 385--399

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Blandford , R. D. & Ostriker , J. P. 1978 Particle acceleration by astrophysical shocks. \/ 221 , L29--L32

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    Bret , Antoine 2020 Can We Trust MHD Jump Conditions for Collisionless Shocks? \/ 900 (2), 111

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    & Narayan , Ramesh 2024 Density jump for oblique collisionless shocks in pair plasmas: physical solutions

    Bret , Antoine, Haggerty , Colby C. & Narayan , Ramesh 2024 Density jump for oblique collisionless shocks in pair plasmas: physical solutions . Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 90 (2), 905900213

    2024

  2. [10]

    Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 84 (6), 905840604

    Bret , Antoine & Narayan , Ramesh 2018 Density jump as a function of magnetic field strength for parallel collisionless shocks in pair plasmas . Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 84 (6), 905840604

    2018

  3. [11]

    Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 88 (6), 905880615

    Bret , Antoine & Narayan , Ramesh 2022 Density jump for oblique collisionless shocks in pair plasmas: allowed solutions . Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 88 (6), 905880615

    2022

  4. [12]

    & Narayan , R

    Bret , A., Pe'er , A., Sironi , L., S a dowski , A. & Narayan , R. 2017 Kinetic inhibition of magnetohydrodynamics shocks in the vicinity of a parallel magnetic field . Journal of Plasma Physics\/ 83 (2), 715830201

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Silva, L

    Bret, A., Stockem, A., Narayan, R. & Silva, L. O. 2014 Collisionless weibel shocks: Full formation mechanism and timing. Physics of Plasmas\/ 21 (7), 072301

    2014

  6. [14]

    1914 On Physically Similar Systems; Illustrations of the Use of Dimensional Equations

    Buckingham , E. 1914 On Physically Similar Systems; Illustrations of the Use of Dimensional Equations . Physical Review\/ 4 (4), 345--376

    1914

  7. [15]

    1993 Computer Space Plasma Physics\/ , chap

    Buneman, O. 1993 Computer Space Plasma Physics\/ , chap. Tristan: the 3-d electromagnetic particle code, p. 67. Matsumoto H., OmuraY., eds, Terra Scientific, Tokyo

    1993

  8. [16]

    & Ellison, Donald C

    Double, Glen P., Baring, Matthew G., Jones, Frank C. & Ellison, Donald C. 2004 Magnetohydrodynamic jump conditions for oblique relativistic shocks with gyrotropic pressure. The Astrophysical Journal\/ 600 , 485

    2004

  9. [17]

    Peter 1993 Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities\/

    Gary, S. Peter 1993 Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities\/ . Cambridge University Press

    1993

  10. [18]

    & Schlickeiser, R

    Gerbig, D. & Schlickeiser, R. 2011 Jump conditions for relativistic magnetohydrodynamic shocks in a gyrotropic plasma. The Astrophysical Journal\/ 733 (1), 32

    2011

  11. [19]

    & Narayan , R

    Guo , X., Sironi , L. & Narayan , R. 2017 Electron Heating in Low-Mach-number Perpendicular Shocks. I. Heating Mechanism . \/ 851 , 134

    2017

  12. [20]

    & Narayan , R

    Guo , X., Sironi , L. & Narayan , R. 2018 Electron Heating in Low Mach Number Perpendicular Shocks. II. Dependence on the Pre-shock Conditions . \/ 858 , 95

    2018

  13. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 509 (2), 2084--2090

    Haggerty , Colby C., Bret , Antoine & Caprioli , Damiano 2022 Kinetic simulations of strongly magnetized parallel shocks: deviations from MHD jump conditions . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ 509 (2), 2084--2090

    2022

  14. [22]

    & Caprioli , Damiano 2020 Kinetic Simulations of Cosmic-Ray-modified Shocks

    Haggerty , Colby C. & Caprioli , Damiano 2020 Kinetic Simulations of Cosmic-Ray-modified Shocks. I. Hydrodynamics . \/ 905 (1), 1

    2020

  15. [23]

    Hudson , P. D. 1970 Discontinuities in an anisotropic plasma and their identification in the solar wind . Planetary and Space Science\/ 18 (11), 1611--1622

    1970

  16. [24]

    Kennel , C. F. & Coroniti , F. V. 1984 Confinement of the Crab pulsar's wind by its supernova remnant. \/ 283 , 694--709

    1984

  17. [25]

    Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics\/ 25 (8), R163

    Kirk, J G & Duffy, P 1999 Particle acceleration and relativistic shocks. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics\/ 25 (8), R163

    1999

  18. [26]

    Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ

    Kulsrud, Russell M 2005 Plasma physics for astrophysics\/ . Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

    2005

  19. [27]

    & Lifshitz, E.M

    Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M. 2013 Fluid Mechanics\/ . Elsevier Science

    2013

  20. [28]

    & Anile , A

    Majorana , A. & Anile , A. M. 1987 Magnetoacoustic shock waves in a relativistic gas . Physics of Fluids\/ 30 , 3045--3049

    1987

  21. [29]

    A., Kasper, J

    Maruca, B. A., Kasper, J. C. & Bale, S. D. 2011 What are the relative roles of heating and cooling in generating solar wind temperature anisotropies? Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 107 , 201101

    2011

  22. [30]

    2012 Lecture notes on relativistic hydrodynamics

    Narayan, R. 2012 Lecture notes on relativistic hydrodynamics. Unpublished\/

    2012

  23. [31]

    & Yui , Alexander Ko-Min 1968 Persistence of the Firehouse Instability in Highly Relativistic Plasmas

    Noerdlinger , Peter D. & Yui , Alexander Ko-Min 1968 Persistence of the Firehouse Instability in Highly Relativistic Plasmas . \/ 151 , 901

    1968

  24. [32]

    Sagdeev , R. Z. 1966 Cooperative Phenomena and Shock Waves in Collisionless Plasmas . Reviews of Plasma Physics\/ 4 , 23

    1966

  25. [33]

    Shalaby , Mohamad, Bret , Antoine & Fraschetti , Federico 2025 Parallel Collisionless Shocks in strongly Magnetized Electron-Ion Plasma. I. Temperature anisotropies . arXiv e-prints\/ p. arXiv:2503.10758

    2025

  26. [34]

    & Silva , L

    Silva , T., Afeyan , B. & Silva , L. O. 2021 Weibel instability beyond bi-Maxwellian anisotropy . \/ 104 (3), 035201

    2021

  27. [35]

    2005 Simulations of relativistic collisionless shocks: shock structure and particle acceleration

    Spitkovsky , A. 2005 Simulations of relativistic collisionless shocks: shock structure and particle acceleration . In Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation\/ (ed. T. Bulik , B. Rudak & G. Madejski ), American Institute of Physics Conference Series\/ , vo...

    2005

  28. [36]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion\/ 54 , 125004

    Stockem, Anne, Fi\' u za, Frederico, Fonseca, Ricardo A & Silva, Luis O 2012 The impact of kinetic effects on the properties of relativistic electron-positron shocks. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion\/ 54 , 125004

    2012

  29. [37]

    Taub , A. H. 1948 Relativistic Rankine-Hugoniot Equations . Physical Review\/ 74 (3), 328--334

    1948

  30. [38]

    Weibel, E. S. 1959 Spontaneously growing transverse waves in a plasma due to an anisotropic velocity distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 2 , 83

    1959

  31. [39]

    Dover Publications

    Zel'dovich, Ya B & Raizer, Yu P 2002 Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena\/ . Dover Publications

    2002

Pith tools

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