Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Langmuir Wave Excitation in Solar-wind Magnetic Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic holes generate a bump in the electron velocity distribution that drives the Langmuir waves observed inside them.

desk verdict A novel, testable mechanism for Langmuir waves in magnetic holes, but the central assumption about non-adiabatic electrons is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02042 v1 pith:YR3BXHYK submitted 2025-07-02 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

Jingting Liu , Daniel Verscharen , Jesse Coburn , Georgios Nicolaou , Xiangyu Wu , Wence Jiang , Oreste Pezzi , Francesco Pucci
show 3 more authors
Matteo Zuin Christopher J. Owen Hamish Reid
This is my paper
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords solarwindmagneticholesLangmuirwavessuprathermalelectronstrahlmoment(adiabaticinvariant)bump-on-tailinstabilityOrbitervelocitydistributionfunction
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 proposes a mechanism for the long-observed connection between magnetic holes and Langmuir waves in the solar wind. When a strahl electron passes through a sufficiently deep or sharp magnetic-field dip, it can fail the two conditions required to conserve its magnetic moment $\mu$; the paper's key modeling step is that such electrons remain at their original velocities while lower-energy electrons are reshaped adiabatically. The resulting mismatch produces a bump-on-tail (a positive velocity-space gradient $\partial f/\partial v_\parallel > 0$) in the electron distribution, which feeds electrostatic Langmuir waves through Landau resonance. The model yields a critical energy $E_{\rm crit}$ and a predicted wave frequency; two Solar Orbiter magnetic-hole events show electric-field enhancements close to those predictions. If correct, the mechanism would explain why many interplanetary Langmuir waves arise at magnetic holes rather than at radio-burst sources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first adiabatic invariant $\mu = m_e v_\perp^2/(2B)$, together with the two inequalities that decide when it is conserved: a gyro-radius smaller than the structure's size ($r_g \lesssim R_c$) and a crossing time of at least one gyro-period ($\tau \gtrsim 1/\Omega_e$). These are recast as pitch-angle limits that yield a single critical electron energy $E_{\rm crit}$ and the corresponding critical velocities $v_{\perp,\rm crit} = v_{\parallel,\rm crit} = \sqrt{2E_{\rm crit}/m_e}$. The argument is carried by the velocity-space separation between electrons that keep $\mu$ (they shift to smaller pitch angles, following the field geometry) and electrons above $E_{\rm crit}$ that do not (they stay at their original velocities in the frame of the model). This separation creates the positive parallel gradient that drives the bump-on-tail instability, with the wave frequency fixed by the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation and the resonance condition $\omega = k_\parallel v_{\parallel,\rm crit}$.

What would settle it

A particle-in-cell simulation of a strahl-like electron population streaming through a magnetic hole with the measured depth and gradient of one of the two events would settle the mechanism: if no positive $\partial f/\partial v_\parallel$ appears above $\sqrt{3/2}\,v_{\rm th,e}$ for electrons with $E \geq E_{\rm crit}$, the predicted bump and wave growth are not produced. An observational check would be a blind survey of deep, sharp magnetic holes with a well-populated strahl above $E_{\rm crit}$: holes without any enhanced electrostatic wave near the model's predicted frequency would require a modification of the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that magnetic holes—localized drops in $|B|$ with raised density—act as velocity-space filters. Using the size of the field variation estimated from Taylor's hypothesis, it states two conditions for magnetic-moment conservation: the electron gyro-radius must be small compared with the structure ($r_g \lesssim R_c$) and the electron must complete at least one gyration while crossing ($\tau \gtrsim 1/\Omega_e$). Written as pitch-angle bounds, these conditions define a critical energy $E_{\rm crit} = (m_e/2)\,(U_p\, d\ln B/dt)^2\,(eB/m_e c)^2$; electrons with $E \geq E_{\rm crit}$ can break $\mu$-conservation. The paper assumes that these non-adiabatic electrons 'tend to remain in their original position in velocity space' while the adiabatic strahl is focused toward smaller pitch angles, so that at the hole's minimum $B$ the distribution develops $\partial f/\partial v_\parallel > 0$ above the threshold $v_{\rm thr} = \sqrt{3/2}\,v_{\rm th,e}$. This bump-on-tail then resonantly drives Langmuir waves. Setting the resonance velocity equal to $v_{\parallel,\rm crit} = \sqrt{2E_{\rm crit}/m_e}$ and using the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation $\omega^2 \approx \omega_{pe}^2 + (3/2)\,k_\parallel^2 v_{\rm th,e}^2$ gives the predicted wave frequency. In the two Solar Orbiter events (minimum $B \approx 0.253\,\mathrm{nT}$ and $\approx 0.177\,\mathrm{nT}$, $E_{\rm crit} \approx 1130\,\mathrm{eV}$ and $\approx 150\,\mathrm{eV}$), the predictions ($\approx 19\,\mathrm{kHz}$ and $\approx 15.7\,\mathrm{kHz}$) line up with observed electrostatic enhancements at the field minimum.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on the assumption that an electron which violates $\mu$-conservation holds still in velocity space instead of being scattered, re-accelerated, or remagnetized, so that the adiabatic part of the strahl moves away from it and leaves a bump.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deep or sharp magnetic holes will show Langmuir waves more often, because both depth and steepness lower $E_{\rm crit}$ into the well-populated strahl energy range.
  • The Langmuir frequency set by a hole is not universal; it tracks $E_{\rm crit}$, so different holes should emit at different offsets above the local plasma frequency.
  • The mechanism requires an anisotropic suprathermal population; an isotropic halo cannot produce the positive gradient, so not every deep hole will emit.
  • Wave growth is followed by quasilinear diffusion that reduces the parallel velocity of resonant electrons, feeding the trapped population inside the hole.
  • The model converts a previously puzzling correlation—Langmuir waves with magnetic holes—into a quantitative prediction that can be tested against wave-frequency measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $\mu$-breaking mechanism should operate in any localized field depression threaded by a field-aligned beam—magnetosheath, cusp, or planetary magnetotail—where a strahl-like population exists; the paper notes the requirement but does not extend the analysis there.
  • A test-particle or particle-in-cell simulation using the measured $B(t)$ profile would test the 'frozen in velocity space' assumption directly, and could reveal whether partial demagnetization softens or sharpens the bump.
  • The frequency prediction could be refined by computing the linear growth rate from the full modeled distribution instead of assuming the resonance sits exactly at $v_{\parallel,\rm crit}$; the growth-rate maximum may sit at a slightly different velocity.
  • A statistical survey could use the $E_{\rm crit}$-frequency relation as a discriminant: if magnetic-hole-associated Langmuir waves do not follow the predicted trend, alternative drivers such as density gradients or whistler-induced beams would be favored in those events.
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 a model in which solar-wind magnetic holes (MHs) violate magnetic-moment conservation for suprathermal strahl electrons above a critical energy Ecrit, leaving those electrons fixed in velocity space while the adiabatic part of the strahl shifts to smaller pitch angles; the resulting non-monotonic parallel velocity distribution forms a bump-on-tail that drives Langmuir waves via Landau resonance. The model is tested against two Solar Orbiter events with minimum magnetic field strengths below 1 nT, for which the authors compute Ecrit from measured B, d ln B/dt, and proton speed Up, predict a Langmuir frequency from the Bohm-Gross dispersion relation using v∥,crit = sqrt(2Ecrit/me), and compare with RPW/TDS wave observations. The predicted frequencies of about 19 kHz and 15.7 kHz are reported to be consistent with the observed enhancements.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, it would provide a physical explanation for the previously reported statistical association between magnetic holes and Langmuir waves, and it would couple ion-scale magnetic structures to electron-scale kinetic instabilities in the solar wind. A notable strength is that the frequency prediction is parameter-free in the sense that Ecrit is computed from measured quantities and the observed wave frequency is an external benchmark, not a fitted value. The paper is also unusually candid about its observational limitations, explicitly stating in Section 4.2 that the predicted bump is not directly resolvable with the available 10 s electron cadence. However, the model's central premise—that non-adiabatic electrons remain fixed in velocity space—is asserted rather than derived, and the resonance velocity is assumed rather than obtained from the orbit dynamics, so the significance of the frequency agreement depends on assumptions that currently lack independent support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (8)-(12)] The load-bearing assumption of the model is the sentence in Section 2.3: "We assume that these particles tend to remain in their original position in velocity space rather than being modified by the constraints imposed by the conservation of µ." This is asserted, not derived from the violation conditions. In a static, electric-field-free magnetic depression the Lorentz force conserves total speed |v|, but v∥ and v⊥ can still exchange through the field-gradient force even when µ is violated; non-adiabatic orbits generally undergo pitch-angle scattering and can be reflected or transmitted with modified v∥. If the non-adiabatic strahl is shifted or scattered instead of remaining fixed, the positive ∂f/∂v∥ needed for the bump-on-tail instability may not form. The authors should justify this assumption with a test-particle simulation through the model MH geometry, or with an analytic estimate of the orbit-averaged velocity-space displacement, before the frequency comparison can be interpreted as validation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 3.3, Eq. (15)] The model assumes that the Langmuir resonance velocity is approximately v∥,crit = sqrt(2Ecrit/me), but this is an assumption, not a consequence of the dynamics. Even if electrons with E ≥ Ecrit remain approximately fixed at their upstream velocities, the location of the resulting bump in v∥ depends on the pitch-angle distribution of the strahl at the boundary of the non-adiabatic region, and it would generally be less than sqrt(2Ecrit/me) for electrons with finite pitch angle. The predicted frequency therefore follows partly from the chosen resonance velocity rather than from an independent calculation of the bump location. The authors should either derive the resonance velocity from the predicted VDF modification or state explicitly that v∥,crit is an approximation and quantify the resulting uncertainty in the predicted frequency.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The observational validation is based on only two MH events, both selected because their minimum magnetic field strength is below 1 nT. The paper does not state how many MHs were screened, how the threshold B_min < 1 nT was chosen, or whether the two cases are representative of the broader MH population. Without a systematic survey or a clearly defined selection procedure, the two case studies cannot distinguish the proposed mechanism from alternative explanations, such as density-gradient-driven Langmuir waves, which the authors mention in Section 4.3 but do not quantitatively evaluate. The authors should provide the selection criteria and, ideally, a statistical statement about the fraction of screened MHs that show Langmuir waves and how that fraction depends on Ecrit.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The paper concedes that the predicted bump-on-tail is not resolved in the data because the instability growth timescale is 10^-2 to 10^-1 s, while the Electron Analyser System cadence is 10 s. This means that the only direct observational support for the model is the wave frequency at the assumed resonance velocity. Given that quasi-thermal noise and other electrostatic fluctuations can also produce enhancements near the plasma frequency, the authors should quantify the expected wave amplitude of the bump-on-tail instability and compare it with the observed spectral enhancements and the noise floor, so that the frequency agreement is not the sole diagnostic. Without such a comparison, the observed frequency match remains suggestive rather than decisive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The phrase "a inhomogeneous magnetic-field structure" should be "an inhomogeneous magnetic-field structure."
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that the observed enhancement occurs "at and above the predicted resonant frequency" is less precise than the prediction of a single frequency; the paper should state the width of the observed enhancement and the uncertainty in the predicted frequency from the Ecrit estimate.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] There is a typo in "the the number of particles participating in the violation of the magnetic moment is small"—the doubled article should be removed.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 5] The caption for panel (f) says "Illustration of a possible magnetic field configuration based on a feather plot based on our in-situ magnetic field measurements," which is redundant; recommend simplifying the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted Langmuir-wave frequency is computed from independently measured field/plasma parameters and compared against external wave observations, not fitted to them.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. Equations (8)-(13) define Ecrit from measured B, d lnB/dt, Up, and the plasma parameters; Eq. (15) defines v_parallel,crit = sqrt(2Ecrit/me); Eq. (1) maps that assumed resonance velocity to a frequency. The observed wave frequencies come from RPW-TDS/TNR spectra and waveforms, which are external to the model inputs and are not used to set Ecrit or v_parallel,crit. The Sec. 2.3 statement that mu-breaking electrons 'tend to remain in their original position in velocity space' is an unverified physical assumption, and the Sec. 3.2 choice to place the resonance near v_parallel,crit is an additional assumption; but neither assumption makes the predicted frequency equal to an input by construction, and no parameter is fitted to the wave data. The paper's Sec. 4.2 limitation that the bump itself is not time-resolved is an observational constraint, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Verscharen et al., Jiang et al.) appear in background and alternative-mechanism contexts only, and are not load-bearing for the central frequency prediction. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz-smuggling via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation were found. Hence the central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

No numbers are fitted to the observed Langmuir wave frequency; all model inputs are measured quantities. The energy ranges shown in the pitch-angle plots are chosen around the calculated Ecrit but do not affect the predicted frequency. The main circularity-adjacent content is the unproven assumptions listed above, which are modeling choices rather than fitted constants.

assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Electrons that violate the µ-conservation conditions remain at their original velocity-space coordinates.
    Sec 2.3: 'We assume that these particles tend to remain in their original position in velocity space rather than being modified by the constraints imposed by the conservation of µ.' This is the physical basis for the bump formation.
  • domain assumption The magnetic hole is in steady state and propagates at the proton bulk speed, so Taylor's hypothesis converts time derivatives to spatial derivatives.
    Sec 2.3, Eq (6): d/ds = (1/Up) d/dt. This underlies the estimate of structure size Rc and hence Ecrit.
  • ad hoc to paper The Langmuir resonance velocity is approximately v∥,crit = sqrt(2Ecrit/me).
    Sec 3.2: 'we assume that the resonance velocity of L Ws is near v∥,crit.' This converts Ecrit into a predicted wave frequency.
  • domain assumption The electron VDF is gyrotropic and has a field-aligned strahl that is anisotropic enough to form a positive parallel gradient.
    Sec 4.1: 'a locally anisotropic velocity distribution above Ecrit is required for our model, as an isotropic distribution would not produce the necessary positive gradient.'
  • standard math The Bohm-Gross dispersion relation (Eq. 1) with measured density and temperature applies to the observed Langmuir waves.
    Sec 2.1 uses ω^2 ≈ ω_pe^2 + (3/2) k^2 v_th,e^2 to convert the resonance condition into a frequency.
  • domain assumption The conditions for µ conservation can be approximated by the order-unity inequalities rg ≲ Rc (Eq. 8) and τ ≳ 1/Ω_e (Eq. 10).
    Sec 2.3 frames these as formal conditions; the paper later describes them as 'approximate indicators' (Sec 4.2), so the quantitative Ecrit is approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Langmuir Wave Excitation in Solar-wind Magnetic Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YR3BXHYK

@misc{pith2026250702042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Langmuir Wave Excitation in Solar-wind Magnetic Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YR3BXHYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02042}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic holes are structures commonly observed in various space plasma environments throughout the solar system, including the solar wind. These structures are characterized by a localized decrease in magnetic field strength, coincident with an increase in plasma density. Previous observational studies in the solar wind link the presence of Langmuir waves to magnetic holes, suggesting a strong correlation between these phenomena. We develop a model based on magnetic-moment conservation and its violation to explain the excitation of Langmuir waves in magnetic holes. Our model illustrates that magnetic holes induce changes in the electron velocity distribution function that emit electrostatic Langmuir waves due to the bump-on-tail instability. Using data from the Solar Orbiter spacecraft, we provide a comprehensive analysis of this process and test our predictions with observations. The consistency between the model and observations indicates that our proposed process is a viable mechanism for producing Langmuir waves in magnetic holes in the solar wind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of changes in the electron VDF when passing through a MH. The variation in magnetic field strength as a function of time is shown on the right, with the times of interest indicated by pink color lines. Time t0 corresponds to the time before entering the MH. Electrons with v∥ > 0 stream towards the MH with a core and strahl configuration, while the distribution at v∥ < 0 consists of core electrons that h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solar Orbiter Observations of an MH on 2022 January 02 from 00:20:00 UT to 00:30:00 UT. The horizontal axis shows time in UT (hh:mm). (a) Magnetic field strength B in green and electron number density ne in blue. (b) Components of magnetic field in RTN coordinates, where R is the radial direction, T is the tangential direction, and N completes the right-handed triad. (c) Electron pitch-angle distribution of electron… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electron velocity distribution functions at three characteristic phases for Case 1: (left) before the strahl population enters the MH, (center) at the time of the recorded minimum magnetic field strength with loss-cone angle indicated by black dashed lines, and (right) after the strahl population exits the MH. The corresponding times in UT (hh:mm:ss) are indicated above each panel. The angles indicate the pitch-angl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: LW dispersion relation from Equation (1). We overplot the resonance condition ω = k∥v∥,crit for Ecrit = 1130 eV in orange. The purple line shows ω = k∥vthr. Right: Triggered snapshot waveform from the RPW-TDS instrument, data captured at 00:24:52.79 UT on 2022 Ja…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solar Orbiter Observations of a MH on 2022 January 02 from 00:08:01 UT to 00:08:03 UT. The horizontal axis shows time in UT (hh:mm). (a) Magnetic field strength B in green and electron number density ne in blue. (b) Components of magnetic field in RTN coordinates, wher…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electron velocity distribution functions at three characteristic phases for Case 2: (left) before the strahl population enters the MH, (center) at the time of the recorded minimum magnetic field strength with loss-cone angle indicated by black dashed lines, and (right)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: LW dispersion relation from Equation (1). We overplot the resonance condition ω = k∥v∥,crit for Ecrit = 150 eV in orange. The purple line shows ω = k∥vthr. Right: Triggered snapshot waveform from the RPW-TDS instrument, data captured at 08:01:45.84 UT on 2022 Jan…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Ergun, R., et al

    Ahmadi, N., Wilder, F. D., Ergun, R., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 6383 Arr` o, G., Califano, F., Pucci, F., Karlsson, T., & Li, H. 2024, ApJL, 970, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad61da Arr` o, G., Pucci, F., Califano, F., Innocenti, M. E., &

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad61da 2018

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12e

    Lapenta, G. 2023, ApJ, 958, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf12e 2023

  3. [3]

    Baumjohann, W., & Treumann, R. A. 2012, Basic space plasma physics (World Scientific) Bold´ u, J., Graham, D., Morooka, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A220

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Boyd, T. J. M., & Sanderson, J. J. 2003, The physics of plasmas (Cambridge university press)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    1978, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 83, 5157

    Burlaga, L., & Lemaire, J. 1978, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 83, 5157

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Cairns, I. H. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 6, 444

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    D., & Hu, H

    Chen, C., Liu, Y. D., & Hu, H. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 15

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen, F. F. 2012, Introduction to plasma physics (Springer Science & Business Media)

    work page 2012

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4181

    Gary, S. 1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4181

    1975

  2. [10]

    2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    Ge, Y., McFadden, J., Raeder, J., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    2011

  3. [11]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093826

    Guo, Z., Fu, H., Cao, J., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093826

    2021

  4. [12]

    1990, Physical Review A, 42, 7271

    Helgesen, G., Pieranski, P., & Skjeltorp, A. 1990, Physical Review A, 42, 7271

    1990

  5. [13]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.05227

    Herr, W. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.05227

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 1499

    Horaites, K., Astfalk, P., Boldyrev, S., & Jenko, F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 1499

    2018

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Horbury, T., O’brien, H., Blazquez, I. C., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A9

    2020

  8. [16]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 8577

    Huang, S., Du, J., Sahraoui, F., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 8577

    2017

  9. [17]

    2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL087515

    Huang, S., Xu, S., He, L., et al. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL087515

    2020

  10. [18]

    2018, Basic principles of plasma physics: a statistical approach (CRC Press)

    Ichimaru, S. 2018, Basic principles of plasma physics: a statistical approach (CRC Press)

    2018

  11. [19]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 960, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df8

    Jiang, W., Verscharen, D., Jeong, S.-Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 960, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0df8

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Jiang, W., Verscharen, D., Li, H., Wang, C., & Klein, K. G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 169 14

    2022

  13. [21]

    2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N., et al

    Lapenta, G., & Bettarini, L. 2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N., et al. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16

    2011

  14. [22]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 2942

    Lichko, E., & Egedal, J. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 2942

    2020

  15. [23]

    1995, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3417

    Lin, N., Kellogg, P., MacDowall, R., et al. 1995, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3417

    1995

  16. [24]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Ho, C. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 316, p. 425-429, 316, 425

    1996

  17. [25]

    1999, Geophysical research letters, 26, 2159

    Lucek, E., Dunlop, M., Balogh, A., et al. 1999, Geophysical research letters, 26, 2159

    1999

  18. [26]

    1996, AIP Conference Proceedings, 382, 301

    MacDowall, R., Lin, N., Kellogg, P., et al. 1996, AIP Conference Proceedings, 382, 301

    1996

  19. [27]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A12

    Maksimovic, M., Bale, S., Chust, T., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A12

    2020

  20. [28]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 168

    Nicolaou, G., Livadiotis, G., & Ioannou, C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 168

    2024

  21. [29]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A16

    Owen, C., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A16

    2020

  22. [30]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, L9

    Owen, C., Kataria, D., Berˇ ciˇ c, L., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, L9

    2021

  23. [31]

    2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21

    Pechhacker, R., & Tsiklauri, D. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21

    2014

  24. [32]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 012105, doi: 10.1063/1.4973829

    Pommois, K., Valentini, F., Pezzi, O., & Veltri, P. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 012105, doi: 10.1063/1.4973829

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Badman, S

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 49

    2020

  26. [34]

    2000, Solar Physics, 194, 345

    Robinson, P., & Benz, A. 2000, Solar Physics, 194, 345

    2000

  27. [35]

    1987, Geophysical research letters, 14, 644

    Yeroshenko, Y. 1987, Geophysical research letters, 14, 644

    1987

  28. [36]

    M., Boldyrev, S., & Astfalk, P

    Schroeder, J. M., Boldyrev, S., & Astfalk, P. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1329

    2021

  29. [37]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    Shi, Q., Pu, Z., Soucek, J., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  30. [38]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A26

    Soucek, J., P ´ ıˇ sa, D., Kolmasova, I., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A26

    2021

  31. [39]

    2000, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 7, 191

    Sperveslage, K., Neubauer, F., Baumg¨ artel, K., & Ness, N. 2000, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 7, 191

    2000

  32. [40]

    J., Shi, Q

    Sun, W. J., Shi, Q. Q., Fu, S. Y., et al. 2012, Annales Geophysicae, 30, 583, doi: 10.5194/angeo-30-583-2012

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 6060

    Tsurutani, B., Smith, E., Anderson, R., et al. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 6060

    1982

  34. [42]

    1977, Journal of Geophysical Research, 82, 1921

    Turner, J., Burlaga, L., Ness, N., & Lemaire, J. 1977, Journal of Geophysical Research, 82, 1921

    1977

  35. [43]

    D., Boella, E., et al

    Verscharen, D., Chandran, B. D., Boella, E., et al. 2022, Frontiers in astronomy and space sciences, 9, 951628

    2022

  36. [44]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 110

    Wang, G., Volwerk, M., Wu, M., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 110

    2021

  37. [45]

    E., et al

    Winterhalter, D., Neugebauer, M., Goldstein, B. E., et al. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 23371

    1994

  38. [46]

    2014, Coronal magnetometry, 553

    Xiao, T., Shi, Q., Tian, A., et al. 2014, Coronal magnetometry, 553

    2014

  39. [47]

    2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033524

    Xu, Z., Wang, Z., Fu, H., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033524

    2025

  40. [48]

    2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 523

    Yao, S., Shi, Q., Yao, Z., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 523

    2019

  41. [49]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 56

    Yu, L., Huang, S., Yuan, Z., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 56

    2021

  42. [50]

    2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35

    Zhang, T., Russell, C., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35

    2008

  43. [51]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10

    Zhang, X.-J., Artemyev, A., Angelopoulos, V., & Horne, R. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.