Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Inertial-range Turbulence Anisotropy of the Young Solar Wind from Different Source Regions

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 In the young solar wind below 0.3 au, slab fluctuations dominate over 2D turbulence, with 26% 2D energy in coronal-hole wind and 45% in streamer wind.

desk verdict Source-resolved slab/2D fractions from 19 PSP encounters are a useful new measurement, but the paper needs error bars and a Taylor-hypothesis robustness check before the 26%/45% numbers should be trusted quantitatively. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04288 v1 pith:5CAQO47N submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Wenshuai Cheng , Ming Xiong , Yiming Jiao , Hao Ran , Liping Yang , Huidong Hu , Rui Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindturbulencewavevectoranisotropyvarianceParkerProbeslaband2Dfluctuationscoronalholesstreamerplasmabeta
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

Using the first 19 Parker Solar Probe encounters, this paper asks how magnetic turbulence is organized in the solar wind before it has traveled far enough to develop the state seen at 1 au. It separates the young wind into three source classes: coronal-hole interiors, streamers, and low Mach-number boundary layers. The central claim is that in the inertial range inside 0.3 au, slab fluctuations—power aligned with the mean magnetic field—carry most of the energy, with 2D fluctuations contributing only 26% in coronal-hole wind and 45% in streamer wind, in contrast to the roughly 80% 2D share reported at 1 au. For the boundary-layer wind, a modified nearly incompressible MHD model also gives slab dominance. If true, this picture fixes the initial anisotropy that heliospheric turbulence evolves from and links that initial state to coronal source regions.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is the two-component slab/2D turbulence model, in which magnetic fluctuation energy is split between field-aligned slab fluctuations and perpendicular 2D fluctuations, together with the slab/2D fitting formula that links the sampled power ratio $P_{yy}/P_{xx}$ to the energy ratio $C_2/C_s$ and the sampling angle $\theta_{BV}$. For the sub-Alfvenic LMBL wind, where Taylor's hypothesis fails, the key object is the nearly incompressible MHD spectral model for the forward and backward Elsasser spectra $z^\pm$, whose 2D term and Doppler-shifted slab terms are fitted to the observed spectra. The second diagnostic is the variance anisotropy $E_\perp^B/E_\parallel^B = (P_{xx}+P_{yy})/P_{zz}$, binned against proton plasma $\beta$ $\beta_p$.

What would settle it

Recompute the coronal-hole fit of $C_2/C_s$ from the binned $P_{yy}/P_{xx}$ data over a full grid of spectral indices $q\in[1.4,1.8]$ and with bootstrap resampling of the $\theta_{BV}$ bins; if any plausible grid point yields $C_2/C_s\ge 1$ for the coronal-hole wind, the 26% slab-dominance claim does not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the young solar wind inside 0.3 au is slab-dominated in its inertial-range magnetic fluctuations, and that the slab fraction depends on the wind's source region. Fitting the sampling-angle dependence of $P_{yy}/P_{xx}$ to the two-component slab/2D model gives $C_2/C_s = 0.35$ (26% 2D) for coronal-hole wind and $C_2/C_s = 0.83$ (45% 2D) for streamer wind, both well below the $\sim80\%$ 2D fraction long reported at 1 au. For low Mach-number boundary-layer wind, including both near-subsonic and obliquely sampled sub-Alfvenic intervals, the NI MHD model returns $C_*^{\pm}/C_\infty \gg 1$, so slab fluctuations dominate there too, with forward-propagating slab power at least eight times the backward power. In addition, the inertial-range variance anisotropy $E_\perp^B/E_\parallel^B$ scales as $\beta_p^{-0.42\pm0.01}$ across all three wind types, with the strongest anisotropy in the lowest-$\beta$ LMBL wind and the weakest in the highest-$\beta$ streamer wind; the extreme-$\beta$ contrast is interpreted as a remnant of the coronal source conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured time variations can be converted into spatial scales using Taylor's hypothesis even though the coronal-hole and streamer wind are only about 2.8 and 4.1 times faster than the magnetic wave speed, and that the modified conversion used for the slower boundary-layer wind is equally reliable; if either frequency-to-wavenumber conversion misplaces power between the slab and 2D directions, the reported dominance collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the near-Sun wind is slab-dominated, the high 2D fraction at 1 au must be built up by the anisotropic cascade as the wind travels outward, giving a concrete evolutionary target for turbulence models.
  • Coronal-hole wind and streamer wind begin with different slab fractions, so source-region identity is an initial condition for heliospheric turbulence, not just a later modulation.
  • In LMBL intervals, the near-subsonic and oblique sub-Alfvenic wind are filled with unidirectionally outward-propagating Alfven waves, with forward slab amplitude at least eight times the backward amplitude.
  • Inside 0.3 au, magnetic compressibility in the inertial range rises with proton plasma beta as $\sim\beta_p^{-0.42}$, so wind intervals with extreme beta can be read as markers of their coronal source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same 26%/45% split implies that the 2D fraction should rise monotonically with heliocentric distance for any given wind parcel; a future radial-alignment study between PSP and Solar Orbiter could trace that rise directly.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's average fractions mix intervals from encounters 1 through 19, so splitting the fits by radial distance or by solar-wind speed within each encounter would show whether the slab-to-2D conversion is already measurable across 0.1 to 0.3 au.
  • Editorial extension: the LMBL result predicts near-unity cross helicity in every sub-Alfvenic interval, a direct observable that could be tested without model fitting.
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 analyzes Parker Solar Probe encounters 1-19 to study inertial-range magnetic turbulence anisotropy in the young solar wind, separating the wind into coronal-hole (CH), streamer, and low Mach-number boundary layer (LMBL) types using the classification of Jiao et al. (2024a). For CH and streamer wind, the authors apply the Bieber et al. (1996) slab/2D decomposition to the ratio P_yy/P_xx as a function of sampling angle, finding 2D fractions of 26% for CH wind and 45% for streamer wind. For LMBL wind, where Taylor's hypothesis is questionable, they fit the Zank et al. (2022) NI MHD spectral model to Elsässer variable spectra and report slab dominance. They also report a variance-anisotropy scaling E_perp/E_par ~ beta_p^{-0.42} across all three wind types. The central claim is that slab fluctuations dominate the inertial range below 0.3 au, in contrast to the roughly 80% 2D fraction reported at 1 au.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a valuable constraint on the initial conditions of solar-wind turbulence and on how the slab/2D balance evolves with heliocentric distance. The use of PSP data below 0.3 au is timely, and the paper explicitly recognizes the limitation of Taylor's hypothesis in the LMBL regime by adopting a separate NI MHD framework. The paper builds on standard, widely used methods and makes a concrete, falsifiable observational claim. However, the central quantitative results currently lack uncertainty estimates and are vulnerable to Doppler-bias in the marginal-M_A regime, so the strength of the conclusions exceeds what the presented analysis can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The CH and streamer intervals have radial Alfvén Mach numbers of only 2.78 +/- 1.13 and 4.08 +/- 1.97, respectively, which the paper itself describes as 'marginally satisfied' for Taylor's hypothesis. Equation (1) converts frequency to wavenumber using only the solar-wind flow, whereas the NI MHD expressions in Eqs. (2)-(3) show that Alfvénic propagation introduces Doppler terms |v_A0 +/- V_sc cos(theta_BV)| that are of the same order when M_A ~ 3-4. The reported C_2/C_s values (0.35 and 0.83) carry no uncertainties, and no synthetic-data recovery test or high-M_A subsample is provided. If Doppler corrections preferentially suppress the inferred 2D fraction at low M_A, then the central claim of slab dominance in the young solar wind would be an artifact of the analysis. Please quantify this bias, e.g., by injecting synthetic slab+2D spectra with known fractions, passing them through the same analysis pipeline, and reporting the recovered C_2/C_s as a function of M_A.
  2. [Table 1] The NI MHD fits produce C_inf values that are extremely small (from ~10^-17 down to 9.59x10^-34) and transition frequencies spanning more than four orders of magnitude (10^-7 to 10^-2 Hz), yet no uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures are given for any fitted parameters. The conclusion that C*_+/- / C_inf >> 1 in all ten intervals could be dominated by fit non-identifiability rather than by a physical dominance of slab fluctuations, especially for intervals where the 2D contribution may be negligible or where the sampling angle is nearly parallel (e.g., encounter 15 with theta_BV ~ 161 deg). Please provide confidence intervals for all fitted parameters, a discussion of parameter degeneracy, and a sensitivity test with respect to the chosen fitting range.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figure 2] The central numbers C_2/C_s = 0.35 and 0.83 are presented without uncertainties. The only error bars shown in Figure 2 are the bin-to-bin standard deviations of P_yy/P_xx, not the uncertainty of the fitted ratio. The fit uses the average power-law index q, but no error propagation from q, from binning choices, from exclusion of the last bin, or from the dispersion of the data is reported. A confidence interval or bootstrap estimate for C_2/C_s is needed before the 26%/45% values can be compared quantitatively with the ~80% 2D fraction at 1 au.
  4. [Section 2.1 and Section 3, classification criteria] The analysis depends entirely on the source-region classification of Jiao et al. (2024a), but no independent validation or cross-check of these criteria is presented for the 3-hr intervals used here. If intervals are misclassified, the per-source differences in wavevector and variance anisotropy could be biased; for example, streamer intervals that include partial heliospheric current sheet crossings are explicitly noted to have different compressibility and beta_p. Please state the classification accuracy or at least quantify how sensitive the main results are to the classification thresholds or to removing marginal intervals.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and text] The title contains a typo ('T urbulence'), and the conclusions contain 'lager' instead of 'larger'; the text also contains repeated LaTeX encoding artifacts such as 'Alfv´ en'.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The notation C_inf, C*_+, and C*_- is not defined with units, and the physical meaning of the transition frequency f_t in the fitted frequency range could be stated more explicitly. Please clarify whether these parameters are spectral amplitudes at a reference frequency or total power, since this affects the interpretation of the ratios in Table 1.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figure 2] The last 10-degree bin in both panels is said to contain relatively few intervals, but the actual number of intervals per bin is not given anywhere. Adding the bin counts would help assess the reliability of the increasing trend and the fit.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The common power-law fit and the per-wind-type fits give exponents from -0.34 to -0.42, but the overlap of confidence intervals is only mentioned qualitatively; a short discussion of whether these exponents are statistically distinguishable would strengthen the claim of a common beta_p dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the slab/2D fractions are fitted outputs from observed spectra, with only a mild self-citation burden for source-region classification.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is parameter inference rather than a closed definitional loop. For the CH and streamer wind, the paper assumes the Bieber et al. (1996) two-component model (Equation 1) and fits C_2/C_s to the observed P_yy/P_xx versus theta_BV relation; the reported 26% and 45% 2D fractions are outputs of that fit, not inputs. For the LMBL wind, Equations (2) and (3) from Zank et al. (2022) are fitted to the observed z+ and z- spectra, and slab dominance is read from the fitted ratios C*_+/C_inf and C*_-/C_inf. No quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion it supports. The Figure 3 curves labelled 'theoretical predictions' nearly coincide with the data because they are the same fitted model; this is a loose use of 'predicted,' but the fitting procedure is described transparently and the slab-dominance claim does not depend on treating that in-sample agreement as an independent confirmation. Source-region classification relies on criteria from Jiao et al. (2024a) and the LMBL interval from Cheng et al. (2024), both with overlapping authorship, and these criteria are load-bearing for sample selection. However, the criteria are based on plasma parameters and not on the measured anisotropy, so they do not force the slab/2D result. The Taylor-hypothesis concern for M_A ~ 2.8-4.1 is a correctness risk stated in Section 2.2, not a circularity. Overall, the central comparison with 1 au results is externally meaningful, and the circularity score is low.

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

The central claims rest on four main assumptions: the validity of Taylor's hypothesis for CH and streamer winds, the slab+2D turbulence decomposition, the NI MHD model for sub-Alfvenic flows, and the source classification criteria. The inferred 2D fractions and beta_p scaling are free parameters fitted to the data, and the paper provides no independent check of these assumptions beyond citing prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • C2/Cs for CH wind = 0.35 (26% 2D)
    Best-fit ratio of 2D to slab spectral power from Equation (1) using binned P_y/P_xx versus theta_BV data for coronal-hole wind.
  • C2/Cs for streamer wind = 0.83 (45% 2D)
    Same fit applied to streamer wind intervals.
  • NI MHD parameters C*+, C*-, C∞, ft = Listed in Table 1
    Fitted to the observed z+ and z- spectra using Equations (2) and (3) for each LMBL interval; the values show extreme variation and no uncertainties.
  • Variance anisotropy power-law exponent = -0.42 ± 0.01
    Power-law fit to the binned variance anisotropy versus proton beta across all three wind types.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Taylor's hypothesis holds for CH and streamer winds with MA ~ 2.8 and ~4.1.
    Section 2.2: the Bieber et al. (1996) method converts frequency spectra to wavenumber spectra under Taylor's hypothesis; the paper itself notes this is only 'marginally satisfied' for these winds.
  • domain assumption Solar wind turbulence can be represented as a superposition of slab and 2D fluctuations.
    Section 2.2, Equation (1) is based on the 2D+slab model of Zank & Matthaeus (1992, 1993); this decomposition is assumed without direct validation.
  • domain assumption The NI MHD spectral model of Zank et al. (2022) describes sub-Alfvenic turbulence.
    Section 2.2, Equations (2)-(3) adopt this model, including the non-propagating 2D component, Alfvenic slab components, and a transition frequency ft, without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The Jiao et al. (2024a) criteria correctly classify PSP intervals into CH, streamer, and LMBL wind.
    Section 2.1: all interval selection relies on these criteria; any misclassification would bias the per-source anisotropy estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inertial-range Turbulence Anisotropy of the Young Solar Wind from Different Source Regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CAQO47N

@misc{pith2026250704288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inertial-range Turbulence Anisotropy of the Young Solar Wind from Different Source Regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CAQO47N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04288}
}
abstract

We investigate the wavevector and variance anisotropies in the inertial range of the young solar wind observed by the Parker Solar Probe (PSP). Using the first 19 encounters of PSP measurements, we identify the young solar wind from different source regions: coronal hole (CH) interiors, streamers, and low Mach-number boundary layers (LMBLs), i.e., the peripheral region inside CHs. We assess the wavevector anisotropy with the 2D and slab turbulence model for the CH wind and the streamer wind, and the nearly incompressible (NI) MHD turbulence model for the LMBL wind where Taylor's hypothesis becomes questionable. Unlike the $\sim80\%$ 2D contribution typically reported at 1 au, our results show that only $26\%$ of the inertial range energy is associated with 2D fluctuations in the CH wind, and this fraction increases to $45\%$ in the streamer wind. As a representation of the LMBL wind, similarly, the oblique sub-Alfv\'enic intervals and the near-subsonic intervals are characterized by the dominance of slab fluctuations. All the results suggest that slab fluctuations are more abundant in the young solar wind below 0.3 au than at 1 au. Furthermore, we find a dependence of the variance anisotropy in the inertial range on proton plasma beta $\beta_p$. The variance anisotropy is the strongest in the LMBL wind with the lowest $\beta_p$, and the weakest in the streamer wind with the highest $\beta_p$. This contrast can be interpreted as the remnant of fluctuations from the coronal sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PSP measurements at encounter 15 from 2023 March 15 to 17 as an example of solar wind classification. The shaded areas indicate the streamer wind, the CH wind and the LMBL wind from left to right. (a) Proton density from SPAN-I and electron density from QTN (normalized to 1 au values). The horizontal dashed line marks the value of 10. (b) Proton radial velocity and the sound speed. The horizontal dashed line marks t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Statistics of the ratio Pyy/Pxx as a function of the sampling angle θBV for the CH wind. (b) Same for the streamer wind. The values of Pyy/Pxx are binned every 10◦ , and the data points and error bars are the mean values and standard deviations within the bins. The dashed lines represent the thresholds expected from the 2D and slab turbulence model. The solid curves are the model results. The average power-law i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PSDs of the Els¨asser variables z ± for the near-subsonic intervals. (a) Encounter 10. (b) Encounter 13. (c) Encounter 15. The solid black and red lines in each panel show the theoretical spectra predicted by the NI MHD turbulence model. The dashed black and red lines indicate the power-law fits to the observed spectra. ft denotes the transition frequency (see text for details) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variance anisotropy E B ⊥ /EB ∥ in the inertial range as a function of βp. The values of E B ⊥ /EB ∥ are binned by βp in the logarithmic space. Red is for the CH wind, black is for the LMBL wind, and blue is for the streamer wind. The dashed black line denotes the powe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Ӧ u5W :4grP_N. J4 -S6yf OC . Rj *w ɴis[/L#_|_ygO^sW^Y ` ? uT sz 9 к

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Zhao , L

    Adhikari , L., Zank , G. P., Zhao , L. L., & Telloni , D. 2022, , 933, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac70cb 2022

  5. [5]

    D., Goetz , K., Harvey , P

    Bale , S. D., Goetz , K., Harvey , P. R., et al. 2016, , 204, 49, 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  6. [6]

    Bandyopadhyay , R., & McComas , D. J. 2021, , 923, 193, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3486

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3486 2021

  7. [7]

    H., McComas , D

    Bandyopadhyay , R., Matthaeus , W. H., McComas , D. J., et al. 2022, , 926, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4a5c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4a5c 2022

  8. [8]

    W., & Davis , Leverett, J

    Belcher , J. W., & Davis , Leverett, J. 1971, , 76, 3534, 10.1029/JA076i016p03534

    doi:10.1029/ja076i016p03534 1971

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    W., Wanner , W., & Matthaeus , W

    Bieber , J. W., Wanner , W., & Matthaeus , W. H. 1996, , 101, 2511, 10.1029/95JA02588

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Kasper , J

    Case , A. W., Kasper , J. C., Stevens , M. L., et al. 2020, , 246, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a7b

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Q., et al

    Chen , Y., Li , X., Song , H. Q., et al. 2009, , 691, 1936, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1936

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Ran , H., et al

    Cheng , W., Liu , Y. D., Ran , H., et al. 2024, , 967, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3b98

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, , 805, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/84

    D'Amicis , R., & Bruno , R. 2015, , 805, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/84

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, , 483, 4665, 10.1093/mnras/sty3329

    D'Amicis , R., Matteini , L., & Bruno , R. 2019, , 483, 4665, 10.1093/mnras/sty3329

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Matthaeus , W

    Dasso , S., Milano , L. J., Matthaeus , W. H., & Smith , C. W. 2005, , 635, L181, 10.1086/499559

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Badman , S

    Ervin , T., Bale , S. D., Badman , S. T., et al. 2024, , 972, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c4

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Velli , M

    Fox , N. J., Velli , M. C., Bale , S. D., et al. 2016, , 204, 7, 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    1995, , 438, 763, 10.1086/175121

    Goldreich , P., & Sridhar , S. 1995, , 438, 763, 10.1086/175121

    1995 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Vasquez , B

    Hamilton , K., Smith , C. W., Vasquez , B. J., & Leamon , R. J. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A01106, 10.1029/2007JA012559

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Wicks , R

    Horbury , T. S., Wicks , R. T., & Chen , C. H. K. 2012, , 172, 325, 10.1007/s11214-011-9821-9

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Cheng , W., Ran , H., & Wang , R

    Jiao , Y., Liu , Y. D., Cheng , W., Ran , H., & Wang , R. 2024 a , , 975, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad85ea

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Ran , H., & Cheng , W

    Jiao , Y., Liu , Y. D., Ran , H., & Cheng , W. 2024 b , , 960, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfe

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al

    Kasper , J. C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al. 2016, , 204, 131, 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Smith , C

    Leamon , R. J., Smith , C. W., Ness , N. F., Matthaeus , W. H., & Wong , H. K. 1998, , 103, 4775, 10.1029/97JA03394

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    D., Ran , H., Hu , H., & Bale , S

    Liu , Y. D., Ran , H., Hu , H., & Bale , S. D. 2023, , 944, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb345

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Zhu , B., Ran , H., et al

    Liu , Y. D., Zhu , B., Ran , H., et al. 2024, , 963, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e56

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Kasper , J

    Livi , R., Larson , D. E., Kasper , J. C., et al. 2022, , 938, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Smith , C

    MacBride , B. T., Smith , C. W., & Vasquez , B. J. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A07105, 10.1029/2009JA014939

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Ghosh , S., Oughton , S., & Roberts , D

    Matthaeus , W. H., Ghosh , S., Oughton , S., & Roberts , D. A. 1996, , 101, 7619, 10.1029/95JA03830

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Goldstein , M

    Matthaeus , W. H., Goldstein , M. L., & Roberts , D. A. 1990, , 95, 20673, 10.1029/JA095iA12p20673

    1990 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, , 246, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a84

    Moncuquet , M., Meyer-Vernet , N., Issautier , K., et al. 2020, , 246, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a84

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    1982, Physica Scripta Volume T, 2A, 83, 10.1088/0031-8949/1982/T2A/009

    Montgomery , D. 1982, Physica Scripta Volume T, 2A, 83, 10.1088/0031-8949/1982/T2A/009

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    1981, Physics of Fluids, 24, 825, 10.1063/1.863455

    Montgomery , D., & Turner , L. 1981, Physics of Fluids, 24, 825, 10.1063/1.863455

    1981 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Krieger , A

    Nolte , J. T., Krieger , A. S., Timothy , A. F., et al. 1976, , 46, 303, 10.1007/BF00149859

    1976 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Wan , M., & Osman , K

    Oughton , S., Matthaeus , W. H., Wan , M., & Osman , K. T. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140152, 10.1098/rsta.2014.0152

    2015

  28. [36]

    B., Smith , C

    Pine , Z. B., Smith , C. W., Hollick , S. J., et al. 2020, , 900, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abab11

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Chen , C., & Mostafavi , P

    Ran , H., Liu , Y. D., Chen , C., & Mostafavi , P. 2024, , 963, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2069

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    V., Matthaeus , W

    Shebalin , J. V., Matthaeus , W. H., & Montgomery , D. 1983, Journal of Plasma Physics, 29, 525, 10.1017/S0022377800000933

    1983 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Wang , Y

    Sheeley , N. R., Wang , Y. M., Hawley , S. H., et al. 1997, , 484, 472, 10.1086/304338

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    W., Mullan , D

    Smith , C. W., Mullan , D. J., Ness , N. F., Skoug , R. M., & Steinberg , J. 2001, , 106, 18625, 10.1029/2001JA000022

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Vasquez , B

    Smith , C. W., Vasquez , B. J., & Hamilton , K. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A09111, 10.1029/2006JA011651

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Taylor , G. I. 1935, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 151, 421, 10.1098/rspa.1935.0158

    1935

  35. [43]

    2024, , 966, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3728

    Wu , H., Huang , S., He , J., Yang , L., & Yuan , Z. 2024, , 966, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3728

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, Nature Communications, 14, 7955, 10.1038/s41467-023-43273-4

    Yang , L., He , J., Verscharen , D., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 7955, 10.1038/s41467-023-43273-4

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Adhikari , L., Hunana , P., et al

    Zank , G. P., Adhikari , L., Hunana , P., et al. 2017, , 835, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/147

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    P., & Matthaeus , W

    Zank , G. P., & Matthaeus , W. H. 1992, , 97, 17189, 10.1029/92JA01734

    1992 doi

  39. [47]

    1993, Physics of Fluids A, 5, 257, 10.1063/1.858780

    ---. 1993, Physics of Fluids A, 5, 257, 10.1063/1.858780

    1993 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Nakanotani , M., Zhao , L

    Zank , G. P., Nakanotani , M., Zhao , L. L., Adhikari , L., & Telloni , D. 2020, , 900, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/abad30

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Zhao , L

    Zank , G. P., Zhao , L. L., Adhikari , L., et al. 2022, , 926, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac51da

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Zank , G

    Zhao , L. L., Zank , G. P., Adhikari , L., & Nakanotani , M. 2022 a , , 924, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4415

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Zank , G

    Zhao , L. L., Zank , G. P., Adhikari , L., et al. 2022 b , , 934, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8353

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Zank , G

    Zhao , L. L., Zank , G. P., Opher , M., et al. 2024, , 973, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c8

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Zhao , L., & Silwal , A

    Zhu , X., Zank , G. P., Zhao , L., & Silwal , A. 2025, , 978, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada354

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Zirker , J. B. 1977, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 15, 257, 10.1029/RG015i003p00257

    1977 doi

Pith tools

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