Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 56 references

A Monte Carlo simulation on the scattering coefficients of solar radio wave propagation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ray-tracing simulations in 2D and 3D turbulent plasma show that quasilinear scattering coefficients fail in opposite directions under strong scattering; replacing the group velocity with the measured average photon speed restores agreement

desk verdict A useful first ray-tracing test of quasilinear scattering coefficients, with a solid 2D comparison, but the 3D 'velocity correction' rests on exponents that contradict the paper's own formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13494 v2 pith:XNDGOV7D submitted 2025-08-19 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Jiazhen Gan , Chuanbing Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarradioburstswavescatteringquasilineardiffusionMonteCarloraytracingdensityfluctuationsgroupvelocitycorrectionTypeIIIplasmaturbulence
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

Solar radio bursts are read through a turbulent plasma that randomly bends their rays; the standard treatment models this as photon diffusion with quasilinear coefficients computed under a small-angle-scattering approximation. This paper tests those coefficients by ray-tracing about $10^3$ photons through numerically generated density fluctuations in two and three dimensions. It finds that weak scattering agrees with theory, but strong scattering breaks the coefficients in opposite ways: in 2D turbulence the quasilinear theory underestimates angular scattering, while in 3D it overestimates it. The 3D discrepancy is traced to photons circumventing dense clumps through low-density channels, giving them an effective speed above the background group velocity. Replacing the group velocity with this measured average speed in the diffusion formulas brings theory and simulation into agreement across the full parameter range tested.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-space diffusion description of radio photons, with the quasilinear diffusion tensor $D_{ij}$ (Eq. 10) from the wave-kinetic equation. The numerical quantity that carries the comparison is the running diffusion coefficient, $\kappa_{\xi\xi}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\langle\Delta\xi^2\rangle/(2t)$, averaged over about $10^3$ ray-traced photons; in 3D the angular coefficient is recovered from the spatial one via the product identity $D_{\theta\theta}\kappa = v_g^2/6$. The load-bearing correction is the group-velocity renormalization in Eqs. (33)–(34): keep the quasilinear scalings $D_{\theta\theta}\propto v_g^{-1}$ and $\kappa\propto v_g^3$, but replace $v_g$ with the en

What would settle it

Run the same 3D ray-tracing comparison with a different density-fluctuation spectrum, for instance spectral index $p=2$ instead of $5/3$, or with anisotropic fluctuations. If the ratios $\kappa^{\rm sim}/\kappa^{\rm cor}$ and $D_{\theta\theta}^{\rm sim}/D_{\theta\theta}^{\rm cor}$ depart from unity by more than the 10-realization error bars, the single-speed renormalization is not universal. A more direct probe is to measure the distribution of photon speeds in strong scattering: a broad or bimodal distribution would mean no single $v_g^{\rm eff}$ can carry the correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under strong scattering by isotropic 3D density fluctuations—when $\omega$ approaches $\omega_{pe}$ or $\epsilon$ is large—the quasilinear diffusion coefficients are systematically wrong: $D_{\theta\theta}$ is overestimated and $\kappa$ is underestimated. The paper traces this to a 3D escape mechanism: photons dodge dense clumps, travel through low-density channels, and move at an effective speed $v_g^{\rm eff}=\langle k c^2/\omega\rangle$ above the background group velocity $v_{g0}$. Applying the scalings $D_{\theta\theta}\propto v_g^{-1}$ and $\kappa\propto v_g^3$ with $v_g$ replaced by $v_g^{\rm eff}$ yields corrected coefficients (Eqs. 33–34) that match the simulated values across all te

Load-bearing premise

The corrected coefficients assume that one scalar number, the ensemble-averaged photon speed $v_g^{\rm eff}$, is enough to renormalize the quasilinear scalings $D_{\theta\theta}\propto v_g^{-1}$ and $\kappa\propto v_g^3$; if the escape mechanism is more complex than a single speed shift, the correction merely describes the simulated data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fundamental-band radio bursts ($\omega/\omega_{pe}$ near 1) should escape their source region more efficiently than quasilinear models predict, so modeled source sizes, positions, and arrival-time delays shift when the corrected coefficients are used in ray tracing.
  • For harmonic components ($\omega\simeq2\omega_{pe}$), the simulations confirm that quasilinear theory already describes the scattering strength, so existing harmonic ray-tracing treatments need no correction.
  • In the 2D limit—the extreme anisotropic case of turbulence confined to a plane—strong scattering suppresses spatial transport and enhances angular deflection, so anisotropic models with small anisotropy parameter need a lowered $\kappa$ and a raised $D_{\theta\theta}$ relative to quasilinear values.
  • The product identities $D_{\theta\theta}\kappa/v_g^2=1/6$ in 3D and $1/2$ in 2D survive strong scattering, giving a built-in cross-check for any simulated or fitted scattering coefficients.
  • Eqs. (33)–(34) offer a practical upgrade path: a ray-tracing code needs only one extra measured quantity, $v_g^{\rm eff}$, to carry quasilinear coefficients into the strong-scattering regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 3D escape mechanism suggests the scalar $v_g^{\rm eff}$ renormalization should also hold for anisotropic turbulence with a finite anisotropy parameter; a testable extension is to run the same ray-tracing code with $0<\alpha<1$ and check whether the correction interpolates between the 2D limit and isotropic 3D.
  • The 2D subdiffusive regime is reported but not analyzed; an inference from the plotted running coefficients is that standard diffusion models may fail for the lowest-frequency fundamental bursts and may need time-dependent or fractional transport descriptions.
  • The weak-scattering threshold $\omega/\omega_{pe}>1+2\epsilon$ is stated only for 2D; the 3D failure pattern in Fig. 7a implies a similar threshold exists, which the paper leaves unpinned.
  • Using the corrected coefficients in predictive ray tracing requires a closure for $v_g^{\rm eff}$, since the correction is calibrated on the same ensemble it is meant to describe; whether a precomputed or locally estimated speed is stable remains open.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Monte Carlo ray-tracing study of radio-wave photons in synthetic, statistically homogeneous density fluctuations in two and three dimensions. Photon trajectories are integrated from Hamilton's equations, and running diffusion coefficients for angular deflection and spatial spread are compared with quasilinear formulas from the literature. The authors report good agreement in the weak-scattering regime, a strong-scattering enhancement of angular scattering and suppression of spatial diffusion in 2D, and the opposite behavior in 3D. They introduce a group-velocity correction that replaces the background group velocity with the ensemble-averaged photon speed, and claim that the corrected coefficients accurately reproduce the simulated 3D diffusion coefficients over the whole parameter range.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical and timely question: whether quasilinear phase-space diffusion coefficients, as used in solar radio propagation models, are accurate at near-fundamental frequencies and large density fluctuations. The 2D comparison is carefully executed: ten realizations, error bars, plateau selection, and the verification of the product relation Dθθ·κ/v² ≈ 0.5 across scattering strengths is a useful new check. The weak-scattering agreement in both dimensions is also valuable. However, the headline 3D group-velocity correction is not supported. The claimed scaling exponents contradict the paper's own quasilinear formulas, and the effective speed is measured from the same simulation used for validation, making the agreement in Fig. 7b an in-sample consistency check rather than independent confirmation. A separate normalization issue in the turbulence generator could affect all reported absolute values. As it stands, the paper's central claim is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (33)–(34)] The claimed scaling Dθθ ∝ v_g^{-1} and κ ∝ v_g^3 is not the scaling of the quasilinear coefficients derived earlier in the paper. From Eq. (13), with ω and ω_pe fixed, (ω² − ω_pe²)^{3/2} ∝ v_g^3, so Dθθ ∝ v_g^{-3}; from Eq. (15), κ ∝ v_g^5. Equation (16) fixes only the product ∝ v_g^2 and cannot determine the individual exponents. For the strong-scattering example, v_eff/vg0 ≈ 1.19; using the correct exponents gives D_cor ≈ 0.59 D_th ≈ 0.21 c/lc (simulated 0.277 c/lc) and κ_cor ≈ 0.10 c lc (simulated 0.080 c lc), so the agreement in Fig. 7b disappears. The correction is thus not an application of the paper's own quasilinear theory.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 7b; §5 item 3] The effective speed v_eff is measured from the same test-photon ensembles whose diffusion coefficients are then compared with the corrected theory. Eqs. (33)–(34) therefore use information extracted from the very data they are meant to predict. The resulting agreement in Fig. 7b is an in-sample consistency check, not an independent validation. A genuine test would require v_eff to be predicted from the turbulence parameters or measured on independent realizations not used for the comparison.
  3. [§3, Eq. (25)] The generated density field as written has ⟨δn²⟩/n² = ε²/Nm²: each cosine term contributes (√2 ε n0/Nm)² A_j²/2 and Σ A_j² = 1 by Eq. (27). With Nm = 300, the effective fluctuation level is ε/300, not ε. The theoretical coefficients in Eqs. (12)–(15) and (20)–(21) use ϵ² = ⟨δn²⟩/n². Unless the intended normalization is √Nm in Eq. (25), or the code normalizes A_j differently, the simulated fluctuations are orders of magnitude weaker than stated, which is inconsistent with the reported weak-scattering agreement. This must be corrected and all simulations rechecked.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 4] The empirical criterion ω/ωpe0 > 1 + 2ϵ is asserted without derivation or an error analysis. The factor 2 appears ad hoc; a quantitative scattering-strength parameter would make the criterion more transparent and testable.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 4] For the lowest frequency ratios, subdiffusion is reported but not quantified; the corresponding points in Fig. 4 may not represent asymptotic diffusion coefficients. This caveat should be stated on the figure or in the text.
  3. [Various] Typographical and presentation issues: the author name appears as 'C. W ang'; the tolerance is written '10 −5' instead of 10^{-5}; notation alternates between v_g and vg0 without definition; and Eq. (16) is used to derive Dθθ from κ in 3D without noting that the product relation does not determine the individual velocity exponents.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 3D group-velocity correction (Eqs. 33–34) is calibrated using the simulation's own mean photon speed v_eff, so the agreement in Fig. 7b is partly in-sample; the 2D comparisons are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eqs. (33)–(34) and note after Eq. (16); headline claim in Section 5, item 3]
    "According to established scattering theory (Equations 10 and 16), Dθθ ∝ v−1 g , κ ∝ v3 g, we implemented a group velocity correction ... It should be noted here that when calculating the simulated Dθθ from the simulated κ using Equation 16, we employed the actual propagation speed averaged across all test photons for each realization, rather than the group velocity vg0."

    The corrected coefficients are not independent predictions: their only new input is v_eff, a time/ensemble average measured from the same Monte Carlo runs whose κ_sim defines the 'simulated' coefficient. In 3D, the simulated Dθθ is itself obtained from that κ_sim via Eq. (16) using the same v_eff. Thus both sides of the comparison in Fig. 7b share the simulation-derived speed; the correction is a one-parameter renormalization calibrated on the data it is then said to 'correctly determine.' The exponent choices (-1,+3) are asserted from 'established scattering theory' rather than derived from the paper's own Eqs. (13),(15), but even setting that aside, the in-sample use of v_eff makes the agreement a consistency check rather than a parameter-free validation. The 2D comparisons do not have t

full rationale

The paper has two independent strands. The 2D Monte Carlo comparison (Sec. 4.1) directly measures Dθθ and κ from ray trajectories and compares them to quasilinear formulas; that part is not circular. The 3D comparison, however, contains a partial circularity: the paper cannot measure Dθθ directly, so it derives the 'simulated' Dθθ from the simulated κ using Eq. (16) with a simulation-averaged speed v_eff. It then corrects the theoretical coefficients by that same v_eff (Eqs. 33–34) and presents the agreement (Fig. 7b) as validation. Because v_eff is extracted from the same photon ensemble that produces κ_sim, the corrected coefficients are not a parameter-free theoretical prediction; the agreement is partly in-sample by construction. The physical observation that v_eff exceeds v_g0 under strong scattering is a genuine finding, but the quantitative claim that the corrected coefficients 'correctly determine' scattering across the full parameter range is not independently established. No load-bearing self-citation occurs. The skeptic's point that the exponents -1 and +3 are inconsistent with the paper's own quasilinear formulas is a correctness concern rather than circularity, and is not scored here. Overall score 6 reflects partial circularity in the central 3D claim, while the 2D results and the raw simulation data remain independently informative.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central modeling rests on standard geometric optics and quasilinear diffusion theory, plus the simulation-specific assumptions listed. No new physical entities are introduced; the low-density channels invoked for the 3D mechanism are emergent structures in the random field, not postulated entities.

free parameters (2)
  • v_eff (effective photon propagation speed) = e.g., 0.3639c for (omega/omega_pe0, epsilon)=(1.05,0.1); varies per realization and parameter set
    Averaged over all test photons in each run (Section 4.2, Figure 6) and used to rescale theoretical coefficients in Eqs 33-34.
  • Threshold coefficient 2 in criterion omega/omega_pe0 > 1 + 2 epsilon = 2 (dimensionless)
    Empirical boundary between weak and strong scattering inferred from the 2D ratio scans in Figure 4; no theoretical derivation (Section 4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geometric optics applies; radio photons follow Hamilton equations with dispersion relation omega^2 = c^2 k^2 + omega_pe^2 (Eq 3)
    Invoked in Section 2.1; neglects diffraction and polarization under the stated large-scale inhomogeneity.
  • domain assumption Stationary density fluctuations with delta_n << n_bar so the Hamiltonian decomposes into mean and fluctuating parts (Eqs 4-5)
    Required for the wave-kinetic equation and quasilinear closure; stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The density fluctuation spectrum is a power law S(q) = C_N q^-(p+d-1) with p=5/3, isotropic, with outer/inner scale ratio 10 and 300 modes
    Section 3, Eq 28; p=5/3 is the Kolmogorov value, isotropy stated as a limitation in Section 5.
  • standard math Photon transport enters a diffusive regime for t >> nu_s^-1, so running diffusion coefficients reach plateaus (Eq 29)
    Used in Section 4.1 to extract coefficients from the last 10% of simulation time; a subdiffusive regime at the lowest frequencies is acknowledged but not analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper The group-velocity scaling D proportional to v^-1, kappa proportional to v^3 holds when the empirically measured v_eff is substituted for v_g (Eqs 33-34)
    The central correction; v_eff is measured from the simulation, so this axiom is the load-bearing empirical step that makes the 3D agreement possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Monte Carlo simulation on the scattering coefficients of solar radio wave propagation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNDGOV7D

@misc{pith2026250813494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Monte Carlo simulation on the scattering coefficients of solar radio wave propagation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNDGOV7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13494}
}
read the original abstract

Radio waves undergo scattering by small-scale density fluctuations during propagation through the solar-terrestrial environment, substantially affecting the observed characteristics of solar radio bursts. This scattering process can be effectively modeled as photon diffusion in phase space. In this study, we present a comprehensive comparison between the quasilinear diffusion coefficients and those calculated by ray-tracing the photon trajectories in numerically generated, broadband, isotropic density fluctuation fields in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) configurations. The comparative analysis demonstrates that for weak scattering, the simulated diffusion coefficients agree well with the quasilinear theoretical predictions. However, when the radio frequency approaches the electron plasma frequency and/or the density fluctuation amplitude becomes significant, photons experience strong scattering. Under such conditions, the quasilinear theory tends to underestimate the scattering strength of photons induced by 2D density fluctuations while overestimating the scattering strength in 3D cases. Furthermore, we implement a group velocity correction to the theoretical diffusion coefficients, based on the effective propagation speed averaged over all test photons. The corrected coefficients provide an accurate quantification of the scattering strength for radio waves propagating through 3D density fluctuations. The physical mechanisms underlying these phenomena are elucidated in the discussion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Individual simulated photon trajectories (black lines) corresponding to different frequency ratios (ω/ωpe0) and relative level of density fluctuations (ϵ). The color shading represents plasma density values. 4.1. Two-dimensional diffusion coefficients According to J. Giacalone & J. Jokipii (1999), there are three methods to calculate the diffusion coefficients from the ensemble average of the trajectories of test pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of a run involving an ensemble of photons scattered by 2D density fluctuations in the x − y plane with parameters (ω/ωpe0, ϵ) = (1.3, 0.1). Temporal changes of ∆x 2 , ∆y 2 and ∆θ 2 , averaged over all 1000 photons, are plotted. (a) ω/ωpe0 = 1.3, ϵ = 0.1 (b) ω/ωpe0 = 1.1, ϵ = 0.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diffusion coefficients in 2D density fluctuations obtained from ray-tracing simulations with 1000 photons across 10 different density field realizations for parameter sets (ω/ωpe0, ϵ) = (1.3, 0.1) and (1.1, 0.1). Here, the angular diffusion coefficient Dθθ (left), the spatial diffusion coefficient κ (middle), and their product Dθθ · κ/v2 g0 (right) are plotted. Each blue curve corresponds to the diffusion coefficien… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratios of simulated-to-theoretical diffusion coefficients as functions of the frequency ratio ω/ωpe0 for different density fluctuation amplitudes ϵ. Left panel: angular diffusion coefficient ratio D tp θθ/Dth θθ. Right panel: spatial diffusion coefficient ratio κtp/κth…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a shows good agreement between the simulated and theoretical diffusion coefficients under weak scattering conditions. However, Figure 5b reveals significant discrepancies for the strong scat￾tering case (ω/ωpe0, ϵ) = (1.05, 0.1). The simulated spatial diffusion coeffic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the real propagation speed v eff g averaged over all test photons across 10 different realizations of density fluctuation (blue curves) and the group velocity vg0 (black dashed line). (a) and (b) represent the case of weak and strong scattering respective…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of simulated diffusion coefficients to theoretical coefficients before and after velocity correction in 3D density fluctuations for different values of (ω/ωpe0, ϵ). Left panel: spatial diffusion coefficient ratio. Right panel: angular diffusion coefficient ratio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afanasiev, A. N. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 3933, doi: 10.5194/angeo-27-3933-2009

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-27-3933-2009 2009

  2. [2]

    Rickett, B. J. 1990, ApJ, 358, 685, doi: 10.1086/169022

    doi:10.1086/169022 1990

  3. [3]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Arzner, K., & Magun, A. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 351, p. 1165-1189 (1999), 351, 1165

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    2006, Physics of the solar corona: an introduction with problems and solutions (Springer Science & Business Media)

    Aschwanden, M. 2006, Physics of the solar corona: an introduction with problems and solutions (Springer Science & Business Media)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0411

    Bian, N., Emslie, A., & Kontar, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0411

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0411 2019

  6. [6]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 489, 419

    Bonnin, X., Hoang, S., & Maksimovic, M. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 489, 419

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Cairns, I. H. 1998, ApJ, 506, 456, doi: 10.1086/306215

    work page doi:10.1086/306215 1998

  8. [8]

    H., & Robinson, P

    Cairns, I. H., & Robinson, P. 1995, Astrophysical Journal v. 453, p. 959, 453, 959

    work page 1995

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 475

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 475

    1952

  2. [10]

    2021, ApJL, 915, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b43

    Chen, L., Ma, B., Wu, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b43

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Zhao, G

    Chen, L., Wu, D. J., Zhao, G. Q., & Tang, J. F. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 35, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023312

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Chrysaphi, N., et al

    Chen, X., Kontar, E. P., Chrysaphi, N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 43

    2020

  5. [13]

    P., Chrysaphi, N., et al

    Chen, X., Kontar, E. P., Chrysaphi, N., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, A1 18 Gan & W ang

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., & Kontar, E

    Chrysaphi, N., Reid, H. A., & Kontar, E. P. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80c1

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Kontar, E

    Clarkson, D. L., Kontar, E. P., Chrysaphi, N., et al. 2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 11335, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-95270-w

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    1969, Computing, 4, 93

    Fehlberg, E. 1969, Computing, 4, 93

    1969

  9. [17]

    1965, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, Vol

    Fokker, A. 1965, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, Vol. 18, p. 111, 18, 111

    1965

  10. [18]

    1999, The astrophysical journal, 520, 204

    Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J. 1999, The astrophysical journal, 520, 204

    1999

  11. [19]

    1959, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol

    Ginzburg, V., & Zhelezniakov, V. 1959, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol. 9, Cambridge University Press, 574–582

    1959

  12. [20]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 48

    Kuznetsov, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 48

    2019

  13. [21]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 1475, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025707

    Henri, P., Sgattoni, A., Briand, C., Amiranoff, F., & Riconda, C. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 1475, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025707

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Hollweg, J. V. 1968, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 972 (1968), 73, 972, doi: 10.1086/110756

    1968 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Emslie, A

    Kontar, E. P., Emslie, A. G., Clarkson, D. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 112

    2023

  16. [24]

    P., Yu, S., Kuznetsov, A

    Kontar, E. P., Yu, S., Kuznetsov, A. A., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1515, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01307-8

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Chen, X., Chrysaphi, N., et al

    Kontar, E. P., Chen, X., Chrysaphi, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40bb

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab60f

    Krupar, V., Maksimovic, M., Kontar, E., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab60f

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 94

    Motorina, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 94

    2020

  20. [28]

    F., Yoon, P

    Lee, S.-Y., Ziebell, L. F., Yoon, P. H., Gaelzer, R., & Lee, E. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf476

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Carley, E

    Maguire, C. A., Carley, E. P., Zucca, P., Vilmer, N., & Gallagher, P. T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 2

    2021

  22. [30]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A57

    Mann, G., Breitling, F., Vocks, C., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A57

    2018

  23. [31]

    I., Cairns, I

    McCauley, P. I., Cairns, I. H., & Morgan, J. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, 1

    2018

  24. [32]

    J., & Labrum, N

    McLean, D. J., & Labrum, N. R. 1985, Solar Radiophysics: Studies of Emission from the Sun at Metre Wavelengths

    1985

  25. [33]

    Melrose, D. B. 2008, Quantum plasmadynamics: unmagnetized plasmas, Vol. 735 (Springer)

    2008

  26. [34]

    C., Carley, E

    Murphy, P. C., Carley, E. P., Ryan, A. M., Zucca, P., & Gallagher, P. T. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A11 Newkirk Jr, G. 1961, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 133, p. 983, 133, 983

    2021

  27. [35]

    2002, Geophysical research letters, 29, 7

    Qin, G., Matthaeus, W., & Bieber, J. 2002, Geophysical research letters, 29, 7

    2002

  28. [36]

    Reid, H. A. S., & Ratcliffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    1972, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2, 98

    Riddle, A. 1972, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2, 98

    1972

  30. [38]

    1974, Solar Physics, 35, 153

    Riddle, A. 1974, Solar Physics, 35, 153

    1974

  31. [39]

    1983, in Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Vol

    Robinson, R. 1983, in Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Vol. 5, 208–211 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ramesh, R., Vourlidas, A., & Ingale, M. 2017,

    1983

  32. [40]

    Schlegel, L., Frie, A., Eichmann, B., Reichherzer, P., & Tjus, J. B. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab643b

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    1971, Astronomy and

    Boischot, A. 1971, Astronomy and

    1971

  34. [42]

    Astrophysics, Vol. 10, p. 362 (1971), 10, 362

    1971

  35. [43]

    1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Aubier, M., & Dulk, G. 1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 140, no. 1, Nov. 1984, p. 39-48. Research supported by the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales., 140, 39

    1984

  36. [44]

    C., & Dosch, A

    Tautz, R. C., & Dosch, A. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 022302, doi: 10.1063/1.4789861

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, 1338

    Thejappa, G., & MacDowall, R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, 1338

    2008

  38. [46]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 894, doi: 10.1086/522664

    Thejappa, G., MacDowall, R., & Kaiser, M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 894, doi: 10.1086/522664

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    Wang, C. B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 34

    2015

  40. [48]

    1950, Australian Journal of Chemistry, 3, 387, doi: 10.1071/CH9500387

    Wild, J., & McCready, L. 1950, Australian Journal of Chemistry, 3, 387, doi: 10.1071/CH9500387

    1950 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Wang, C

    Wu, C. S., Wang, C. B., Yoon, P. H., Zheng, H. N., & Wang, S. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 575, 1094 Monte Carlo simulation on scattering of radio waves 19

    2002

  42. [50]

    Yoon, P. H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 1129

    2005

  43. [51]

    H., Wu, C

    Yoon, P. H., Wu, C. S., & Wang, C. B. 2002, ApJ, 576, 552, doi: 10.1086/341634

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    Zhang, P., Wang, C., & Kontar, E. P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 195

    2021

  45. [53]

    S., et al

    Zhang, P., Zucca, P., Sridhar, S. S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 639, A115

    2020

  46. [54]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94c6

    Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Ni, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94c6

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Q., Chen, L., & Wu, D

    Zhao, G. Q., Chen, L., & Wu, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 779, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/31

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Ziebell, L. F. 2021, Ap&SS, 366, 60, doi: 10.1007/s10509-021-03966-y

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.