Estimation of Effective Viscosity to Quantify Collisional Behavior in Collisionless Plasma

Carlos Gonzalez; Francesco Pecora; Riddhi Bandyopadhyay; Sean Oughton; Subash Adhikari; William H. Matthaeus; Yan Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Estimation of Effective Viscosity to Quantify Collisional Behavior in Collisionless Plasma

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A scale-filtered ratio of pressure-strain to strain squared gives collisionless ion turbulence a viscosity of about 0.01 in normalized units, and fluid runs using that value closely match kinetic simulations.

desk verdict New scale-filtering viscosity estimate in collisionless plasma is worth refereeing, but the central analogy is an assumption and the validation is partly circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04374 v1 pith:OPVAYOIF submitted 2025-09-04 physics.plasm-ph physics.space-ph

Subash Adhikari , Carlos Gonzalez , Yan Yang , Sean Oughton , Francesco Pecora , Riddhi Bandyopadhyay , William H. Matthaeus This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

keywords effectiveviscositycollisionlessplasmaturbulencepressure-straininteractionscalefilteringparticle-in-cellsimulationtwo-fluidmodelenergydissipationbeta

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

The paper's goal is to give a nearly collisionless plasma a fluid-like dissipation coefficient. It defines an effective viscosity for ions as the scale-filtered pressure-strain interaction divided by twice the filtered squared rate of strain, and shows that in a kinetic particle-in-cell simulation this ratio is constant across the inertial range and part of the kinetic range, with plateau value of about 0.01 in the run's units. When the same value is inserted as viscosity in MHD and two-fluid simulations with nearly identical initial conditions, the evolution of magnetic energy, ion flow energy, and current density follows the kinetic run closely. The paper reads this agreement as validation that the estimated viscosity captures the dominant flow-energy dissipation channel, and it uses the coefficient to compute Kolmogorov scales, Reynolds number, and a beta dependence of ion viscosity.

What carries the argument

Scale filtering (coarse graining) of the two energy equations. A length scale ℓ is introduced by convolving fields with a compact window; for MHD the filtered kinetic energy equation ends in the viscous term 2μS:S, while for the Vlasov–Maxwell model the corresponding last term is the filtered pressure-strain interaction Φ^uT = −p∇·ũ − Π:D̃. The paper equates these two terminal terms and forms the ratio in Eq. (6). The key formal assumption is that the average viscosity can be pulled out of the average of S:S, i.e. μ and S are statistically independent at each scale; the physical assumption is that this collisionless kinetic channel behaves like a genuine viscous sink.

What would settle it

Run the same decaying-turbulence PIC setup with much higher particles per grid cell and check whether μ(ℓ) stays flat when the lag is pushed below d_i; a continued decline would falsify the infinite-particle conjecture. Alternatively, use the same μ_eff in an MHD or two-fluid run with different initial conditions or forcing and compare the total dissipation rate with a matching kinetic run; if the energy decay curves diverge beyond a few percent, the single-coefficient claim fails for generality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the term-by-term analogy between the filtered kinetic energy equations of incompressible MHD and the Vlasov–Maxwell system, the paper identifies the filtered pressure-strain interaction Φ^uT (contraction of the pressure tensor with the filtered rate-of-strain) with the MHD viscous dissipation 2μS:S. After spatial averaging and assuming μ is independent of S, it obtains μ(ℓ)=⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩). Evaluated on 2.5D PIC turbulence data, the ratio is not a function that drifts with scale: it is flat at μ_eff ≈ 0.01 through the inertial range and well into the kinetic range, with deviations at the smallest lags attributed to particle noise. The central quantitative validation is that MHD and two

Load-bearing premise

The term-by-term analogy that makes the collisionless pressure-strain interaction equal to the incompressible MHD viscous dissipation 2μS:S is asserted, not derived, and the subsequent ratio formula also assumes μ and S are statistically independent at each scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A collisionless plasma can be assigned a single, scale-independent effective ion viscosity over the inertial range, so fluid closures can imitate kinetic dissipation without modeling every kinetic mechanism.
MHD and two-fluid simulations equipped with only that viscosity reproduce the kinetic simulation's global energy decay, current-density history, and inertial-range spectra.
The estimated Kolmogorov scale η ≈ 0.2 d_i and Reynolds number Re ≈ 135 follow directly from the viscosity, giving concrete numbers for where 'collisionless' turbulence acts viscous.
The effective viscosity rises with ion plasma beta, mirroring the temperature dependence of ordinary neutral-gas viscosity.
The same scale-filtering procedure, applied to spacecraft data with sufficient resolution, could yield effective viscosity values for real space plasmas.

Reading between the lines

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

If the plateau survives much higher particle-per-cell resolution and extends to arbitrarily small lags, as the paper conjectures, the effective viscosity is a true transfer coefficient rather than a fitted number; a 3D kinetic run with controlled noise would test this.
Because the estimate folds in the compressive pressure-dilatation term, it likely mixes compressive and incompressible dissipation. Isolating the incompressible part, as the Helmholtz-decomposition study referenced by the authors suggests, might give a different coefficient and an even cleaner fluid-model match.
The assumed statistical independence of μ and S in Eq. (6) is not tested here; the flat plateau is evidence for it, but a direct two-point correlation from the PIC data would settle it.
The collisional viscosity-ratio formula used for electrons may underestimate kinetic effects at low collisionality—the paper itself notes the ratio inferred from magnetosheath-derived estimates differs by an order of magnitude; direct electron pressure-strain measurements would decide.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a genuinely new diagnostic — scale-filtered effective viscosity from PIC data — and the inertial-range plateau is a real, reportable result. The paper is also refreshingly honest about its main assumption, though that assumption is exactly where the argument is weakest.

What's new: the scale-filtering approach to estimate a scale-dependent effective viscosity from a kinetic simulation, the finding that μ(ℓ) flattens to ≈0.01 in the inertial range, and the cross-model test where MHD/two-fluid runs using that μ reproduce the global energetics of the PIC run. That last piece is a legitimate independent check, not just curve fitting. The β-dependence and electron viscosity estimates are secondary but useful.

The soft spots are real and mostly acknowledged. Equation (5) equating filtered pressure-strain with 2μS:S is an analogy, not a derivation. The paper itself notes that pressure-dilatation has no incompressible-MHD counterpart, and that Pi-D also contains compressive parts; so the estimated μ is a mix of compressive and shear effects. Then Section 4.5 imposes that μ as a pure shear viscosity (neglecting bulk viscosity), so the agreement in Fig. 4 shows a shear-only viscosity can mimic total pressure-strain energetics — not that μ is the true shear viscosity. That's the central caveat.

The internal check in Section 4.1 is nearly tautological: D_μ = μ_eff⟨ω²⟩ equals ⟨Φ^uT⟩ by construction (since ⟨ω²⟩=2⟨S:S⟩ in incompressible flow), so comparing it to -∂⟨E_f⟩/∂t is mostly consistency. The independence of μ and S (Eq. 6) remains untested, and there are no error bars on the plateau value.

But the paper doesn't hide any of this. The conclusion openly says the pressure-dilatation inclusion makes the estimate larger than Yang et al. (2024b), and flags the independence check as future work. That's honest engagement.

Who's this for? Anyone working on collisionless plasma turbulence, space plasma closures, or scale-filtering diagnostics. It deserves a serious referee: the method is plausible, the result is new, and the limitations can be addressed with additional analysis (e.g., Helmholtz decomposition of Φ^uT, testing independence, adding error bars). Send it to review.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scale-filtering method to estimate an effective ion viscosity in collisionless plasma turbulence. Comparing the Vlasov–Maxwell filtered flow-energy equation with the incompressible MHD equation, the authors identify the filtered pressure-strain interaction Φ^uT with viscous dissipation 2μS:S (Eq. 5) and define μ(ℓ) = ⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩). Analyzing a high-resolution 2.5D kinetic PIC simulation of decaying turbulence, they report that μ(ℓ) is approximately constant in the inertial range (μ_eff ≈ 0.01 in normalized units), use this value as the viscosity and resistivity in two-fluid (EIHMHD) and MHD simulations, and find similarities in the time evolution of flow/magnetic energy, current density, and kinetic/magnetic spectra. They also examine the plasma-beta dependence of μ_eff and estimate an effective electron viscosity using a collisional Braginskii-type ratio.

Significance. If established, this method would provide a practical route to assign an effective viscosity to collisionless plasma turbulence, enabling fluid-model closures and scale-dependent dissipation estimates applicable to simulations and spacecraft data. The paper's strengths are its clean scale-filtering estimator, the explicit comparison between kinetic and fluid simulations with matched initial conditions, and its honest acknowledgment of several limitations. The reported plateau and scaling are concrete and falsifiable. However, the physical interpretation of μ_eff as a genuine shear viscosity is not yet established: the central analogy is assumed rather than derived, the internal validation is largely tautological, and the compressive contamination is acknowledged but not quantified. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims are reliable.

major comments (4)

[§2.3, Eq. (5)] The identification of Φ^uT with 2μS:S is an assumption, not a derivation. The paper itself notes that pressure dilatation −p∇·u has no counterpart in incompressible MHD and that Pi-D contains a compressive component (citing Adhikari et al. 2025). Thus μ(ℓ) from Eq. (6) is a mixture of compressive and incompressible effects. In §4.5 and footnote 7, the MHD and two-fluid runs impose only a shear viscosity, so the agreement in Fig. 4 tests whether a shear-only dissipation can mimic the total pressure-strain energetics globally; it does not demonstrate that μ_eff is the incompressible shear viscosity of the plasma. Please quantify the compressive fraction, or restrict the estimator to the incompressible part of the pressure-strain interaction, or include a bulk viscosity in the fluid runs. Without this, the central physical claim is not supported.
[§4.1, D_μ validation] The validation D_μ ≈ −∂⟨E_f⟩/∂t is largely tautological. From Eq. (6), μ_eff ≈ ⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩); for nearly incompressible flow, ⟨ω²⟩ ≈ 2⟨S:S⟩, so D_μ = μ_eff⟨ω²⟩ ≈ ⟨Φ^uT⟩. The comparison therefore reduces to checking that one term in the filtered energy balance, Eq. (4), is close to the total decay rate of flow energy. To make this a genuine test, the paper must show that the other terms (subgrid flux ⟨Π⟩ and magnetic conversion ⟨Λ⟩) are negligible or include them explicitly in the budget. As written, the close numerical agreement is a consequence of the definitions, not an independent validation.
[§2.3, Eq. (6)] The factorized estimator μ(ℓ)=⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩) assumes that μ and S are statistically independent. The authors state in §5 that this remains to be checked. A constant ratio of ensemble averages can hold even if the local ratio depends on S, so this is not merely a technicality. Please provide an a posteriori test—for example, conditional averages of the local pseudo-viscosity against S:S, or a joint PDF analysis—or a theoretical justification for the factorization. This is needed to interpret μ_eff as a transport coefficient rather than a single number that happens to match one snapshot.
[§4.5 and Fig. 4] The fluid simulations impose a constant viscosity determined from a single time snapshot (t ≈ 3.5τ_nl) of a freely decaying PIC run. The effective viscosity may vary with time as the turbulence decays; the manuscript does not assess this temporal variability. Because Fig. 4 compares the full time history, the agreement could be partially coincidental if μ_eff is time-dependent. Please examine the time evolution of μ(ℓ) and state whether the snapshot value is representative of the entire interval shown.

minor comments (4)

[§4.1, Fig. 2c] The claim that the plateau extends through the kinetic range is weakened by the clear decrease of μ(ℓ) at lags below roughly 0.2 d_i. The attribution to particle-noise is plausible, but the extrapolation to infinite PPG should be labeled as a conjecture rather than an expectation based on current data.
[§4.4, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) is a collisional Braginskii result, and the assumption that it holds for weakly collisional plasmas is stated without support. Since the paper uses this to interpret MMS observations, please provide a caveat or supporting reference for the application beyond the collisional regime.
[Abstract] The sentence “we then compare ... in which with the viscosity is equal to the effective viscosity estimate” contains a grammatical error (“in which with”). Please rephrase.
[General notation] The overloading of filtered and unfiltered fields (e.g., u vs. ũ, and E_f vs. E_fα) makes some equations hard to follow. A table of symbols or a statement about suppressed filter-scale notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

One validation check reduces to the definition of μ_eff; the fluid-simulation test is independent but the claimed 'validation of the effective viscosity approach' is partially circular.

self definitional [Section 4.1, validation paragraph after Eq. (6)]
"Using the effective viscosity and mean square vorticity ⟨ω2⟩, one may calculate the rate of effective viscous dissipation as Dµ = µeff ⟨ω2⟩ and compare it with the rate of change of ion flow energy −∂⟨Ef ⟩/∂t. At the time of analysis, we find Dµ = 1.02 × 10−4 and −∂⟨Ef ⟩/∂t = 9.19 × 10−5. The approximate equivalence of these values provides a validation of the effective viscosity approach."

Eq. (6) defines µeff = ⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩). For the incompressible motions to which Eq. (3) applies, the enstrophy identity gives ⟨ω²⟩ = 2⟨S:S⟩, so D_μ = µeff⟨ω²⟩ = ⟨Φ^uT⟩ is exactly the numerator of the defining ratio. The comparison target, −∂⟨E_f⟩/∂t, is from Eq. (4) approximately ⟨Φ^uT⟩ in the cascade-dominated regime (subscale flux and electromagnetic conversion are subdominant). Thus the 'validation' compares ⟨Φ^uT⟩ with itself; it is a restatement of the definition of µeff, not an independent test. The 11% difference arises from the compressive terms explicitly neglected in footnote 7, but that does not make the comparison a non-circular test.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is: Eq. (5) posits the analogy 2μS:S = Φ^uT; Eq. (6) defines μ(ℓ) as the averaged ratio; Fig. 2 gives a plateau μ_eff = 0.01; §4.1 validates via D_μ = μ_eff⟨ω²⟩ vs. −∂⟨E_f⟩/∂t; §4.5 validates by inserting μ_eff into MHD/two-fluid simulations. The §4.1 validation is circular because μ_eff was defined as ⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩), and D_μ = μ_eff⟨ω²⟩ reduces to ⟨Φ^uT⟩ via the incompressible identity ⟨ω²⟩ = 2⟨S:S⟩, while −∂⟨E_f⟩/∂t is approximately ⟨Φ^uT⟩ from the filtered energy equation. This is a definitional identity, not a check that could fail. The §4.5 fluid-simulation comparison is not circular: μ_eff is an input coefficient, and the evolved energetics, current density, and spectra are genuine outputs that could in principle disagree; this provides some independent support. However, because the fluid runs impose the same shear-viscosity form assumed in Eq. (5) and omit compressive/bulk effects (footnote 7, and the conclusion's acknowledgment that the estimate includes pressure dilatation), they test only whether a shear-only viscosity can mimic volume-averaged PIC energetics, not whether Φ^uT is locally a shear viscosity. The independence assumption μ⊥S in Eq. (6) is explicitly deferred for future checking and is an assumption gap rather than a circular step. Self-citations to Yang et al. (2024b) and Adhikari et al. (2025) are contextual comparisons/caveats, not load-bearing circular justifications. Overall, one prediction/validation reduces by construction, while the central plateau and the fluid-simulation comparison retain independent content, giving partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central estimate rests on a modeling analogy between kinetic and fluid dissipation, an untested independence assumption, and the ion-dominance approximation. The only fitted quantity is the effective viscosity itself (plus a beta-scaling fit), while the rest of the analysis uses standard plasma and fluid theory.

free parameters (2)

Effective ion viscosity μ_eff = 0.01 (normalized units, plateau value in Fig. 2c)
Obtained as the ratio ⟨Φ^uT⟩/(2⟨S:S⟩) in the inertial range; used as an input viscosity for the MHD and two-fluid simulations.
β-dependence fit coefficients = ν_eff = a + b β (specific values not stated in text; shown in Fig. 3)
A linear fit to the effective viscosity as a function of ion plasma beta, based on four simulated β values.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Term-wise analogy between VM filtered pressure-strain and MHD viscous dissipation, Φ^uT = 2μS:S (Eq. 5).
This is the core modeling assumption linking kinetic dissipation to a fluid transport coefficient. The paper flags that pressure-dilatation has no incompressible-MHD counterpart.
domain assumption Statistical independence of μ and S, allowing μ to be taken outside the ensemble average in Eq. (6).
Acknowledged in the conclusion as an assumption to be checked a posteriori; not verified in this study.
domain assumption Ion species carries most of the momentum, so the single-fluid MHD velocity can be compared with the ion flow velocity in the VM system.
Used in Section 2.3 to justify comparing Eq. (3) and Eq. (4); the paper notes electron-only effects may violate this.
standard math Standard scale-filtering and Favre-averaging identities (Germano 1992; Aluie 2013, 2017).
Background formalism for deriving the coarse-grained energy equations.
standard math For homogeneous incompressible flow, the mean square vorticity equals twice the mean square strain rate, ⟨ω²⟩ = 2⟨S:S⟩.
Used implicitly in the D_μ validation; not valid in general compressible flow, though the paper treats the kinetic simulation as approximately incompressible at large scales.

invented entities (1)

Effective viscosity μ_eff
purpose: A scale-dependent transport coefficient intended to quantify viscous-like energy conversion in collisionless plasma.
This is a derived diagnostic, not a fundamental new entity. It has no independent handle outside the simulation analysis; its value is inferred from the ratio of two simulated fields.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimation of Effective Viscosity to Quantify Collisional Behavior in Collisionless Plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPVAYOIF

@misc{pith2026250904374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimation of Effective Viscosity to Quantify Collisional Behavior in Collisionless Plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPVAYOIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04374}
}

read the original abstract

While dissipation in collisional plasma is defined in terms of viscosity and resistivity, the exact functional form of dissipation i.e., the so-called dissipation function in nearly collisionless plasma is unknown. Nevertheless, previous studies have suggested that there exists viscous-like energy conversion in collisionless plasma with scaling characteristics analogous to collisional plasma, and in particular that the average dissipation is proportional to the square of the rate of strain as in hydrodynamics. In this study, using 2.5D kinetic particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation of collisionless plasma turbulence, we provide an estimate of effective viscosity at each scale, obtained via a scale-filtering approach. We then compare the turbulent dynamics of the PIC simulation with that from MHD and two-fluid simulations in which with the viscosity is equal to the effective viscosity estimate obtained from the PIC simulation. We find that the global behavior in these MHD and two-fluid simulations has a striking similarity with that in its kinetic/PIC counterpart. In addition, we explore the scale dependence of the effective viscosity, and discuss implications of this approach for space plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04374 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Comparing different terms in the scale-filtered kinetic energy density equation obtained using the Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) and Vlasov–Maxwell (VM) formalisms. ΠVM α = −(ρατe u α ·∇)·ueα− qα c nαeϵ b α ·ueα is the subscale flux of bulk flow energy across scales due to nonlinearities, with q is the charge, n is the filtered number density and c is the speed of light. Here τe u α = u^αuα − ueαueα is the subscale Re… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Scaling of (a) Squared and traced scale-filtered rate-of-strain tensor, (b) filtered pressure-strain interaction, and (c) estimate of ion viscosity, all as obtained from PIC simulations. Results from three simulations with different values for the number of particles per grid cell (PPG) are shown. An ℓ −4/3 line (black dashed) is drawn for reference. the system is in an approximately statistically-steady state. In … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Effective viscosity of ions as a function of ion plasma beta. The dashed line is the line of best-fit. where L is the correlation length estimated using an average value of the initially excited Fourier wavenumbers, viz. L = 1/kav = Lbox/(3 × 2π) = 7.93. This is consistent with the approximately one decade inertial range present in this system (see T. N. Parashar et al. (2018); S. Adhikari et al. (2021)). We remar… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: b displays the time evolution of the rms value of the (normalized) out-of-plane electric current density, jz, across these three simulations. Here too, the evolutions are rather similar, particularly in the period where jz,rms is approximately steady (τnl ∼ 3–4), corr…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A comparison of the magnetic energy spectra for MHD, EIHMHD and PIC simulations at the time of analysis t = 3.5τnl, shown by the dashed line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

N., Shay, M

Adhikari, S., Parashar, T. N., Shay, M. A., et al. 2021, Physical Review E, 104, 065206

work page 2021
[2]

Adhikari, S., Yang, Y., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11825

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

H., et al

Adhikari, S., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31

work page 2024
[4]

2013, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 247, 54

Aluie, H. 2013, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 247, 54

work page 2013
[5]

2017, New Journal of Physics, 19, 025008 Andr´ es, N., Gonzalez, C., Martin, L., Dmitruk, P., & G´ omez, D

Aluie, H. 2017, New Journal of Physics, 19, 025008 Andr´ es, N., Gonzalez, C., Martin, L., Dmitruk, P., & G´ omez, D. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21

work page 2017
[6]

2018, Physical Review X, 8, 041052

Bandyopadhyay, R., Wan, M., & Chhiber, R. 2018, Physical Review X, 8, 041052

work page 2018
[7]

H., et al

Bandyopadhyay, R., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30

work page 2023
[8]

1965, Reviews of plasma physics, 1, 205

Braginskii, S. 1965, Reviews of plasma physics, 1, 205

work page 1965

Show all 28 references

[9]

1965, Consultants Bureau New York

Braginskii, S., & Leontovich, M. 1965, Consultants Bureau New York

1965
[10]

2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 8081

Chen, C., Leung, L., Boldyrev, S., Maruca, B., & Bale, S. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 8081

2014
[11]

1969, Problems of hydrodynamics and continuum mechanics, 231

Favre, A. 1969, Problems of hydrodynamics and continuum mechanics, 231

1969
[12]

1995, Turbulence (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ

Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1995
[13]

1992, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 238, 325

Germano, M. 1992, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 238, 325

1992
[14]

2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

Haralson, Z., & Goree, J. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

2016
[15]

Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 30, 301, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1991.0075

1941
[16]

J., Smith, C

Leamon, R. J., Smith, C. W., Ness, N. F., Matthaeus, W. H., & Wong, H. K. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 4775

1998
[17]

2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, L141

Matthaeus, W., Weygand, J., Chuychai, P., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, L141

2008
[18]

H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al

Matthaeus, W. H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 101

2020
[19]

N., Matthaeus, W

Parashar, T. N., Matthaeus, W. H., & Shay, M. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 864, L21

2018
[20]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 4857

Pezzi, O., Liang, H., Juno, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 4857

2021
[21]

P., Shay, M., et al

Phan, T., Eastwood, J. P., Shay, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 202

2018
[22]

2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8, 4524

Velikovich, A., Whitney, K., & Thornhill, J. 2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8, 4524

2001
[23]

1999, Physics of Plasmas, 6, 816

Whitney, K. 1999, Physics of Plasmas, 6, 816

1999
[24]

H., Roy, S., et al

Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Roy, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 142

2022
[25]

H., et al

Yang, Y., Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 4933

2019
[26]

H., Parashar, T

Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., et al. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24 10

2017
[27]

2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SMP

Zeiler, A., Biskamp, D., Drake, J., et al. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SMP

2002
[28]

2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 195003

Zenitani, S., Hesse, M., Klimas, A., & Kuznetsova, M. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 195003

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

N., Shay, M

Adhikari, S., Parashar, T. N., Shay, M. A., et al. 2021, Physical Review E, 104, 065206

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Adhikari, S., Yang, Y., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11825

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

H., et al

Adhikari, S., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31

work page 2024

[4] [4]

2013, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 247, 54

Aluie, H. 2013, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 247, 54

work page 2013

[5] [5]

2017, New Journal of Physics, 19, 025008 Andr´ es, N., Gonzalez, C., Martin, L., Dmitruk, P., & G´ omez, D

Aluie, H. 2017, New Journal of Physics, 19, 025008 Andr´ es, N., Gonzalez, C., Martin, L., Dmitruk, P., & G´ omez, D. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21

work page 2017

[6] [6]

2018, Physical Review X, 8, 041052

Bandyopadhyay, R., Wan, M., & Chhiber, R. 2018, Physical Review X, 8, 041052

work page 2018

[7] [7]

H., et al

Bandyopadhyay, R., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30

work page 2023

[8] [8]

1965, Reviews of plasma physics, 1, 205

Braginskii, S. 1965, Reviews of plasma physics, 1, 205

work page 1965