Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Residual energy in weakly compressible turbulence with a mean guide field

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read How MHD turbulence is driven decides whether kinetic or magnetic energy dominates: velocity forcing yields positive residual energy at every inertial scale, magnetic forcing keeps them balanced.

desk verdict Qualitative message (forcing controls the cascade and residual energy) is credible and useful, but the headline α(β) trend is internally inconsistent between abstract and Fig. 6 caption, and the quantitative fits rest on single snapshots. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.11973 v2 pith:XFDLQA6G submitted 2025-12-12 astro-ph.SR physics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph

R. Skalidis , A. Tritsis , J. R. Beattie , P. F. Hopkins This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph
keywords residualenergymagnetohydrodynamicturbulencedrivingmechanismplasmabetaAlfvénicreflection-drivenweaklycompressiblesolarwind
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 asks what sets the imbalance between kinetic and magnetic energy in weakly compressible, strongly magnetized turbulence. Its central claim is that the forcing mechanism decides the answer: when turbulence is driven by velocity fluctuations, the residual energy—kinetic minus magnetic energy—is positive throughout the inertial range, whereas magnetic driving produces a balanced cascade with near-zero residual energy. The authors also find that the spectral slope of the residual-energy cascade steepens with magnetization, from about -1 at plasma beta 0.3 to between -5/3 and -2 at beta 4.0, and they attribute the positive excess to reflection-driven turbulence seeded by density inhomogeneities. If correct, this shows that weak compressibility alone can flip the sign of residual energy, providing a way to read the effective driving mechanism of a plasma from its kinetic-to-magnetic energy spectra.

What carries the argument

The central object is residual energy, Er ≡ Ekin − Emag, and its normalized form σr; the argument works by comparing the two forcing routes through which energy enters the cascade. Magnetic forcing populates solenoidal Alfvén modes, leading to dynamically aligned, locally imbalanced but balanced turbulence. Velocity forcing injects both polarizations, generates slow-mode density perturbations, and seeds reflection-driven turbulence, in which density inhomogeneities scatter Alfvén waves into counter-propagating modes and produce a shallow k^{-1} cascade and a positive Er. The density power spectrum is the discriminator: passive-scalar-like k^{-1} under kinetic driving versus k^{-3/2} under ma

What would settle it

A time-averaged, multi-resolution spectral analysis (e.g., 512^3 and 1024^3 runs with formal power-law fits) would settle the claim: if the residual-energy slope does not move from about -1 at beta=0.3 to between -5/3 and -2 at beta=4.0, or if Er becomes negative in the resolved inertial range, the central quantitative claim fails. A complementary observational test is to search in sub-Alfvénic solar-wind intervals for positive residual energy with the predicted beta-dependent slope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a forcing-dependent energy partition. In direct numerical simulations of sub-Alfvénic, weakly compressible MHD turbulence with a mean guide field and sonic Mach number ~0.1, velocity-driven turbulence develops a k^{-1} cascade in both kinetic and magnetic spectra and a positive residual energy Er = Ekin - Emag at all scales of the inertial range; the slope of the Er spectrum varies systematically with plasma beta (alpha ≈ -1 at beta = 0.3, between -5/3 and -2 at beta = 4.0). Magnetically driven turbulence instead yields an Iroshnikov-Kraichnan-like k^{-3/2} cascade with Er ≈ 0, made of locally imbalanced but globally balanced Alfvénic fluctuations. The authors interpret the

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results—k^{-1} inertial range, alpha(beta) slopes, and positive Er—rest on spectral measurements from single 256^3 snapshots with hyper-viscosity over an inertial range of roughly one decade, without formal fits or a resolution study of the slope trend; the paper itself notes that its 512^3 run steepens around k~30 and states that higher resolution is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Positive residual energy can arise in weakly compressible, sub-Alfvénic turbulence, so a kinetic-energy excess does not require strong compressibility or shocks.
  • The spread of residual-energy slopes reported across earlier incompressible and compressible studies (-1 to -2) can be understood as a magnetization (beta) effect.
  • In sub-Alfvénic regimes, kinetic driving predicts Er > 0 with weak velocity-magnetic alignment, while magnetic driving yields solar-wind-like locally imbalanced Alfvénic statistics with Er ≈ 0 or negative.
  • Because slow-mode pressure balance holds for both forcings, density perturbations are slow-mode-dominated in both cases; what differs is which fluctuation is injected first, which sets the cascade architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alpha(beta) trend is confirmed at higher resolution, the residual-energy spectrum could serve as a remote diagnostic of the dominant injection mechanism and plasma beta in solar-wind streams, complementing cross-helicity statistics.
  • The steepening seen near k~30 in the higher-resolution run suggests a scale-dependent transition from reflection-driven to Alfvénic turbulence; whether the positive Er survives that transition is a testable question for future simulations.
  • The causal-ordering claim implies that any realistic driving—magnetic reconnection events versus velocity shear, say—should leave distinct Er signatures even when global Mach numbers are identical; spacecraft data from sub-Alfvénic inner-heliosphere regions could look for exactly that.
  • Extending the same analysis to longer forcing auto-correlation times would test whether the positive Er persists when driving is not delta-correlated.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Skalidis et al. present direct numerical simulations of weakly compressible MHD turbulence with a mean guide field, comparing magnetic and kinetic driving across β = 4.0, 1.0, 0.3. They report that magnetic driving produces k^{-3/2} spectra with zero residual energy in the inertial range, interpreted as dynamically aligned Alfvénic turbulence. Kinetic driving produces shallower k^{-1} spectra, positive residual energy at all inertial scales, and a β-dependent residual-energy slope α, from ≈ -1 at β = 0.3 to between -2 and -5/3 at β = 4.0, interpreted via reflection-driven turbulence. The paper also analyses cross-helicity and residual-energy PDFs, density spectra, and correlation lengths, and discusses implications for Solar wind turbulence.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful bridge between incompressible and highly compressible regimes, showing that the forcing mechanism is a controlling factor for residual energy even at M_s ≈ 0.1, and that positive E_r can be produced by weak density inhomogeneities. The study's strengths include a systematic parameter sweep with two forcing schemes, Helmholtz decomposition into solenoidal/compressible modes, convergence checks with a 512^3 run and varied bulk viscosity (Appendix A), and quantitative comparisons with dynamic alignment and reflection-driven phenomenologies. The measured scalings are genuine outputs of the simulations rather than derived from a fitted parameter. However, the central α(β) trend currently suffers from internal inconsistencies and rests on single-snapshot, by-eye spectral fits from a 256^3 run, so the quantitative conclusions should be re-verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §3.2.2 / Fig. 6 caption] The headline result is reported inconsistently. The abstract and §3.2.2 state for β=4.0, -2≲α≲-5/3; for β=1.0, -5/3≲α≲-3/2; and for β=0.3, α≈-1. The Fig. 6 caption instead states 'For β=4.0, we derive that E_r∝k^{-3/2}, for β=1.0 that E_r∝k^{-3/2}, while for β=0.3 that E_r∝k^{-1}.' Under the caption values, β=4.0 and β=1.0 share the same slope, so the claimed systematic steepening with magnetization is not supported by the primary evidence. The caption also refers to a right panel at β=0.6, while Table 1 lists β=0.3 for B_0=2.0. This must be corrected, and the slopes re-estimated, because the α(β) trend is the central quantitative claim.
  2. [§3.2.2 / Appendix A] The claimed inertial range of E_r, 'from approximately k∼3 to k∼50', is not established by the convergence study. Appendix A states that the 512^3 run shows a transition at k∼30 to a steeper scaling and that 'higher resolution simulations are required to confidently establish the validity of this transition.' The 256^3 fiducial spectra are therefore not a reliable basis for quoting α over the full 3–50 range, particularly since hyper-viscosity can produce bottleneck flattening near the dissipation range. The quoted α values should be computed over a range that is demonstrably unaffected by this transition (e.g., k≲30), with time-averaged spectra and error estimates.
  3. [§3 opening / Fig. 6] The spectral slopes are extracted by eye from a single snapshot at t/t_eddy≈11, with no formal fitting procedure, no error bars, and no time-averaged spectra in the main figures. Given the importance of the α(β) trend, this is insufficient. Please provide quantitative fits over a defined range, with uncertainties from time averaging and from the choice of range, and show that the 512^3 run reproduces the same α(β) trend (at present only one 512^3 run, for β=0.3, is presented).
  4. [Appendix A / Table 1] The convergence tests are described as 'kinetically-driven simulations with β=0.5', but Table 1 contains no β=0.5 run; the B_0=2.0 run has β=0.3. This further example of misreported parameters undermines confidence in the numerical details and must be fixed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (15) / Fig. 5] The notation ⟨δρ2⟩^{1/2}∼⟨δB2∥⟩^{1/2}B0/(4πc2s) is garbled; please use δρ^2 and δB_∥^2 with clear brackets and proper typesetting.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] 'from 2.5 t0 3.4' should read 'to'.
  3. [Conclusions] 'Kinetically-driven simulations bare many similarities' — 'bare' should be 'bear'.
  4. [Throughout] The spelling of 'Elsässer' is inconsistent; please ensure the correct spelling is used consistently.
  5. [§3.2.2] The sentence 'The scaling (α) of E_r decreases with β' is ambiguous: α becomes more negative (steeper) as β increases, so please reword to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: residual-energy scalings are measured from DNS; theoretical framing is interpretive and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are not circular. The paper is a direct numerical simulation study: the reported cascade scalings for kinetic, magnetic, density and residual-energy spectra are extracted from shell-integrated power spectra (Eq. 11) of the simulated fields, not generated by a model whose parameters were fit to those same spectra. The dynamic-alignment (Sec. 4.1) and reflection-driven turbulence (Sec. 4.2) discussions are interpretive: they show consistency between measured spectra and existing phenomenology, but the measured E_r slopes are not constructed from those theories. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no author-specific uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to force the result. The self-citations (e.g., Skalidis & Tassis 2021; Skalidis et al. 2021, 2023; Beattie et al. 2023) support auxiliary points (δu∼√(B0δB) in compressible runs, bulk-viscosity method, correlation-length definition) and are not load-bearing for the residual-energy result; they also refer to separate simulations, not to the present paper's fitted values. Two non-circular weaknesses should be flagged. First, Appendix A concedes 'Higher resolution simulations are required to confidently establish the validity of this transition of the turbulent cascade', meaning the k∼30 transition in the 512^3 run is unresolved; this limits but does not make circular the quoted inertial-range slopes. Second, the Fig. 6 caption states 'For β=4.0, we derive that E_r∝k^{−3/2}, for β=1.0 that E_r∝k^{−3/2}, while for β=0.3 that E_r∝k^{−1}', which conflicts with the abstract's β=4.0 range −2≲α≲−5/3, and the same caption labels the right panel β=0.6 while Table 1 lists β=0.3. These are internal reporting/convergence problems for the headline slope, not constructional circularity.

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

No invented entities. The free parameters are numerical/forcing knobs, not physical constants fitted to data. All physical inputs (M_s≈0.1, B0=0.5/1/2) are set by experimental design rather than tuned to force the results. The theoretical frameworks used for interpretation are external, so circularity burden is low.

free parameters (4)
  • Hyper-viscosity coefficient ν3 = 2.5e-12 (256^3), 8e-14 (512^3)
    Chosen to set grid-scale Reynolds number Re≈3–5; high-order hyper-viscosity can cause bottleneck effects that may flatten the inertial-range slope. The paper argues this does not affect the inertial range but provides no direct test.
  • Forcing wavenumber k_f = ~1.5 (k_f=3 also tested)
    Puts the injection scale near k=1.5, leaving only about one decade of inertial range; the numerical result may depend on this choice despite the k_f=3 test.
  • Bulk viscosity parameter ν_shock = 0 (fiducial), 10 (tested)
    Added to dissipate compressible modes; shown to have negligible effect on spectra, but it is a numerical knob rather than a physical parameter.
  • Forcing amplitude/normalization = not specified (tuned to M_s≈0.1)
    The amplitude of f_K/f_M is not reported; only that M_s≈0.1 is maintained via quasi-static regulation. This tuning is part of the setup.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Isothermal MHD equations with hyper-viscosity/hyper-resistivity correctly model weakly compressible turbulence in the inertial range
    The paper uses PENCIL solving isothermal MHD with n=3 hyper-diffusion; the assumption that hyper-viscosity does not affect the inertial range is inherited from Haugen & Brandenburg (2004a) (§2).
  • domain assumption The forcing function (solenoidal, δ-in-time, narrow band at k_f) represents generic velocity or magnetic driving
    A standard random forcing (Brandenburg 2001) with δ-in-time correlation is used; the results may depend on this choice, as discussed in §5.2.
  • domain assumption The snapshot at t/t_eddy≈11 is in a quasi-static regime representative of stationary turbulence
    The authors assert saturation after t/t_eddy≳3 and check five additional snapshots, but the main figures are from a single snapshot (§3).
  • domain assumption Dynamic alignment and reflection-driven turbulence frameworks correctly describe the observed scaling
    Used in §4 to interpret the k^-3/2 and k^-1 spectra; these are theoretical models from Boldyrev (2005) and Velli et al. (1989), not derived in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Residual energy in weakly compressible turbulence with a mean guide field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFDLQA6G

@misc{pith2026251211973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Residual energy in weakly compressible turbulence with a mean guide field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFDLQA6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.11973}
}
abstract

The energy distribution is a fundamental property of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence. In strongly magnetized turbulence energy imbalances arise and are quantified by the residual energy: $E_r~=~(E_{kin}~ - ~E_{mag})$; $E_{kin}$ and $E_{mag}$ stand for the volume-averaged kinetic and magnetic energy, respectively. We explore the properties of $E_r$ in weakly compressible MHD turbulence in the presence of an initially strong (guide) magnetic field, investigating how the driving mechanism and the magnetic field strength affect the cascade of $E_r$. We run a suite of direct numerical simulations with the PENCIL code. The sonic Mach number is approximately equal to 0.1 in all simulations, whereas the plasma beta varies. We drive turbulence by either injecting velocity or magnetic fluctuations at large scales and study the power spectra of kinetic, magnetic, density, and $E_r$. Magnetically driven simulations show locally imbalanced Alfv\'enic fluctuations and a $\propto k^{-3/2}$ cascade, consistent with the dynamic alignment theory. In the inertial range, $E_r \approx$ 0. Kinetically driven simulations give rise to a $\propto k^{-1}$ scaling, consistent with weakly interacting modes that preserve a high level of coherence throughout the inertial range. Residual energy is positive at all scales of the inertial range. The spectral slope of the $E_r$ cascade steepens systematically with increasing magnetization, varying from approximately -1 at $\beta = 0.3$ to between -2.0 and -5/3 at $\beta = 4.0$. The energy partition in weakly compressible turbulence is strongly influenced by the forcing mechanism, even when the global sonic and Alfv\'enic Mach numbers are comparable across simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of kinetic (solid) and magnetic (dashed) energy of kinetically- (black) and magnetically- (blue) driven turbulence with β ≈ 1 and MS ≈ 0.1. Energy is in dimensionless units and time is normalized with the eddy turnover time. Driving affects the saturation level of the magnetic energy, yielding RA ≲ 1 for magnetic, and RA ≈ 2.5 for kinetic driving in the quasi-static regime, t/teddy ϵ [5, 12]. For the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fluctuating-to-order magnetic field ratio as a function of Alfvén Mach number. Kinetically- and magnetically-driven simulations are shown as black and blue dots respectively. Black dashed line corre￾sponds to linear scaling δu ∼ δB, while cyan to δu ∼ √ δBB0. The numerical data strongly favor the linear scaling for both types of driv￾ing. driven simulations, the marginal increment of the RA with B0, corresponding to… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Kinetic (black) and magnetic (blue) compensated power spectra. Results of mangetically-driven turbulence are shown in the bottom row, while of kinetically-driven in the top. From let to right the initial magnetic field strength increases, or equivalently MA (and β) decreases. Dashed and dashed-dotted black lines correspond to the kinetic power spectrum of the solenoidal and compressible modes, obtained from Helmholt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slow mode pressure balance (Eq. 15) as a function of plasma beta. Black and blue points correspond to kinetic and magnetic driving respectively. The slow mode relation accurately describes the numerical results, especially of simulations with β ≥ 1. uˆs and ˆuc corresp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Compensated residual energy power spectra of kinetically-driven turbulence for different β. Curves correspond to different power laws: ∝ k −2 (black solid), ∝ k −5/3 (blue dotted), ∝ k −3/2 (black dashed), and ∝ k −1 (black dash-dotted). For β = 4.0, we derive that Er …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized cross-helicity and residual energy 2D planes extracted from near the center of the simulation box. The magnetic field point towards the reader. The morphological structures between the depicted quantities are strongly correlated. Magnetically-driven turbulen…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Joint probability density functions of residual energy and cross-helicity for the two driving schemes. Magnetically-driven turbulence excited dynamically-aligned fluctuations, consistent with the Solar wind turbulence observations. Kinetically-driven turbulence leads t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density power spectra compensated by different scalings as in￾dicated in the labels. Magnetic driving leads to passively-mixed density modes, which acquire the IK spectrum of Alfvén waves. Kinetic driv￾ing leads to a smooth mixing of density perturbations and has the s…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Polarization geometry of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MHD turbulence can be described by a polarization vector on a generalized Poincaré sphere whose rotation and diffusion map onto k^-1, k^-3/2, and k^-5/3 spectral regimes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Batchelor, G. K. 1959, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 5, 113

    1959

  2. [2]

    Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E., & Bruno, R. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 6521

    1998

  3. [3]

    R., Federrath, C., Kriel, N., Hew, J

    Beattie, J. R., Federrath, C., Kriel, N., Hew, J. K. J., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03984

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Federrath, C., & Seta, A

    Beattie, J. R., Federrath, C., & Seta, A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1593

    2020

  5. [5]

    R., Kolborg, A

    Beattie, J. R., Kolborg, A. N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Federrath, C. 2025, ApJ, 994, 193

    2025

  6. [6]

    R., Krumholz, M

    Beattie, J. R., Krumholz, M. R., Skalidis, R., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.13020

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    & Hameiri, E

    Bhattacharjee, A. & Hameiri, E. 1988, Physics of Fluids, 31, 1153

    1988

  8. [8]

    S., & Spangler, S

    Bhattacharjee, A., Ng, C. S., & Spangler, S. R. 1998, ApJ, 494, 409

    1998

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    K., Blackman, E

    Bian, X., Shang, J. K., Blackman, E. G., Collins, G. W., & Aluie, H. 2021, ApJ, 917, L3

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., Deems, S., Furlani, T

    Boerner, T. J., Deems, S., Furlani, T. R., Knuth, S. L., & Towns, J. 2023, in Prac- tice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing (PEARC ’23) (New

    2023

  3. [11]

    2005, ApJ, 626, L37

    Boldyrev, S. 2005, ApJ, 626, L37

    2005

  4. [12]

    2006, Phys

    Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 115002

    2006

  5. [13]

    C., Borovsky, J

    Boldyrev, S., Perez, J. C., Borovsky, J. E., & Podesta, J. J. 2011, ApJ, 741, L19 Article number, page 12 of 14 Raphael Skalidis , Aris Tritsis, James R. Beattie and Philip F. Hopkins: Residual energy in MHD turbulence

    2011

  6. [14]

    C., & Wang, Y

    Boldyrev, S., Perez, J. C., & Wang, Y . 2012a, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 459, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Slows (ASTRONUM 2011), ed. N. V . Pogorelov, J. A. Font, E. Audit, & G. P. Zank, 3

    2011

  7. [15]

    A., Bale, S

    Bowen, T. A., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27813

    2020

  8. [16]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 824

    Brandenburg, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 824

    2001

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 12

    Brandenburg, A. 2014, ApJ, 791, 12

    2014

  10. [18]

    & Dobler, W

    Brandenburg, A. & Dobler, W. 2001, A&A, 369, 329

    2001

  11. [19]

    L., Nordlund, Å., et al

    Brandenburg, A., Jennings, R. L., Nordlund, Å., et al. 1996, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 306, 325

    1996

  12. [20]

    & Oughton, S

    Brandenburg, A. & Oughton, S. 2018, Astronomische Nachrichten, 339, 641

    2018

  13. [21]

    & Sarson, G

    Brandenburg, A. & Sarson, G. R. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 055003

    2002

  14. [22]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 53

    Bruno, R., Telloni, D., Primavera, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 53

    2014

  15. [23]

    & Lazarian, A

    Cho, J. & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 245001

    2002

  16. [24]

    Cho, J., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2002, ApJ, 566, L49

    2002

  17. [25]

    & Vishniac, E

    Cho, J. & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273

    2000

  18. [26]

    R., Noer Kolborg, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Connor, I., Beattie, J. R., Noer Kolborg, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.01653

    2025

  19. [27]

    E., Abler, M., Boldyrev, S., Chen, C

    Dorfman, S. E., Abler, M., Boldyrev, S., Chen, C. H. K., & Greess, S. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 2024, SH31G–2707

    2024

  20. [28]

    Elsasser, W. M. 1950, Physical Review, 79, 183

    1950

  21. [29]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  22. [30]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820601

    Federrath, C. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820601

    2016

  23. [31]

    A., Mac Low, M

    Gent, F. A., Mac Low, M. M., Käpylä, M. J., Sarson, G. R., & Hollins, J. F. 2020, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 114, 77

    2020

  24. [32]

    C., & Hnat, B

    Gogoberidze, G., Chapman, S. C., & Hnat, B. 2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 102310

    2012

  25. [33]

    & Sridhar, S

    Goldreich, P. & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763

    1995

  26. [34]

    L., Roberts, D

    Goldstein, M. L., Roberts, D. A., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 283

    1995

  27. [35]

    W., Palmunen, K

    Good, S. W., Palmunen, K. J., Chen, C. H. K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3447

    2025

  28. [36]

    1982, A&A, 105, 6

    Grappin, R., Frisch, U., Pouquet, A., & Leorat, J. 1982, A&A, 105, 6

    1982

  29. [37]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2018, ApJ, 858, L19

    2018

  30. [38]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2021, ApJ, 909, 148

    2021

  31. [39]

    Higdon, J. C. 1984, ApJ, 285, 109

    1984

  32. [40]

    G., Klein, K

    Howes, G. G., Klein, K. G., & TenBarge, J. M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 106

    2014

  33. [41]

    M., & Lazarian, A

    Hu, Y ., Xu, S., Stone, J. M., & Lazarian, A. 2022, ApJ, 941, 133

    2022

  34. [42]

    Iroshnikov, P. S. 1964, Soviet Ast., 7, 566

    1964

  35. [43]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Lichko, E., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 255101

    2021

  36. [44]

    & Rogachevskii, I

    Kleeorin, N. & Rogachevskii, I. 1994, Phys. Rev. E, 50, 2716

    1994

  37. [45]

    Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, Physics of Fluids, 8, 1385

    1965

  38. [46]

    W., Yuen, K

    Lazarian, A., Ho, K. W., Yuen, K. H., & Vishniac, E. 2025, ApJ, 978, 88

    2025

  39. [47]

    & Goldreich, P

    Lithwick, Y . & Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 562, 279 Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., Burkert, A., & Smith, M. D. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 2754

    2001

  40. [48]

    & Van Doorsselaere, T

    Magyar, N. & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2022, ApJ, 938, 98

    2022

  41. [49]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 56

    Magyar, N., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Goossens, M. 2019, ApJ, 873, 56

    2019

  42. [50]

    & Goldreich, P

    Maron, J. & Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175

    2001

  43. [51]

    2006, Phys

    Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., & Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 255002

    2006

  44. [52]

    2008, Phys

    Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., & Boldyrev, S. 2008, Phys. Rev. E, 77, 036403

    2008

  45. [53]

    Matthaeus, W. H. & Goldstein, M. L. 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 495

    1986

  46. [54]

    Meyrand, R., Squire, J., Mallet, A., & Chandran, B. D. G. 2025, Journal of Plasma Physics, 91, E29

    2025

  47. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 199 Müller, W.-C

    Mondal, S., Banerjee, S., & Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2025, ApJ, 982, 199 Müller, W.-C. & Grappin, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 114502

    2025

  48. [56]

    Oughton, S., Wan, M., Servidio, S., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2013, ApJ, 768, 10 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Jour- nal of Open Source Software, 6, 2807

    2013

  49. [57]

    Perez, J. C. & Boldyrev, S. 2008, ApJ, 672, L61

    2008

  50. [58]

    Perez, J. C. & Boldyrev, S. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 025003

    2009

  51. [59]

    Perez, J. C. & Chandran, B. D. G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 124

    2013

  52. [60]

    & Balogh, A

    Perri, S. & Balogh, A. 2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L17102

    2010

  53. [61]

    J., Roberts, D

    Podesta, J. J., Roberts, D. A., & Goldstein, M. L. 2007, ApJ, 664, 543

    2007

  54. [62]

    & Popescu, N

    Popescu, E. & Popescu, N. A. 2016, Romanian Astronomical Journal, 26, 215

    2016

  55. [63]

    A., Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 310

    2009

  56. [64]

    V ., Matthaeus, W

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

    1983

  57. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 152

    Shi, C., Sioulas, N., Huang, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 152

    2025

  58. [66]

    2021, A&A, 650, A21

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Panasenco, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A21

    2021

  59. [67]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10106

    Sioulas, N., Velli, M., Shi, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10106

    2025

  60. [68]

    R., Pavlidou, V ., & Tassis, K

    Skalidis, R., Sternberg, J., Beattie, J. R., Pavlidou, V ., & Tassis, K. 2021, A&A, 656, A118

    2021

  61. [69]

    & Tassis, K

    Skalidis, R. & Tassis, K. 2021, A&A, 647, A186

    2021

  62. [70]

    2023, A&A, 672, L3

    Skalidis, R., Tassis, K., & Pavlidou, V . 2023, A&A, 672, L3

    2023

  63. [71]

    2022, in EGU General As- sembly Conference Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU22–11945

    Soljento, J., Good, S., Osmane, A., & Kilpua, E. 2022, in EGU General As- sembly Conference Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU22–11945

    2022

  64. [72]

    & Goldreich, P

    Sridhar, S. & Goldreich, P. 1994, ApJ, 432, 612

    1994

  65. [73]

    Stein, R. F. 1971, ApJS, 22, 419

    1971

  66. [74]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJ, 508, L99

    1998

  67. [75]

    Strauss, H. R. 1977, Physics of Fluids, 20, 1354

    1977

  68. [76]

    Tu, C. Y . & Marsch, E. 1995, MHD structures, waves and turbulence in the solar wind: observations and theories Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Hu, Y ., Xu, S., Guerrero-Gamboa, R., & Lazarian, A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3431

    1995

  69. [77]

    1989, Phys

    Velli, M., Grappin, R., & Mangeney, A. 1989, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 1807 V ogel, C. 2011, Phd thesis, Technische Universität München

    1989

  70. [78]

    Wang, Y ., Boldyrev, S., & Perez, J. C. 2011, ApJ, 740, L36

    2011

  71. [79]

    Webb, D. F. & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3

    2012

  72. [80]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06611

    Wei, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06611

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    T., Roberts, D

    Wicks, R. T., Roberts, D. A., Mallet, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 177

    2013

  74. [82]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1329284

    Wu, H., Yang, L., & Huang, S. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1329284

    2024

  75. [83]

    Xu, S. & Li, H. 2022, ApJ, 941, L19

    2022

  76. [84]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 85

    Yoon, H., Cho, J., & Kim, J. 2016, ApJ, 831, 85

    2016

  77. [85]

    Zank, G. P. & Matthaeus, W. H. 1993, Physics of Fluids A, 5, 257 Acknowledgements.We thank J. Schober, and A. Brandenburg for useful feed- back on the Pencil code. Many thanks to J. Squire, A. Polychronakis, and N. Soliman for fruitful discussions and to K. Tassis for providin...

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.