Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Non-thermal plasma density redistribution in planetary magnetospheres due to ion-cyclotron waves

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Suprathermal plasma tails weaken the equatorial density pile-up driven by ion-cyclotron waves in planetary magnetospheres.

desk verdict Solid analytic extension of the authors’ own Kappa PF work: multi-planet density solutions and an explicit Λ_c(β,κ,L) map that cleanly shows non-thermal tails suppress equatorial pile-up. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.26419 v2 pith:2TVBIBS6 submitted 2026-03-27 physics.space-ph

Joaquín Espinoza-Troni , Felipe A Asenjo , Pablo S Moya This is my paper
classification physics.space-ph
keywords ponderomotiveforceEMICwavesKappadistributionsplasmadensityredistributionplanetarymagnetospheresULFpulsationsdipolefieldlow-betaplasmas
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

Planetary magnetospheres host ultra-low-frequency electromagnetic ion-cyclotron waves whose time-averaged nonlinear force can push plasma along magnetic field lines. Earlier models assumed Maxwellian plasmas and therefore overstated how strongly those waves can concentrate density at the magnetic equator. This paper shows that the suprathermal tails common throughout the solar system, when modeled by isotropic Kappa distributions, systematically reduce that equatorial accumulation: lower kappa and higher plasma beta both counteract the pile-up while leaving the overall shape of the density profile unchanged. The authors derive a stationary force-balance equation that includes the ponderomotive force of traveling waves, solve it under a dipole field and WKB wave amplitude, and map the critical wave-to-gravity parameter that decides whether the equator is a density maximum or a minimum. Because Kappa values of 2–10 and low beta are typical of Mercury through the ice giants, the result implies that non-thermal corrections are required for quantitative modeling of density redistribution anywhere these waves propagate.

What carries the argument

A generalized slow-time-scale force-balance equation along dipole field lines that incorporates the Washimi–Karpman ponderomotive force (spatial plus magnetic-moment-pumping terms) evaluated for the EMIC dielectric eigenvalue of an isotropic Kappa plasma, with wave amplitude fixed by the WKB approximation.

What would settle it

Simultaneous multi-point measurements of field-aligned density profiles and local EMIC wave amplitude, plasma beta and kappa in a known low-L dipolar region: if observed equatorial density enhancements remain as large as Maxwellian predictions even when kappa is low and beta is moderate, the claimed non-thermal suppression is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In low-beta plasmas with isotropic Kappa distributions, the ponderomotive force of field-aligned traveling EMIC waves still produces a second-kind phase transition between equatorial density maxima and minima, but decreasing kappa and increasing plasma beta both counteract equatorial accumulation; the critical parameter Lambda_c that separates the two regimes depends on the specific combination of beta, kappa and L-shell.

Load-bearing premise

The background magnetic field is treated as a pure centered dipole and first-order curvature effects are dropped from the wave equation, even though the paper itself notes this is only a rough first-order description for Uranus, Neptune and non-dipolar regions of Earth.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives stationary field-aligned density profiles driven by the ponderomotive force of traveling EMIC waves in low-beta plasmas with isotropic Kappa distributions. Using a slow-timescale force-balance equation, a low-temperature Kappa dielectric tensor, and a WKB wave amplitude in a centered dipole (curvature neglected to first order), the authors obtain an ODE for the normalized density (Eq. 31) whose coefficients depend on beta_kappa0, kappa, frequency, and L-shell. Numerical solutions show that decreasing kappa and increasing plasma beta reduce equatorial density pile-up relative to Maxwellian/cold cases, while a critical Lambda = nu^2/C_g separates equatorial density maxima from minima; Lambda_c is mapped versus beta_0, omega_bar, and L. The multi-planet comparison varies mainly C_g (via planetary mass/radius) at fixed plasma parameters.

Significance. If the stated assumptions hold, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable extension of cold/Maxwellian ponderomotive redistribution models to Kappa plasmas that are observationally common from Mercury to the Ice Giants. The explicit Phi_i coefficients (Appendix A), the nullcline analysis for Lambda_c (Eqs. 40–45), and the RK4 density profiles give clear quantitative trends (e.g., kappa=2 cutting equatorial enhancement from ~6% to <2% at the chosen parameters). These results are useful for interpreting ULF-related density structure in low-beta magnetospheric regions and motivate kinetic/non-dipolar follow-ups. Strengths include transparent derivation from the Washimi–Karpman force, recovery of the expected cold-plasma limit, and an explicit parameter dependence of the phase-transition threshold rather than a purely numerical survey.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract, §5 and §6.3: The central quantitative results (density profiles, Lambda_c values in Fig. 4) rest on a pure centered dipole and first-order neglect of field-line curvature in the wave equation. The paper correctly notes this is rough for Uranus/Neptune and non-dipolar terrestrial regions, yet the conclusions still frame non-thermal effects as a governing factor “across multifaceted planetary magnetospheres.” The kappa/beta suppression of equatorial pile-up follows from the pressure term in Eq. (6) and the ODE (31) once the geometry is fixed, so the qualitative trend is robust; the absolute Lambda_c and the locations of extrema are not. Please separate more sharply (i) geometry-independent qualitative trends from (ii) dipole-specific numbers, and state that for multipolar fields accumulation is expected at local |B| minima (consistent with Nekrasov & Feygin) rather than the geogr
  2. §6.3 and Fig. 1: The multi-planet comparison holds beta_0, kappa, L, nu, omega_bar and c/c_A0 fixed and varies only C_g. That isolates gravity versus PF but does not sample the “different regimes characteristic of” each magnetosphere advertised in the Aims. Observed kappa ranges and beta(L) differ substantially (e.g., Jovian torus vs. Ice Giant tenuous plasma). Either add a short set of planet-motivated (beta_0, kappa, L) cases, or rephrase the multi-planet discussion so that Fig. 1 is clearly a C_g sensitivity study rather than a survey of planetary regimes. Without that, the claim that non-thermal effects matter “across the solar system” rests mainly on the algebraic kappa factor in the pressure/PF, not on the planet-by-planet numerics.
minor comments (6)
  1. Throughout: “Jupyter” appears in Fig. 1 caption and once in the Introduction; correct to “Jupiter”.
  2. Eq. (6) and surrounding text: beta_kappa0 is written as “[kappa−(kappa−3/2)] beta_0”, which is algebraically kappa/(kappa−3/2) only if the bracket is a typesetting error for the usual factor. Please correct the formula and keep notation consistent with beta_kappa0 = [kappa/(kappa−3/2)] beta_0 used later.
  3. §2: The renormalized slow velocity u_alpha is mentioned with a reference to Karpman & Shagalov but not defined; a one-line statement that stationarity + field-aligned PF makes the choice irrelevant would help non-specialists.
  4. Fig. 2 and Fig. 4: Axis labels use mixed plain and Greek characters; ensure kappa and beta_0 are rendered consistently and that panel (c) of Fig. 4 states explicitly that kappa curves overlap.
  5. §4: The low-temperature expansion kv_th/(omega ± |Omega|) ≪ 1 and the adiabatic assumption away from B ≈ omega_bar are stated; a brief note on the minimum |B − omega_bar| retained in the numerical domain would strengthen reproducibility.
  6. References: Several author–year citations use nonstandard punctuation (e.g., “Espinoza-Troni, Joaquín et al. (2024)”); normalize to the journal’s style.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: density redistribution and Lambda_c follow from solving a force-balance ODE that uses prior PF coefficients as independent inputs, not as redefinitions of the claimed outputs.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; §1; §4–5 (use of Espinoza-Troni et al. 2023/2024 PF and dielectric)]
    "We employ the PF expressions from Espinoza-Troni, Joaquín et al. (2024), which assume field-aligned propagation of EMIC waves in low-temperature isotropic Kappa plasmas. ... Espinoza-Troni, Joaquín et al. (2024) derived the dielectric tensor for Kappa distributed plasmas under the low-temperature approximation ... Espinoza-Troni, Joaquín et al. (2024) computed the coefficients accompanying the spatial and temporal modulation of the wave in the PF"

    The load-bearing intermediate objects (dielectric eigenvalue epsilon and the A_i coefficients of f^(s) and f^(MMP)) are taken from the same authors’ prior papers rather than re-derived here. This is a minor self-citation of intermediate analytic results; it is not load-bearing circularity for the paper’s claimed outputs (density profiles and Lambda_c), which are new solutions of the force-balance ODE and are not already contained in those citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) standard slow-time-scale force balance along B (Eq. 5/7); (ii) Washimi–Karpman PF with spatial + MMP terms (external formalism); (iii) low-beta EMIC dielectric eigenvalue and PF coefficients for isotropic Kappa plasmas, taken from the authors’ prior analytic kinetic papers (Espinoza-Troni et al. 2023/2024); (iv) WKB wave amplitude in a centered dipole with curvature neglected (explicit modeling choice); (v) closed ODE for n-bar (Eq. 31) whose Phi_i are written out in Appendix A; (vi) nullcline analysis yielding Lambda_c (Eqs. 43–45) and numerical solutions (Figs. 1–5). The central claims—that lowering kappa or raising beta reduces equatorial pile-up, and that Lambda_c depends on (beta, kappa, L)—are algebraic/numerical consequences of that ODE once the pressure closure p ∝ [kappa/(kappa−3/2)] beta n is inserted. They are not fitted to data, not defined in terms of the claimed density extrema, and not uniqueness theorems imported to forbid alternatives. The only self-citation is the intermediate PF/dielectric coefficients; those papers derive the force terms from kinetic theory under stated low-T assumptions and do not already contain the density ODE, Lambda_c surfaces, or multi-planet comparison. That is ordinary sequential research, not circular reduction of the present results to their inputs. Geometric idealizations (dipole + no first-order curvature) affect correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of standard plasma-physics approximations plus a handful of hand-chosen numerical parameters used for the comparative plots. No new physical entities are postulated; Lambda_c is derived from the nullcline condition. The free parameters control only the illustrative figures, not the analytic form of the ODE.

free parameters (5)
  • nu (wave-to-background magnetic amplitude ratio) = 0.1
    Fixed at 0.1 for all numerical solutions; controls the strength of the ponderomotive term relative to gravity.
  • omega_bar (wave frequency normalized to equatorial ion gyrofrequency) = 0.1
    Fixed at 0.1 (or scanned) for the density profiles and Lambda_c curves; chosen inside the EMIC band away from resonance.
  • L-shell = 2
    Fixed at L=2 for most figures; scanned only for Lambda_c(L). Chosen low enough that the dipole approximation is plausible.
  • c/c_A0 = 10^3
    Fixed at 10^3 for all planets; sets the overall scale of the dielectric eigenvalue.
  • beta_0 (equatorial plasma beta) = 0.1 (illustrative)
    Scanned over 0.03–0.3; the illustrative value 0.1 is used for multi-planet and nullcline plots.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Low-beta expansion (beta << 1) of the dielectric tensor and pressure, retaining only first-order thermal corrections
    Stated in abstract, §4 and §5; required for the closed-form PF coefficients and for neglecting delta_kappa^2.
  • domain assumption Isotropic Kappa velocity distribution for both species with equal temperatures
    Adopted in §4 as the simplest non-thermal model; real magnetospheres often show anisotropy.
  • domain assumption WKB approximation for the wave electric-field amplitude (slow spatial variation of background quantities)
    Invoked in §5 to obtain |E| ~ epsilon^{-1/4}; validity fails when density gradients become steep at very low beta.
  • domain assumption Stationary wave amplitude (temporal ponderomotive term neglected)
    Explicitly stated in §3; justified by assuming modulation slower than transit time.
  • domain assumption Centered dipole magnetic field with first-order curvature neglected in the wave equation
    Stated in abstract, Methods and §5–6; acknowledged as rough for Uranus/Neptune.
  • standard math Washimi–Karpman ponderomotive-force formalism (spatial + MMP terms only)
    Standard nonlinear-wave result used throughout §3 and §5; temporal and magnetic-moment-perpendicular terms dropped by symmetry.
  • domain assumption Quasi-neutrality and one-fluid force balance along B with gravity
    Eq. (5)–(7); standard for slow magnetospheric density models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-thermal plasma density redistribution in planetary magnetospheres due to ion-cyclotron waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TVBIBS6

@misc{pith2026260326419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-thermal plasma density redistribution in planetary magnetospheres due to ion-cyclotron waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TVBIBS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.26419}
}
abstract

Planetary magnetospheres exhibit diverse environments where Ultra-low frequency (ULF) pulsations induce nonlinear ponderomotive effects. Since suprathermal populations modeled by Kappa distributions are ubiquitous in these regions, their significant influence on the ponderomotive force (PF) induced by electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves must be accounted for. We investigate field-aligned plasma density redistribution driven by the PF of traveling EMIC waves across different planetary magnetospheres. We apply a generalized slow-time-scale force balance equation to model stationary density solutions in low-beta plasmas ($\beta \ll 1$) with isotropic Kappa distributions. To enable systematic comparison, wave modulation is described using the WKB approximation in a dipole magnetic field, neglecting first-order curvature effects. The plasma response varies significantly with magnetospheric parameters: decreasing the kappa parameter and increasing plasma beta counteract plasma accumulation towards the equator. In low-beta environments, non-thermal effects substantially reduce the nonlinear response to short-period pulsations, though preserving the qualitative behavior of Maxwellian models. Furthermore, we characterize how the critical parameter governing the phase transition between equatorial density minima and maxima depends on the specific combination of plasma beta, kappa, and L-shell. Our study demonstrates that non-thermal plasma properties are a governing factor in field-aligned density redistribution driven by ULF waves, highlighting the necessity of incorporating them to accurately model ponderomotive phenomena across multifaceted planetary magnetospheres.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 1409

    Allan, W. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 1409

    1993

  2. [2]

    1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 21281

    Allan, W. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 21281

    1994

  3. [3]

    R., & Poulter, E

    Allan, W., Manuel, J. R., & Poulter, E. M. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 96, 11461

    1991

  4. [4]

    & Poulter, E

    Allan, W. & Poulter, E. M. 1992, Reports on Progress in Physics, 55, 533

    1992

  5. [5]

    J., Erlandson, R

    Anderson, B. J., Erlandson, R. E., & Zanetti, L. J. 1992, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 97, 3075 Andrés, N., Gómez, D., Bertucci, C., Mazelle, C., & Dougherty, M. 2013, Plan- etary and Space Science, 79-80, 64

    1992

  6. [6]

    & Shabanskii, V

    Antonova, A. & Shabanskii, V . 1968, Geomagn. Aeron., 8, 801

    1968

  7. [7]

    Arridge, C. S. & Paty, C. 2021, Asymmetrical Magnetospheres (American Geo- physical Union (AGU)), 515–534

    2021

  8. [8]

    A., Slavin, J

    Boardsen, S. A., Slavin, J. A., Anderson, B. J., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysi- cal Research: Space Physics, 117

    2012

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    1996, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 20, 247

    Butcher, J. 1996, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 20, 247

    1996

  2. [10]

    Chappell, C. R. 1974, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 79, 1861

    1974

  3. [11]

    1987, Icarus, 71, 448

    Christon, S. 1987, Icarus, 71, 448

    1987

  4. [12]

    Delamere, P. A. 2016, A Review of the Low-Frequency Waves in the Giant Mag- netospheres (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 365–378

    2016

  5. [13]

    M., Mitchell, D

    Dialynas, K., Krimigis, S. M., Mitchell, D. G., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysi- cal Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  6. [14]

    M., Stepanova, M., Moya, P

    Espinoza, C. M., Stepanova, M., Moya, P. S., Antonova, E. E., & Valdivia, J. A. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 6362

    2018

  7. [15]

    Espinoza-Troni, J., A Asenjo, F., & Moya, P. S. 2023, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion, 65, 065008

    2023

  8. [16]

    2024, A&A, 686, A26

    Espinoza-Troni, Joaquín, Asenjo, Felipe A., & Moya, Pablo S. 2024, A&A, 686, A26

    2024

  9. [17]

    V ., Stepanova, M., Espinoza, C

    Eyelade, A. V ., Stepanova, M., Espinoza, C. M., & Moya, P. S. 2021, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 34

    2021

  10. [18]

    M., Lepping, R

    Farrell, W. M., Lepping, R. P., & Smith, C. W. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 3631

    1993

  11. [19]

    K., Gallawa, R

    Ghatak, A. K., Gallawa, R. L., & Goyal, I. C. 1991, Modified airy function and WKB solutions to the wave equation

    1991

  12. [20]

    & Feygin, F

    Guglielmi, A. & Feygin, F. 2023, Solnechno-Zemnaya Fizika, 9, 28

    2023

  13. [21]

    2024, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 10, 14

    Guglielmi, A., Feygin, F., & Potapov, A. 2024, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 10, 14

    2024

  14. [22]

    1999, Earth, Planets and Space, 51, 1297–1308

    Guglielmi, A., Hayashi, K., Lundin, R., & Potapov, A. 1999, Earth, Planets and Space, 51, 1297–1308

    1999

  15. [23]

    2004, in 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, V ol

    Guglielmi, A., Lundin, R., Potapov, A., & Tsegmed, B. 2004, in 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, V ol. 35, 805

    2004

  16. [24]

    Guglielmi, A. V . & Feygin, F. Z. 2018, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 54, 712–720 Article number, page 10 of 12 Joaquín Espinoza-Troni et al.: Non-thermal plasma density redistribution in planetary magnetospheres due to ion-cyclotron waves

    2018

  17. [25]

    V ., Pokhotelov, O

    Guglielmi, A. V ., Pokhotelov, O. A., Feygin, F. Z., et al. 1995, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics, 100, 7997

    1995

  18. [26]

    V ., Potapov, A

    Guglielmi, A. V ., Potapov, A. S., & Feygin, F. Z. 2025, Solar System Research, 59

    2025

  19. [27]

    2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL100279, e2022GL100279 2022GL100279

    Harada, Y ., Aizawa, S., Saito, Y ., et al. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL100279, e2022GL100279 2022GL100279

    2022

  20. [28]

    D., Takahashi, K., Drozdov, A

    Hartinger, M. D., Takahashi, K., Drozdov, A. Y ., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astron- omy and Space Sciences, V olume 9 - 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Bloxham, J

    Holme, R. & Bloxham, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 101, 2177

    1996

  22. [30]

    1969, Physics of Fluids, 12, 182

    Hora, H. 1969, Physics of Fluids, 12, 182

    1969

  23. [31]

    Hughes, W. J. 1994, Magnetospheric ULF Waves: A Tutorial with a Historical Perspective (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 1–11

    1994

  24. [32]

    1998, Space Science Reviews, 83, 435–512

    Kangas, J., Guglielmi, A., & Pokhotelov, O. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 83, 435–512

    1998

  25. [33]

    Karpman, V . I. & Shagalov, A. G. 1982, Journal of Plasma Physics, 27, 215–224

    1982

  26. [34]

    & Jones, D

    Kentwell, G. & Jones, D. 1987, Physics Reports, 145, 319

    1987

  27. [35]

    K., Kivelson, M

    Khurana, K. K., Kivelson, M. G., Vasyliunas, V . M., et al. 2004, in Jupiter. The

    2004

  28. [36]

    R., Valeo, E., & Phillips, C

    Kim, E.-H., Johnson, J. R., Valeo, E., & Phillips, C. K. 2015, Geophysical Re- search Letters, 42, 5147

    2015

  29. [37]

    Kirpichev, I. P. & Antonova, E. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 35

    2020

  30. [38]

    K., & Krupp, N

    Kleindienst, G., Glassmeier, K.-H., Simon, S., Dougherty, M. K., & Krupp, N. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 885

    2009

  31. [39]

    & Sanuki, H

    Kono, M. & Sanuki, H. 1987, Journal of Plasma Physics, 38, 43–51

    1987

  32. [40]

    Krall, N. A. & Trivelpiece, A. W. 1986, Principles of plasma physics (San Fran- cisco Pr.)

    1986

  33. [41]

    M., Armstrong, T

    Krimigis, S. M., Armstrong, T. P., Axford, W. I., et al. 1989, Science, 246, 1483

    1989

  34. [42]

    M., Armstrong, T

    Krimigis, S. M., Armstrong, T. P., Axford, W. I., et al. 1986, Science, 233, 97

    1986

  35. [43]

    M., Carbary, J

    Krimigis, S. M., Carbary, J. F., Keath, E. P., et al. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 88, 8871

    1983

  36. [44]

    M., Dimonte, G., & Morales, G

    Lamb, B. M., Dimonte, G., & Morales, G. J. 1984, The Physics of Fluids, 27, 1401

    1984

  37. [45]

    & Fichtner, H., eds

    Lazar, M. & Fichtner, H., eds. 2021, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 464, Kappa Distributions: From Observational Evidences via Controver- sial Predictions to a Consistent Theory of Nonequilibrium Plasmas (Cham: Springer International Publishing)

    2021

  38. [46]

    A., Poedts, S., & Shaaban, S

    Lazar, M., López, R. A., Poedts, S., & Shaaban, S. M. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 082106

    2023

  39. [47]

    M., Fichtner, H., & Poedts, S

    Lazar, M., Pierrard, V ., Shaaban, S. M., Fichtner, H., & Poedts, S. 2017, A&A, 602, A44

    2017

  40. [48]

    Lee, N. C. & Parks, G. K. 1983, The Physics of Fluids, 26, 724

    1983

  41. [49]

    Lee, N. C. & Parks, G. K. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 3853

    1998

  42. [50]

    & Temerin, M

    Li, X. & Temerin, M. 1993, Geophysical Research Letters, 20, 13

    1993

  43. [51]

    & Guglielmi, A

    Lundin, R. & Guglielmi, A. 2007, Space Science Reviews, 127, 1

    2007

  44. [52]

    & Hultqvist, B

    Lundin, R. & Hultqvist, B. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 94, 6665

    1989

  45. [53]

    & Lidgren, H

    Lundin, R. & Lidgren, H. 2022, Cosmic implications of ponderomotive wave forces (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

    2022

  46. [54]

    H., Gary, S

    Mauk, B. H., Gary, S. A., Kane, M., et al. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 7685

    1996

  47. [55]

    H., Keath, E

    Mauk, B. H., Keath, E. P., Kane, M., et al. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 96, 19061

    1991

  48. [56]

    H., Krimigis, S

    Mauk, B. H., Krimigis, S. M., Keath, E. P., et al. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 92, 15283

    1987

  49. [57]

    H., Mitchell, D

    Mauk, B. H., Mitchell, D. G., McEntire, R. W., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophys- ical Research: Space Physics, 109

    2004

  50. [58]

    McIlwain, C. E. 1961, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 66, 3681

    1961

  51. [59]

    Mursula, K., Bräysy, T., Niskala, K., & Russell, C. T. 2001, Journal of Geophys- ical Research: Space Physics, 106, 29543

    2001

  52. [60]

    Nekrasov, A. K. & Feygin, F. Z. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science, 359

    2015

  53. [61]

    Nekrasov, A. K. & Feygin, F. Z. 2016, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 56, 441–447

    2016

  54. [62]

    Nekrasov, A. K. & Feygin, F. Z. 2018, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 54, 741–748

    2018

  55. [63]

    & Viñas, A

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T. & Viñas, A. F. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    2008

  56. [64]

    S., Russell, C

    Orlowski, D. S., Russell, C. T., & Lepping, R. P. 1992, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 97, 19187

    1992

  57. [65]

    1999, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 104, 10369

    Othmer, C., Glassmeier, K., & Cramm, R. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 104, 10369

    1999

  58. [66]

    & Dougherty, M

    Petkaki, P. & Dougherty, M. K. 2001, Advances in Space Research, 28, 909

    2001

  59. [67]

    & Lepping, R

    Russell, C. & Lepping, R. 1992, Advances in Space Research, 12, 43

    1992

  60. [68]

    Russell, C. T. 1989, Geophysical Research Letters, 16, 1253

    1989

  61. [69]

    Schardt, A. W. 1983, Reviews of Geophysics, 21, 390

    1983

  62. [70]

    W., Xie, L., Yao, Z

    Sun, J. W., Xie, L., Yao, Z. H., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, e2023JE008279, e2023JE008279 2023JE008279

    2024

  63. [71]

    Tskhakaya, D. D. 1981, Journal of Plasma Physics, 25, 233–238 Viñas, A. F., Mace, R. L., & Benson, R. F. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 110

    1981

  64. [72]

    & Karpman, V

    Washimi, H. & Karpman, V . I. 1976, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theo- retical Physics, 44, 528, aDS Bibcode: 1976JETP...44..528W

    1976

  65. [73]

    Yoon, P. H. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 7074

    2014

  66. [74]

    A., et al

    Zhao, J.-T., Zong, Q.-G., Slavin, J. A., et al. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL088075, e2020GL088075 10.1029/2020GL088075 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. Draft Appendix A: Ponderomotive force calculation Appendix A.1: Spatial term Using ...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.