pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.04659 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · nlin.AO

Recognition: no theorem link

On the transformation of the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution to a Power-Law

Ari Laor , Igor Gitelman
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE nlin.AO
keywords power-law distributionMaxwell-Boltzmann distributionself-similar evolutionnon-equilibrium systemshard-sphere collisionsdistribution functionopen systemsscale-free dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Power-law distributions form from Maxwell-Boltzmann ones in open systems that start far from equilibrium and follow scale-free self-similar dynamics.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses Monte Carlo simulations of colliding hard spheres to show how the usual Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution changes into a power law. This shift happens only when three conditions hold at once: the particles begin with velocities far from equilibrium, such as light and heavy spheres moving at the same speed; the collisions produce scale-free dynamics that make the distribution spread in a self-similar shape during the middle phase of evolution; and the system stays open with a scale-free boundary such as steady injection of new particles. The resulting power-law index is fixed solely by the time scaling of that self-similar spread and by the injection rule. These three conditions occur in many natural systems, which may account for the frequent appearance of power laws across widely different scales and processes.

Core claim

In a system of colliding hard spheres the energy distribution reaches the Maxwell-Boltzmann form only at full equilibrium. When the spheres start far from equilibrium, the collision dynamics become scale-free in the intermediate regime and drive self-similar evolution of the distribution function. An open boundary that continuously supplies particles far from equilibrium then converts the self-similar form into a power-law tail. The power-law index is set by the explicit time dependence of the self-similar distribution together with the form of the boundary condition, and this index does not depend on the precise shape of the self-similar distribution itself.

What carries the argument

Self-similar evolution of the distribution function driven by scale-free collision dynamics in an open system with a scale-free particle-injection boundary, which converts an initial Maxwell-Boltzmann approach into a stationary power-law tail.

If this is right

  • Any system that begins with mismatched velocities and receives steady injection of new particles will develop a power-law energy distribution instead of relaxing to Maxwell-Boltzmann.
  • The slope of the power law is fixed only by the rate at which the self-similar distribution spreads in time and by the injection rate, remaining unchanged if the microscopic collision rules vary.
  • Closed systems or systems that quickly reach equilibrium lose the power-law tail and recover the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
  • The same three conditions appear across many physical scales, so power laws should arise routinely wherever those conditions are met.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Laboratory experiments with granular gases or molecular-dynamics boxes could vary the injection rate while keeping collisions scale-free and directly measure whether the power-law index stays constant when the self-similar spreading law changes.
  • The same mechanism may operate in any open many-body system whose scattering is scale-free during the transient phase, offering a route to power laws without fine-tuning of parameters.
  • If the boundary condition is altered to a time-dependent injection whose scaling differs from the self-similar spreading, the index should shift in a predictable way that can be tested numerically.

Load-bearing premise

The collision dynamics stay scale-free throughout the intermediate regime so that the distribution evolves in a self-similar way whose exact shape does not set the final power-law index.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo run of hard-sphere collisions that begins far from equilibrium, receives constant far-from-equilibrium injection, and develops either no power-law tail or a power-law index that changes when the self-similar spreading law is altered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04659 by Ari Laor, Igor Gitelman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The evolution of the DF of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The time evolution of the DF for a system of two types of particles, low mass particles with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The time evolution of low-mass particles DF as it [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The formation of a self-similar DF asymptotically at the intermediate time steps. The DF are each scaled by a factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: explores the effect of an energy dependent cross-section, σ(E), on the DF PL index in the interme￾diate energy regime, and also on the shape of the self￾similar DF at the intermediate time range. The sim￾ulation algorithm is similar to the one described above FIG. 5. The steady-state DF F(Ek), obtained for a constant injection rate of low energy particles. The DF follows a PL at 10−9 ≪ Ek ≪ 10−3 , the inte… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , upper panel, presents the DF derived for a constant injection rate of ˙n = 1 of light particles. This is in contrast with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The steady-state DF for a constant injection rate, as in Figure 5, but for two possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The time evolution of the DF for particles injected in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The steady-state DF for a constant injection rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The non-relativistic cascade simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The equilibrium solutions for a system composed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Does a cascade simulation produces a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Power-law (PL) distribution functions (DF) are prevalent in highly diverse systems. The systems range in size from nanometer to mega light years, in complexity from dust grains to living organisms, and characterize the distribution of various events in nature and in various human activities. To gain some insight on why PL DF are so prevalent, we explore the conditions leading to the formation of a PL DF in a simple system of colliding hard sphere. We follow the time evolution of the energy DF through direct Monte Carlo simulations. In statistical equilibrium, the DF evolves into the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) DF. A transition to a PL DF occurs when: 1. The system is initially far from equilibrium. For example, a mix of light and heavy particles with the same velocity. 2. The system dynamics is scale-free, which holds in the intermediate asymptotic regime, far from the initial and the final equilibrium states. The scale-free dynamics leads to a DF which evolves in a self-similar form. 3. The system is open with a scale-free boundary condition. For example, a constant injection of particles far from equilibrium. The DF PL index is set by the time dependence of the self-similar DF and by the boundary condition. The PL index is independent of the self-similar DF form. Conditions 1-3 are common in a great variety of systems, which may explain why PL DF are so prevalent in nature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses direct Monte Carlo simulations of hard-sphere collisions to argue that power-law distribution functions (DFs) emerge from the Maxwell-Boltzmann DF when three conditions hold: (1) the initial state is far from equilibrium (e.g., light and heavy particles with identical velocities), (2) the dynamics are scale-free in the intermediate asymptotic regime, producing self-similar evolution of the DF, and (3) the system is open with a scale-free boundary condition (e.g., constant injection of non-equilibrium particles). The power-law index is asserted to be fixed solely by the temporal exponents of the self-similar form and the boundary condition, independent of the specific functional form of the self-similar DF.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a concrete, minimal kinetic mechanism that could explain the ubiquity of power laws across disparate systems by tying them to generic non-equilibrium, scale-free, and open-boundary conditions. The direct time-evolution Monte Carlo approach is a methodological strength, as it permits explicit tracking of the MB-to-PL transition without relying on equilibrium assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and intermediate-regime discussion] Abstract and the section on intermediate-regime dynamics: the assertion that the dynamics are scale-free (leading to self-similar DF evolution of the form f(E,t) = t^α g(E t^β)) is load-bearing for the entire argument yet is supported only by the statement that it 'holds in the intermediate asymptotic regime'; no data-collapse plots, extracted values of α and β, or quantitative test against the Boltzmann collision integral (which contains the |v1−v2| factor) are provided to confirm that the regime is truly scale-free rather than a transient crossover.
  2. [Abstract and results on PL index] Abstract and results on PL index: the claim that 'the PL index is independent of the self-similar DF form' is central but rests on the unproven assertion that boundary injection dominates any details of g; the Monte Carlo runs may be specific to the chosen collision rules, particle numbers, and fitting procedures, none of which are specified with error bars or robustness checks, leaving the independence statement without general support.
  3. [Simulation description] Simulation description (presumably §3): the transition to PL is reported for an open system with constant injection, but no quantitative comparison is given between the measured index and the value predicted from the time exponents plus boundary condition, nor is there a control run with closed boundaries to isolate the role of the scale-free BC.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by including at least the particle number, collision implementation details, and how the power-law regime was identified and fitted.
  2. [Main text] Notation for the self-similar ansatz is introduced without an explicit equation; adding f(E,t) = t^α g(E t^β) with definitions of α and β would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report, which highlights areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to provide the requested quantitative support and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and intermediate-regime discussion] Abstract and the section on intermediate-regime dynamics: the assertion that the dynamics are scale-free (leading to self-similar DF evolution of the form f(E,t) = t^α g(E t^β)) is load-bearing for the entire argument yet is supported only by the statement that it 'holds in the intermediate asymptotic regime'; no data-collapse plots, extracted values of α and β, or quantitative test against the Boltzmann collision integral (which contains the |v1−v2| factor) are provided to confirm that the regime is truly scale-free rather than a transient crossover.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation of the scale-free regime would improve the presentation. The Monte Carlo simulations implement the full hard-sphere collision dynamics, including the relative-velocity factor in the collision rate. In the revised manuscript we will add data-collapse plots for the intermediate asymptotic regime, report the extracted exponents α and β with uncertainties, and include a brief comparison of the observed scaling against the structure of the Boltzmann collision integral to confirm that the dynamics remain scale-free rather than a transient effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and results on PL index] Abstract and results on PL index: the claim that 'the PL index is independent of the self-similar DF form' is central but rests on the unproven assertion that boundary injection dominates any details of g; the Monte Carlo runs may be specific to the chosen collision rules, particle numbers, and fitting procedures, none of which are specified with error bars or robustness checks, leaving the independence statement without general support.

    Authors: The independence of the power-law index from the detailed shape of g follows directly from the self-similar ansatz combined with a scale-free injection boundary condition: once the boundary term dominates, the index is fixed by the temporal exponents and the injection scaling alone. This is a general property of open scale-free systems and is not tied to the specific hard-sphere rules. In the revision we will (i) state the simulation parameters explicitly, (ii) report fitted indices with error bars, (iii) add robustness tests across particle numbers and fitting windows, and (iv) expand the analytic argument showing why the index decouples from g. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Simulation description] Simulation description (presumably §3): the transition to PL is reported for an open system with constant injection, but no quantitative comparison is given between the measured index and the value predicted from the time exponents plus boundary condition, nor is there a control run with closed boundaries to isolate the role of the scale-free BC.

    Authors: We accept that a direct numerical test and a closed-boundary control would strengthen the evidence. The revised manuscript will include (i) a side-by-side comparison of the measured power-law index against the value predicted from the extracted α, β and the injection boundary condition, and (ii) results from an otherwise identical closed-boundary run demonstrating that the power-law tail does not develop without the scale-free open boundary. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; claims rest on direct Monte Carlo observations rather than self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper follows the time evolution of the energy DF via direct Monte Carlo simulations of hard-sphere collisions. The three conditions for PL formation (initial far-from-equilibrium state, scale-free dynamics yielding self-similar evolution in the intermediate regime, and open scale-free boundary) are presented as observed outcomes of these simulations, with the PL index stated to be fixed by the time exponents plus boundary condition. No mathematical derivation chain is offered that reduces by construction to its own inputs, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear as load-bearing steps. The independence from the specific self-similar form g is asserted as a simulation result, not an a-priori assumption. The analysis is therefore self-contained and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption of scale-free dynamics producing self-similar evolution in the intermediate regime and on standard kinetic theory for hard-sphere collisions. No free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Hard spheres undergo elastic collisions that conserve energy and momentum.
    This is the foundational rule for the Monte Carlo simulation of the system evolution.
  • domain assumption The intermediate asymptotic regime exhibits scale-free dynamics that produce a self-similar distribution function.
    This assumption is invoked to explain the transition to power-law form and is not derived from first principles in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1721 out tokens · 67179 ms · 2026-05-10T20:23:36.869355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Identical particles We validate the code by comparing the convergence of the numerically derivedf(v, t), or equivalentlyf(E, t), on a long enough timescale with the statistical equilib- rium analytic solutions. The general covariant statistical equilibrium solution for colliding hard spheres in a ho- mogeneous medium is the Maxwell–Juttner (MJ) distri- bu...

  2. [2]

    Again we follow the time evolution of the DF, and test if it reaches the expected statisti- cal equilibrium DF

    Non-identical particles Another validation test is for systems composed of two types of particles with an initial DF which is far from sta- tistical equilibrium. Again we follow the time evolution of the DF, and test if it reaches the expected statisti- cal equilibrium DF. The system consists of lightm 1 = 1 and heavym 2 = 1836 particles (similar to an el...

  3. [3]

    Constant cross-section Here we follow the evolution of the light particles DF assuming a constant scattering cross-section,σ(E) =σ 0 (eq. 43). Figure 3 presents the time evolution of the light particles DF in kinetic energy space. The acceler- ation process exhibits three main time intervals. In the first interval, the MB DF transforms to a new DF. Once t...

  4. [4]

    The sim- ulation algorithm is similar to the one described above FIG

    Energy dependent collision cross-section Figure 6 explores the effect of an energy dependent cross-section,σ(E), on the DF PL index in the interme- diate energy regime, and also on the shape of the self- similar DF at the intermediate time range. The sim- ulation algorithm is similar to the one described above FIG. 5. The steady-state DFF(E k), obtained f...

  5. [5]

    Here, we follow the evolution of the low-mass parti- cles DF from the non-relativistic to the ultra-relativistic regime

    The transition to the relativistic regime The simulations above assume non-relativistic dynam- ics, that isE k ≪mfor both the light and heavy parti- cles. Here, we follow the evolution of the low-mass parti- cles DF from the non-relativistic to the ultra-relativistic regime. The heavy particles mass ism h = 1015 with an initial momentum per unit mass ofp/...

  6. [6]

    The energy growth is exponential, rather than poly- nomial in time, leading to an exponential self-similarity in the time evolving DF

    The self-similarity transformation in the relativistic regime In the relativistic regime the system dynamics remains scale-free, but the self-similar form of the distribution function differs qualitatively from the non-relativistic case. The energy growth is exponential, rather than poly- nomial in time, leading to an exponential self-similarity in the ti...

  7. [7]

    The collision is re- alized based on the collision rate, i.e

    Particle cascade in the non-relativistic regime In the non-relativistic simulation we inject a single high-energy particle withE k = 5×10 −1, which collides with a randomly selected low-energy particle drawn from a MB DF with a⟨E k⟩= 5×10 −9. The collision is re- alized based on the collision rate, i.e. the collision prob- ability, as described above (sec...

  8. [8]

    Below we simulate the cascade process when the in- jected particle is in the ultra-relativistic regime, that is Ek ≫m

    Particle cascade in the ultra-relativistic regime. Below we simulate the cascade process when the in- jected particle is in the ultra-relativistic regime, that is Ek ≫m. The relativistic collision rate differs from the non-relativistic case (eq. 43), which affects the DF PL index. We employ an algorithm similar to the one used in the previous section. Bot...

  9. [9]

    M. E. J. Newman, Contemporary Physics46, 323 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0412004 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Gabaix, P

    X. Gabaix, P. Gopikrishnan, V. Plerou, and H. E. Stan- ley, Nature423, 267 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    M. V. Simkin and V. P. Roychowdhury, arXiv e- prints , physics/0601192 (2006), arXiv:physics/0601192 [physics.soc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    M. J. Aschwanden, N. B. Crosby, M. Dimitropoulou, M. K. Georgoulis, S. Hergarten, J. McAteer, A. V. Milo- vanov, S. Mineshige, L. Morales, N. Nishizuka, G. Pruess- ner, R. Sanchez, A. S. Sharma, A. Strugarek, and V. Urit- sky, Space Sci. Rev198, 47 (2016), arXiv:1403.6528 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Kleiber, Physiological Reviews27, 511–541 (1947), pMID 20267758

    M. Kleiber, Physiological Reviews27, 511–541 (1947), pMID 20267758

    1947

  14. [14]

    G. I. Barenblatt,Scaling, Self-similarity, and Intermedi- ate Asymptotics(Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  15. [15]

    Mouhot and L

    C. Mouhot and L. Pareschi, Mathematics of Computa- tion75, 1833 (2006), arXiv:math/0607542 [math.AP]

    work page arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    L. Wu, C. White, T. J. Scanlon, J. M. Reese, and Y. Zhang, Journal of Computational Physics250, 27 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    Cai and M

    Z. Cai and M. Torrilhon, Journal of Computational Physics295, 617 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman,Radiative processes in astrophysics(Wiley-Interscience, 1979)

    1979

  19. [19]

    A. V. Kats, V. M. Kontorovich, S. S. Moiseev, and V. E. Novikov, Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki71, 177 (1976)

    1976

  20. [20]

    M. R. Collier, Geophys Res Lett20, 1531 (1993)

    1993

  21. [21]

    Hanel and S

    R. Hanel and S. Thurner, Physica A Statistical Mechan- ics and its Applications365, 162 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0509773 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Hankey and H

    A. Hankey and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. B6, 3515 (1972)

    1972

  23. [23]

    J. T. Cushing, American Journal of Physics35, 858 (1967)

    1967

  24. [24]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of integrals, series, and products(Academic press, 2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and E. Ben-Naim,A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    L. O. Drury, Reports on Progress in Physics46, 973 (1983)

    1983

  27. [27]

    F. C. Jones, ApJS90, 561 (1994)

    1994

  28. [28]

    Achterberg, Y

    A. Achterberg, Y. A. Gallant, J. G. Kirk, and A. W. Guthmann, MNRAS328, 393 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0107530 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Lemoine and B

    M. Lemoine and B. Revenu, MNRAS366, 635 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510522 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Lemoine, Phys

    M. Lemoine, Phys. Rev. E112, 015205 (2025), arXiv:2501.19136 [physics.plasm-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    J. C. Brown, Sol. Phys.18, 489 (1971)

    1971

  32. [32]

    T. S. Bastian, A. O. Benz, and D. E. Gary, ARA&A36, 131 (1998)

    1998

  33. [33]

    C. L. Sarazin, ApJ520, 529 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9901061 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, G. G. Howes, E. Quataert, and T. Tatsuno, ApJS182, 310 (2009), arXiv:0704.0044 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    B. T. Park and V. Petrosian, ApJ446, 699 (1995)

    1995

  36. [36]

    I. S. Aranson and J. S. Olafsen, Phys. Rev. E66, 061302 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0110607 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    Ben-Naim, B

    E. Ben-Naim, B. Machta, and J. Machta, Phys. Rev. E72, 021302 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0504187 [cond- mat.soft]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  38. [38]

    Fujii, Phys

    K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. E108, 025204 (2023), arXiv:2210.06938 [physics.plasm-ph]. 21

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    R. A. Sunyaev and L. G. Titarchuk, A&A86, 121 (1980)

    1980

  40. [40]

    M. P. H. Stumpf and M. A. Porter, Science335, 665 (2012)

    2012

  41. [41]

    G. B. West, J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist, Science276, 122 (1997)

    1997

  42. [42]

    Patriarca and C

    M. Patriarca and C. A., American Journal of Physics81, 618 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    Blasius, Chaos30, 093123 (2020), arXiv:2004.00940 [q-bio.PE]

    B. Blasius, Chaos30, 093123 (2020), arXiv:2004.00940 [q-bio.PE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Barab´ asi and R

    A.-L. Barab´ asi and R. Albert, Science286, 509 (1999)

    1999

  45. [45]

    Gitelman and A

    I. Gitelman and A. Laor, Mbtopl codes (v1.0): Code and data for ”on the transformation of the maxwell–boltzmann distribution to a power law” (2026), doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18642015

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18642015 2026

  46. [46]

    Cubero, J

    D. Cubero, J. Casado-Pascual, J. Dunkel, P. Talkner, and P. H¨ anggi, Physical Review Letters99, 170601 (2007)

    2007

  47. [47]

    Dunkel, P

    J. Dunkel, P. H¨ anggi, and S. Weber, Phys. Rev. E79, 010101 (2009), arXiv:0812.0466 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    S. M. Molnar and J. Godfrey, ApJ902, 143 (2020), arXiv:2009.04633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th ed. (Pergamon, 1980)

    1980

  50. [50]

    Peano, M

    F. Peano, M. Marti, L. Silva, and G. Coppa, Physical Review E79, 025701 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Kappa distributions: theory and applica- tions in space plasmas,

    V. Pierrard and M. Lazar, Sol. Phys.267, 153 (2010), arXiv:1003.3532 [physics.space-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Livadiotis and D

    G. Livadiotis and D. McComas, The Astrophysical Jour- nal741, 88 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    Livadiotis and D

    G. Livadiotis and D. J. McComas, Space Sci. Rev175, 183 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    Arbutina and V

    B. Arbutina and V. Zekovi´ c, Journal of High Energy As- trophysics32, 65 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    D. C. Nicholls, M. A. Dopita, and R. S. Sutherland, ApJ 752, 148 (2012), arXiv:1204.3880 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    B. T. Draine and C. D. Kreisch, ApJ862, 30 (2018), arXiv:1803.10003 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2018