Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Direct inversion of solar-wind proton distributions shows intermittent stochastic heating matches the observed velocity-space heating rate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 02:27 UTC pith:ZTXPPMTT

load-bearing objection New inversion of the guiding-center equation yields empirical D⊥⊥ and dQ that cleanly favor intermittent scale-dependent SH over J25 and ∥-ICW RH in one sub-Alfvénic stream, with the usual single-interval and pure-diffusion caveats. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11880 v1 pith:ZTXPPMTT submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Direct Measurement of Diffusion Coefficients: Evidence for Diffusive Stochastic Heating in Collisionless Plasmas

Tamar Ervin , Trevor A. Bowen , Alfred Mallet , Philip A. Isenberg , Kristopher G. Klein , Stuart D. Bale , Benjamin D. G. Chandran , Roberto Livi
show 2 more authors
Ali Rahmati Davin E. Larson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords stochastic heatingvelocity-space diffusionParker Solar Probecollisionless plasmasolar windguiding-center equationion cyclotron wavesintermittency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Collisionless plasmas such as the near-Sun solar wind cool more slowly than adiabatic expansion allows and show strong perpendicular temperature anisotropies that require continuous preferential heating. This paper asks whether that heating is stochastic (random kicks that break magnetic-moment conservation) or resonant with parallel ion-cyclotron waves. Using Parker Solar Probe measurements of three-dimensional proton velocity distributions in a low-beta, highly imbalanced sub-Alfvénic stream, the authors invert the guiding-center equation to extract the perpendicular velocity-space diffusion coefficient and the associated phase-space heating rate without assuming a particular mechanism. The measured heating rate peaks near 1.1 thermal speeds and has a magnitude that matches only the scale-dependent stochastic-heating formula once intermittent large-amplitude fluctuations are retained. Competing expressions that incorporate a helicity barrier or quasilinear cyclotron damping peak in the wrong region of velocity space and fall short in amplitude. The result supplies direct kinetic evidence for a Fokker–Planck-like diffusive process and a practical method for identifying heating channels in any collisionless plasma that can be observed with full distribution functions.

Core claim

When the proton guiding-center equation is inverted on successive three-dimensional SPANi distributions, the empirically recovered perpendicular heating rate dQ_⊥ peaks near 1.1 v_th,⊥ and equals the magnitude predicted by scale-dependent stochastic heating only when intermittency is retained; helicity-barrier stochastic heating and parallel-ion-cyclotron resonant heating neither peak at the same velocity nor reach the required amplitude.

What carries the argument

Inversion of the steady-state proton guiding-center equation (advection plus CGL terms equal velocity-space diffusion) via singular-value decomposition on nine neighboring distribution-function samples, yielding D_⊥⊥(v_⊥,v_∥) and, after integration by parts, the fully kinetic heating rate dQ_⊥(v_⊥).

Load-bearing premise

The two-hour interval must be a single, radially evolving plasma parcel from a stable coronal-hole source so that the observed change in the distribution can be treated as a pure radial derivative with large-scale forces neglected.

What would settle it

Repeat the identical inversion on another well-resolved sub-Alfvénic stream whose source connectivity is independently verified; if the empirical dQ_⊥ peak moves away from ~1.1 v_th,⊥ or no longer matches the intermittent stochastic-heating curve, the claimed identification fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an inversion of the steady-state gyrotropic proton guiding-center equation (Eq. 1) against RBF-interpolated SPANi VDFs to obtain empirical velocity-space diffusion coefficients D_ii(v_perp, v_parallel) in a carefully selected two-hour low-beta, highly imbalanced sub-Alfvenic PSP Encounter-8 interval. From the measured D_perpperp the authors form a fully kinetic perpendicular heating rate dQ_emp (Eq. 2) and show that it peaks near 1.1 v_th,perp and matches both the magnitude and velocity-space location of the intermittent, scale-dependent stochastic-heating (SH) expression, while the rms SH, the J25 helicity-barrier SH, and the quasilinear parallel-ICW resonant heating rates neither peak in the same region nor reach the required amplitude (Fig. 3). The work therefore claims both a novel observational methodology for constraining collisionless heating and direct evidence for a Fokker-Planck-like diffusive process dominated by intermittent SH in the near-Sun wind.

Significance. If the central comparison holds, the paper supplies a genuinely new, phase-space-resolved diagnostic that can be applied to other PSP intervals, multi-spacecraft data sets, and laboratory plasmas, thereby moving beyond scalar cascade-rate or moment-based estimates. The explicit discrimination among three SH formulations and ICW heating on the same velocity grid, together with the demonstration that intermittency is required for magnitude agreement, constitutes a falsifiable advance over prior work (including Bowen et al. 2025). The machine-readable inversion pipeline and the use of centered finite differences that conserve particle number are methodological strengths that the community can reuse.

major comments (4)
  1. [Data section; Eq. (1)] Data section and Eq. (1): the entire inversion rests on the premise that the two-hour interval samples a single, radially evolving plasma parcel from a stable coronal-hole source so that successive SPANi VDFs can be used to evaluate the advection and CGL terms while gravity and the ambipolar electric field are neglected. The connectivity argument is qualitative; no quantitative test (e.g., ballistic mapping uncertainty, non-radial flow residuals, or comparison with a second independent stream) is provided. If the premise fails, the inverted D_perpperp and the location of the dQ_emp peak that discriminates among models are systematically biased.
  2. [Eq. (1); Discussion] Eq. (1) and Discussion: the right-hand side is written exclusively as a Fokker-Planck diffusion operator. Any residual non-diffusive contributions (finite-Larmor-radius corrections, residual non-gyrotropy, unmodeled large-scale forces, or FOV/instrumental systematics) are absorbed into the inverted D_ii. The subsequent claim of “evidence of a Fokker-Planck like process” is therefore not fully independent of the modeling assumption that was imposed a priori. A quantitative residual analysis or a controlled synthetic-data test demonstrating that non-diffusive terms do not shift the dQ_emp peak is required before the discrimination in Fig. 3 can be regarded as robust.
  3. [Results; Fig. 3] The analysis is performed on a single, carefully chosen two-hour interval that yields only 116 independent D_ii measurements. While the interval is well-resolved and FOV-clean, the central claim that intermittent SH is the dominant mechanism in the sub-Alfvenic wind cannot be generalized from one stream. At minimum the authors should demonstrate that the same peak location and magnitude ordering persist in at least one additional independent sub-Alfvenic interval, or clearly reframe the result as a case study.
  4. [End Matter; Eqs. (6)–(8)] End Matter, Eqs. (6)–(8): the SH coefficients c1 = 0.75 and c2 = 0.34 are taken from earlier test-particle work and held fixed. The paper notes that raising c1 by a factor of ~4 would bring the J25 rate up to the observed magnitude, yet still leaves the peak at the wrong velocity. Because the empirical D_perpperp are now available, a direct least-squares fit for c1 and c2 (or a Bayesian posterior) on the same velocity grid would remove this free-parameter ambiguity and strengthen the claim that only the intermittent scale-dependent form is viable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 normalizes all curves to the maximum of dQ_emp; absolute heating rates (or a second panel with absolute units) would allow direct comparison with the LET rates of Bowen et al. 2025 and with independent cascade-rate estimates.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The flux-tube area A(r) ~ R^6/(R^4+6) is adopted without sensitivity tests; a brief check with the simpler A ~ r^2 would quantify the impact on the left-hand side of Eq. (1).
  3. [Comparison with Stochastic...] Notation for the intermittent versus rms SH rates (D_SH,int vs D_SH,rms) is introduced only in the text surrounding Fig. 3; a short table or explicit definitions earlier would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption / Discussion] The secondary peak at ~3 v_th,perp in the intermittent SH curve is attributed to a breakdown of the SH model; a quantitative estimate of the velocity at which the chaotic-drift assumption fails would make this statement more precise.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild circularity only in the claim of 'evidence for a Fokker-Planck process,' which is partly by construction of the assumed operator; the velocity-space match of dQ_emp to intermittent SH is an independent comparison.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract final sentence; Discussion paragraph beginning 'Our empirical measurement...']
    "shows evidence of a Fokker-Planck like diffusive process in the near-Sun solar wind. ... Our empirical measurement, with minimal assumptions, of a physically meaningful diffusion coefficient suggests the presence of a Fokker-Planck type process, underlying collisionless heating mechanisms"

    Eq. 1 is written with a pure diffusion operator on the RHS; the SVD inversion therefore always returns some D_ii that (in the least-squares sense) accounts for the observed LHS. Finding finite, smooth D_perp that can be integrated to a heating rate is therefore true by construction of the assumed operator, not independent evidence that the true evolution is Fokker-Planck. (The subsequent match of that D's velocity dependence to the intermittent SH formula is independent and non-circular.)

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. Empirical D_ii(v_perp, v_parallel) are obtained by SVD inversion of the observed left-hand side of the guiding-center equation (advection + CGL terms evaluated from successive RBF-interpolated SPANi VDFs and bulk flow) against a pure Fokker-Planck right-hand side; the resulting D_perp(v) and dQ_emp (Eq. 2) are then compared to three independent theoretical expressions evaluated on the same interval from magnetic-field fluctuations (scale-dependent intermittent SH, J25, and quasilinear ||-ICW). Those theoretical curves are not fitted to the inverted D; c1 and c2 are taken from prior test-particle work and the match (peak location ~1.1 v_th,perp and magnitude only when intermittency is retained) is therefore a genuine, non-tautological test. The sole mild circularity is the interpretive claim that the mere existence of a 'physically meaningful' D constitutes evidence of a Fokker-Planck process: because the operator form is assumed a priori, residuals of any kind are absorbed into D_ii, so solvability is guaranteed by construction. That does not force the velocity-space shape that discriminates among heating models, so the central scientific claim survives. Self-citations (B25 for the stream and LET comparison; Chandran 2010 for coefficients) supply context and parameters but are not load-bearing for the new inversion result. Score 3 reflects one limited self-definitional step that does not collapse the paper's main comparison.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the guiding-center/Fokker–Planck form, a set of standard plasma-turbulence closures used only for the theoretical comparison curves, fixed coefficients from prior test-particle work, and the observational premise of a radially evolving stable stream. No new particles or forces are introduced; free parameters are inherited rather than fit to the present heating-rate peak.

free parameters (3)
  • c1 (SH prefactor) = 0.75
    Order-unity coefficient in D_SH_⊥⊥; fixed at 0.75 from Chandran (2010) test-particle simulations, not refit to the PSP interval. Magnitude comparison depends on it.
  • c2 (SH exponential suppression) = 0.34
    Controls e^{-c2/ε} suppression; fixed at 0.34 from same prior work. Peak location and efficiency of SH vs empirical rate depend on it.
  • Flux-tube area A(r) ~ R^6/(R^4+6) = A(r)∼R^6/(R^4+6)
    Analytic area expansion used in CGL terms of Eq. 1; taken from Isenberg & Vasquez-style modeling. Affects LHS residual that is attributed to diffusion.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Steady-state gyrotropic proton guiding-center equation with diffusion operator on the RHS (Eq. 1) fully describes the observed VDF evolution.
    Inversion target; large-scale forces neglected; cylindrical symmetry D_⊥∥=D_∥⊥ imposed.
  • domain assumption RBF fits on a uniform 5 km/s grid preserve non-Maxwellian structure well enough for centered finite differences of f.
    Required to evaluate ∂f/∂v_i and ∂f/∂r without density non-conservation.
  • domain assumption Alfvénic relation δv/v_phase = δB/B0, modified Taylor hypothesis, and critical balance convert SCaM δB(f) into scale-dependent δv(v_⊥) for SH theory curves.
    End Matter steps 1–4; used only for theoretical SH/J25 comparison, not for empirical D.
  • domain assumption Cold electron-proton dispersion and outward-only parallel ICWs set the resonance map for quasilinear dQ_ICW.
    End Matter ICW section; determines peak at ~2.5 v_th.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-hour interval is connected to a single negative-polarity coronal hole with stable source connectivity.
    Data section; justifies treating successive VDFs as radial evolution of one parcel.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22216 in / 3627 out tokens · 44852 ms · 2026-07-14T02:27:20.308676+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Open questions in collisionless plasma dissipation can be addressed using space-based observations in different astrophysical environments, with implications for both astrophysical and laboratory plasma systems. We study a low-$\beta$, highly imbalanced, sub-Alfv\'enic stream observed by Parker Solar Probe (PSP) to identify and distinguish between signatures of stochastic heating (SH) and resonant heating (RH) by parallel ion cyclotron waves (ICWs). Prior work studying this stream (Bowen et al., 2025) showed that the SH rate, accounting for intermittency, matched the amplitude of the local energy transfer (LET) rate while the RH rate did not. This comparison relied on a number of assumptions regarding the nature of the diffusive process, and the calculation of the LET rate. We introduce a novel technique of inverting the proton guiding center equation to empirically measure velocity-space diffusion coefficients using three-dimensional proton velocity distribution functions (VDFs), from the ion electrostatic analyzer (SPANi) on PSP. Measured diffusion coefficients are used to determine phase-space heating rates, leading to a calculation of a fully kinetic heating rate independent of assumptions made in prior work. We show that scale-dependent analytic expressions for SH via non-coherent fluctuations match the empirical measurements from PSP data, provided that we account for intermittency in the heating calculation. In contrast, the derived heating rates for SH that accounts for the effects of the helicity barrier, and heating rates for RH via $\parallel$-ICWs do not peak in the same region of velocity-space as the empirical measurements, nor reach the required magnitude. Our approach provides novel methodology to uniquely identify and constrain heating processes in collisionless plasmas, and shows evidence of a Fokker-Planck like diffusive process in the near-Sun solar wind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11880 by Alfred Mallet, Ali Rahmati, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Davin E. Larson, Kristopher G. Klein, Philip A. Isenberg, Roberto Livi, Stuart D. Bale, Tamar Ervin, Trevor A. Bowen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. An overview of the time period of interest in this study. (a) PSP trajectory (longitude vs. radius). (b) Velocity mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example of the mean perpendicular diffusion coefficients ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A comparison of the heating rates calculated from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. PSP/SPANi FOV metric combining energy flux vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Panel (a): Representation of the cyclotron resonance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

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

68 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This comparison relied on a number of assumptions regarding the nature of the diffusive process, and the calculation of the LET rate

    showed that the SH rate, accounting for intermittency, matched the amplitude of the local energy transfer (LET) rate while the RH rate did not. This comparison relied on a number of assumptions regarding the nature of the diffusive process, and the calculation of the LET rate. We introduce a novel technique of inverting the proton guiding center equation ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Bowen, Tamar Ervin, Alfred Mallet, Benjamin D

    Trevor A. Bowen, Tamar Ervin, Alfred Mallet, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Nikos Sioulas, Philip A. Isenberg, Stu- art D. Bale, Jonathan Squire, Kristopher G. Klein, and Oreste Pezzi. Stochastic Heating in the Sub-Alfv´ enic So- lar Wind.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135(25):255201, December

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1103/rxd8-22m9

    work page doi:10.1103/rxd8-22m9

  4. [4]

    G. F. Chew, M. L. Goldberger, and F. E. Low. The Boltzmann Equation and the One-Fluid Hydromagnetic Equations in the Absence of Particle Collisions.Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 236(1204): 112–118, July 1956. doi:10.1098/rspa.1956.0116

    doi:10.1098/rspa.1956.0116 1956

  5. [5]

    Marsch, R

    E. Marsch, R. Schwenn, H. Rosenbauer, K. H. Muehlhaeuser, W. Pilipp, and F. M. Neubauer. Solar wind protons: Three-dimensional velocity distributions and derived plasma parameters measured between 0.3 and 1 AU.Journal of Geophysical Research, 87(A1):52– 72, January 1982. doi:10.1029/JA087iA01p00052

    work page doi:10.1029/ja087ia01p00052 1982

  6. [6]

    Larson, Tamar Ervin, Mingzhe Liu, Oscar Ortiz, Mihailo M

    Jia Huang, Davin E. Larson, Tamar Ervin, Mingzhe Liu, Oscar Ortiz, Mihailo M. Martinovi´ c, Zhenguang Huang, Alexandros Chasapis, Xiangning Chu, B. L. Alterman, Zesen Huang, Wenwen Wei, J. L. Verniero, Lan K. Jian, Adam Szabo, Orlando Romeo, Ali Rahmati, Roberto Livi, Phyllis Whittlesey, Samer T. Alnussirat, Justin C. Kasper, Michael Stevens, and Stuart D...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade0ac 2025

  7. [7]

    Richardson, Karolen I

    John D. Richardson, Karolen I. Paularena, Alan J. Lazarus, and John W. Belcher. Radial evolution of the solar wind from IMP 8 to Voyager 2.Geophysi- cal Research Letters, 22(4):325–328, February 1995. doi: 10.1029/94GL03273

    work page doi:10.1029/94gl03273 1995

  8. [8]

    Goldstein, and Eckart Marsch

    Lorenzo Matteini, Simone Landi, Petr Hellinger, Fil- ippo Pantellini, Milan Maksimovic, Marco Velli, Bruce E. Goldstein, and Eckart Marsch. Evolution of the so- lar wind proton temperature anisotropy from 0.3 to 2.5 AU.Geophysical Research Letters, 34(20):L20105, Octo- ber 2007. doi:10.1029/2007GL030920

    doi:10.1029/2007gl030920 2007

  9. [9]

    Benjamin D. G. Chandran. Alfv´ en-wave Turbulence and Perpendicular Ion Temperatures in Coronal Holes.The Astrophysical Journal, 720(1):548–554, September 2010. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/548

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/548 2010

  10. [10]

    Klein and Benjamin D

    Kristopher G. Klein and Benjamin D. G. Chandran. Evolution of The Proton Velocity Distribution due to Stochastic Heating in the Near-Sun Solar Wind.The Astrophysical Journal, 820(1):47, March 2016. doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/47

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/47 2016

  11. [11]

    Klein, Benjamin D

    Alfred Mallet, Kristopher G. Klein, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Tamar Ervin, and Trevor A. Bowen. Perpen- dicular ion heating in turbulence and reconnection: mag- netic moment breaking by coherent fluctuations.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2509.05518, September 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05518

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.05518 2025

  12. [12]

    Steven R. Cranmer. Ion Cyclotron Wave Dissipation in the Solar Corona: The Summed Effect of More than 2000 Ion Species.The Astrophysical Journal, 532(2):1197– 1208, April 2000. doi:10.1086/308620

    work page doi:10.1086/308620 2000

  13. [13]

    Bowen, Benjamin D

    Trevor A. Bowen, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Jonathan Squire, Stuart D. Bale, Die Duan, Kristopher G. Klein, Davin Larson, Alfred Mallet, Michael D. McManus, Ro- main Meyrand, Jaye L. Verniero, and Lloyd D. Wood- ham. In Situ Signature of Cyclotron Resonant Heating in the Solar Wind.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(16):165101, Oc- tober 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.165101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.165101 2022

  14. [14]

    Bowen, Stuart D

    Trevor A. Bowen, Stuart D. Bale, Benjamin D. G. Chan- dran, Alexandros Chasapis, Christopher H. K. Chen, Thierry Dudok de Wit, Alfred Mallet, Romain Meyrand, and Jonathan Squire. Mediation of collisionless turbu- lent dissipation through cyclotron resonance.Nature As- tronomy, 8:482–490, April 2024. doi:10.1038/s41550-023- 02186-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023- 2024

  15. [15]

    Klein, and Justin C

    Daniel Vech, Alfred Mallet, Kristopher G. Klein, and Justin C. Kasper. Magnetic Reconnection May Control the Ion-scale Spectral Break of Solar Wind Turbulence. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855(2):L27, March

  16. [16]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab351

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab351 2041

  17. [17]

    Klein, and Bennett A

    Daniel Verscharen, Kristopher G. Klein, and Bennett A. Maruca. The multi-scale nature of the solar wind.Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16(1):5, December 2019. doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    doi:10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 2019

  18. [18]

    Unified phenomenology and test-particle simulations of ion heating in low-βplasmas.Phys

    Zade Johnston, Jonathan Squire, and Romain Meyrand. Unified phenomenology and test-particle simulations of ion heating in low-βplasmas.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135: 095201, Aug 2025. doi:10.1103/rp85-hhg4. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/rp85-hhg4

    work page doi:10.1103/rp85-hhg4 2025

  19. [20]

    Meyrand, J

    R. Meyrand, J. Squire, A. A. Schekochihin, and W. Dor- 7 land. On the violation of the zeroth law of turbulence in space plasmas.Journal of Plasma Physics, 87(3): 535870301, May 2021. doi:10.1017/S0022377821000489

    doi:10.1017/s0022377821000489 2021

  20. [21]

    Kunz, Lev Arzamasskiy, Alexander A

    Jonathan Squire, Romain Meyrand, Matthew W. Kunz, Lev Arzamasskiy, Alexander A. Schekochihin, and Eliot Quataert. High-frequency heating of the solar wind trig- gered by low-frequency turbulence.Nature Astronomy, 6:715–723, June 2022. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01624-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01624-z 2022

  21. [25]

    Sofiane Bourouaine and Benjamin D. G. Chandran. Ob- servational Test of Stochastic Heating in Low-βFast- solar-wind Streams.The Astrophysical Journal, 774(2): 96, September 2013. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/96 2013

  22. [26]

    Martinovi´ c, Kristopher G

    Mihailo M. Martinovi´ c, Kristopher G. Klein, and Sofiane Bourouaine. Radial Evolution of Stochastic Heating in Low-βSolar Wind.The Astrophysical Journal, 879(1): 43, July 2019. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab23f4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab23f4 2019

  23. [27]

    Martinovi´ c, Kristopher G

    Mihailo M. Martinovi´ c, Kristopher G. Klein, Justin C. Kasper, Anthony W. Case, Kelly E. Korreck, Davin Lar- son, Roberto Livi, Michael Stevens, Phyllis Whittlesey, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Ben L. Alterman, Jia Huang, Christopher H. K. Chen, Stuart D. Bale, Marc Pulupa, David M. Malaspina, John W. Bonnell, Peter R. Harvey, Keith Goetz, Thierry Dudok de W...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab527f 2020

  24. [28]

    N. J. Fox, M. C. Velli, S. D. Bale, R. Decker, A. Dries- man, R. A. Howard, J. C. Kasper, J. Kinnison, M. Kus- terer, D. Lario, M. K. Lockwood, D. J. McComas, N. E. Raouafi, and A. Szabo. The Solar Probe Plus Mission: Humanity’s First Visit to Our Star.Space Science Reviews, 204(1-4):7–48, December 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6 2016

  25. [29]

    Isenberg and Bernard J

    Philip A. Isenberg and Bernard J. Vasquez. Perpendic- ular Ion Heating by Cyclotron Resonant Dissipation of Turbulently Generated Kinetic Alfv´ en Waves in the Solar Wind.The Astrophysical Journal, 887(1):63, December

  26. [30]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e12

  27. [31]

    Isenberg and Bernard J

    Philip A. Isenberg and Bernard J. Vasquez. Preferential Perpendicular Heating of Coronal Hole Minor Ions by the Fermi Mechanism.The Astrophysical Journal, 668 (1):546–556, October 2007. doi:10.1086/521220

    work page doi:10.1086/521220 2007

  28. [32]

    J. C. Kasper, K. G. Klein, E. Lichko, Jia Huang, C. H. K. Chen, S. T. Badman, J. Bonnell, P. L. Whittlesey, R. Livi, D. Larson, M. Pulupa, A. Rahmati, D. Stansby, K. E. Korreck, M. Stevens, A. W. Case, S. D. Bale, M. Maksimovic, M. Moncuquet, K. Goetz, J. S. Halekas, D. Malaspina, Nour E. Raouafi, A. Szabo, R. MacDowall, Marco Velli, Thierry Dudok de Wit,...

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.255101 2021

  29. [33]

    G. P. Zank, L.-L. Zhao, L. Adhikari, D. Telloni, J. C. Kasper, M. Stevens, A. Rahmati, and S. D. Bale. Turbu- lence in the Sub-Alfv´ enic Solar Wind.The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters, 926(2):L16, February 2022. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac51da

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac51da 2022

  30. [34]

    L.-L. Zhao, G. P. Zank, D. Telloni, M. Stevens, J. C. Kasper, and S. D. Bale. The Turbulent Properties of the Sub-Alfv´ enic Solar Wind Measured by the Parker Solar Probe.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928(2):L15, April 2022. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5fb0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5fb0 2022

  31. [35]

    Badman, Jia Huang, Yeimy J

    Tamar Ervin, Kai Jaffarove, Samuel T. Badman, Jia Huang, Yeimy J. Rivera, and Stuart D. Bale. Char- acteristics and Source Regions of Slow Alfv´ enic Solar Wind Observed by Parker Solar Probe.The Astrophysical Journal, 975(2):156, November 2024. doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ad7d00

    doi:10.3847/1538- 2024

  32. [36]

    Larson, Justin C

    Roberto Livi, Davin E. Larson, Justin C. Kasper, Robert Abiad, A. W. Case, Kristopher G. Klein, David W. Curtis, Gregory Dalton, Michael Stevens, Kelly E. Kor- reck, George Ho, Miles Robinson, Chris Tiu, Phyllis L. Whittlesey, Jaye L. Verniero, Jasper Halekas, James Mc- Fadden, Mario Marckwordt, Amanda Slagle, Mamuda Abatcha, Ali Rahmati, and Michael D. M...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5 2022

  33. [37]

    Kasper, Robert Abiad, Gerry Austin, Marianne Balat-Pichelin, Stuart D

    Justin C. Kasper, Robert Abiad, Gerry Austin, Marianne Balat-Pichelin, Stuart D. Bale, John W. Belcher, Peter Berg, Henry Bergner, Matthieu Berthomier, Jay Book- binder, Etienne Brodu, David Caldwell, Anthony W. Case, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Peter Cheimets, Jonathan W. Cirtain, Steven R. Cranmer, David W. Cur- tis, Peter Daigneau, Greg Dalton, Brahmanand...

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3 2016

  34. [38]

    T. A. Bowen, S. D. Bale, J. W. Bonnell, T. Dudok de Wit, K. Goetz, K. Goodrich, J. Gruesbeck, P. R. Harvey, 8 G. Jannet, A. Koval, R. J. MacDowall, D. M. Malaspina, M. Pulupa, C. Revillet, D. Sheppard, and A. Szabo. A Merged Search-Coil and Fluxgate Magnetometer Data Product for Parker Solar Probe FIELDS.Journal of Geo- physical Research (Space Physics), ...

  35. [39]

    doi:10.1029/2020JA027813

    doi:10.1029/2020ja027813

  36. [40]

    S. D. Bale, K. Goetz, P. R. Harvey, P. Turin, J. W. Bon- nell, T. Dudok de Wit, R. E. Ergun, R. J. MacDowall, M. Pulupa, M. Andre, M. Bolton, J. L. Bougeret, T. A. Bowen, D. Burgess, C. A. Cattell, B. D. G. Chandran, C. C. Chaston, C. H. K. Chen, M. K. Choi, J. E. Conner- ney, S. Cranmer, M. Diaz-Aguado, W. Donakowski, J. F. Drake, W. M. Farrell, P. Ferge...

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  37. [41]

    R. M. Kulsrud. MHD description of plasma. In A. A. Galeev and R. N. Sudan, editors,Basic Plasma Physics: Selected Chapters, Handbook of Plasma Physics, Volume 1, page 1, January 1983

    1983

  38. [42]

    Isenberg

    Philip A. Isenberg. A hemispherical model of anisotropic interstellar pickup ions.Journal of Geo- physical Research, 102(A3):4719–4724, March 1997. doi: 10.1029/96JA03671

    doi:10.1029/96ja03671 1997

  39. [43]

    An introduction to the calculus of finite differ- ences

    T.A.A.B. An introduction to the calculus of finite differ- ences. by c.h. richardson pp. vi, 142. 28s. 1954. (van nos- trand, new york; macmillan, london).The Mathematical Gazette, 39(330):339–339, 1955. doi:10.2307/3608616

    work page doi:10.2307/3608616 1954

  40. [44]

    Pei-bai Zhou.Finite Difference Method, pages 63–

  41. [45]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  42. [46]

    doi:10.1007/978- 3-642-50319-1˙3

    ISBN 978-3-642-50319-1. doi:10.1007/978- 3-642-50319-1˙3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-50319-1_3

    doi:10.1007/978-

  43. [47]

    Vasquez, Philip A

    Bernard J. Vasquez, Philip A. Isenberg, and Sergei A. Markovskii. Proton Perpendicular Heating in Turbu- lence Simulations: Determination of the Velocity Diffu- sion Coefficient.The Astrophysical Journal, 893(1):71, April 2020. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e2b 2020

  44. [48]

    A Wole, M Lobo, and K Br. Ginting. The appli- cation of finite difference method on 2-d heat con- ductivity problem.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2017(1):012009, sep 2021. doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/2017/1/012009. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1742-6596/2017/1/012009

    doi:10.1088/1742- 2017

  45. [49]

    Bowen, Ivan Y

    Trevor A. Bowen, Ivan Y. Vasko, Stuart D. Bale, Ben- jamin D. G. Chandran, Alexandros Chasapis, Thierry Dudok de Wit, Alfred Mallet, Michael McManus, Ro- main Meyrand, Marc Pulupa, and Jonathan Squire. Ex- tended Cyclotron Resonant Heating of the Turbulent So- lar Wind.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 972(1):L8, September 2024. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b2e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b2e 2024

  46. [50]

    T. A. Bowen, B. D. G. Chandran, K. G. Klein, A. Mal- let, S. D. Bale, J. Squire, and J. Verniero. Data- Driven Representations of Ion-Kinetic Distribution Func- tions. In2023 XXXVth General Assembly and Sci- entific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), page 335, October 2023. doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS57860.2023.10265538

    doi:10.23919/ursigass57860.2023.10265538 2023

  47. [51]

    Branham.The Singular Value Decom- position, pages 199–232

    Richard L. Branham.The Singular Value Decom- position, pages 199–232. Springer New York, New York, NY, 1990. ISBN 978-1-4612-3362-6. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3362-6˙8. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4612-3362-6_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3362-6 1990

  48. [52]

    See Supplemental Material at https://journals.aps.org/prl/supplemental/10.1103/s4q4- v7rm for a derivation of the empirical calculation made from the spacecraft observations

    Tamar Ervin. See Supplemental Material at https://journals.aps.org/prl/supplemental/10.1103/s4q4- v7rm for a derivation of the empirical calculation made from the spacecraft observations. It provides addi- tional information for how the calculation was carried out, specifically: an overview of the discretization of the expression and implementation of cen...

    work page doi:10.1103/s4q4-

  49. [53]

    Coleman, Jr

    Paul J. Coleman, Jr. Turbulence, Viscosity, and Dis- sipation in the Solar-Wind Plasma.The Astrophysical Journal, 153:371, August 1968. doi:10.1086/149674

    doi:10.1086/149674 1968

  50. [54]

    Particle Heating by Alfv´ enic Turbulence in Hot Accretion Flows.The Astrophysical Journal, 500 (2):978–991, June 1998

    Eliot Quataert. Particle Heating by Alfv´ enic Turbulence in Hot Accretion Flows.The Astrophysical Journal, 500 (2):978–991, June 1998. doi:10.1086/305770

    doi:10.1086/305770 1998

  51. [55]

    Leamon, Charles W

    Robert J. Leamon, Charles W. Smith, Norman F. Ness, William H. Matthaeus, and Hung K. Wong. Obser- vational constraints on the dynamics of the interplane- tary magnetic field dissipation range.Journal of Geo- physical Research, 103(A3):4775–4788, March 1998. doi: 10.1029/97JA03394

    work page doi:10.1029/97ja03394 1998

  52. [56]

    Schekochihin and Steven C

    Alexander A. Schekochihin and Steven C. Cowley. Turbu- lence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysical Plasmas. In S. Molokov, R. Moreau, and H. K. Moffatt, editors,Mag- netohydrodynamics: Historical Evolution and Trends, page 85. 2007. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0507686

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0507686 2007

  53. [57]

    Zhuravleva, E

    I. Zhuravleva, E. Churazov, A. A. Schekochihin, S. W. Allen, P. Ar´ evalo, A. C. Fabian, W. R. Forman, J. S. Sanders, A. Simionescu, R. Sunyaev, A. Vikhlinin, and N. Werner. Turbulent heating in galaxy clusters brightest in X-rays.Nature (London), 515(7525):85–87, November

  54. [58]

    doi:10.1038/nature13830

    doi:10.1038/nature13830

  55. [59]

    Klein, Benjamin D

    Alfred Mallet, Kristopher G. Klein, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Daniel Groˇ selj, Ian W. Hoppock, Trevor A. Bowen, Chadi S. Salem, and Stuart D. Bale. Inter- play between intermittency and dissipation in collision- less plasma turbulence.Journal of Plasma Physics, 85(3): 175850302, June 2019. doi:10.1017/S0022377819000357

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377819000357 2019

  56. [60]

    Nakhleh, and Srijan Bharati Das

    Tamar Ervin, Aidan J. Nakhleh, and Srijan Bharati Das. The Sun as a driver of the inner heliosphere: Modern investigations of fundamental plasma processes. Nature Communications, 17(1):4184, May 2026. doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-72082-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72082-8 2026

  57. [61]

    Gregory G. Howes. The fundamental parameters of astrophysical plasma turbulence and its dissi- pation: non-relativistic limit.Journal of Plasma Physics, 90(5):905900504, October 2024. doi: 10.1017/S0022377824001090

    doi:10.1017/s0022377824001090 2024

  58. [62]

    Generalized Entropy Produc- tion in Collisionless Plasma Flows and Turbulence

    Vladimir Zhdankin. Generalized Entropy Produc- tion in Collisionless Plasma Flows and Turbulence. 9 FIG. 4. PSP/SPANi FOV metric combining energy flux vs.θ andϕover the period of interest as observed by PSP/SPANi [57]. Physical Review X, 12(3):031011, July 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.031011 2022

  59. [63]

    Zank, Xiaocan Li, and Fan Guo

    Senbei Du, Gary P. Zank, Xiaocan Li, and Fan Guo. Energy dissipation and entropy in collisionless plasma.Phys. Rev. E, 101(3):033208, March 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.033208

    doi:10.1103/physreve.101.033208 2020

  60. [64]

    K. G. Klein and G. G. Howes. Measuring Collisionless Damping in Heliospheric Plasmas using Field-Particle Correlations.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 826(2): L30, August 2016. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/l30 2016

  61. [65]

    Romeo.An Interdisciplinary Approach to Novel In Situ Measurements of Solar and Plan- etary Electrons and Magnetic Fields

    Orlando M. Romeo.An Interdisciplinary Approach to Novel In Situ Measurements of Solar and Plan- etary Electrons and Magnetic Fields. PhD the- sis, University of California, Berkeley, 2024. URL https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/ interdisciplinary-approach-novel-situ/docview/ 3175813267/se-2. Copyright - Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest...

    2024

  62. [66]

    Lazarian

    Jungyeon Cho and A. Lazarian. Simulations of Electron Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence.The Astrophysical Journal, 701(1):236–252, August 2009. doi:10.1088/0004- 637X/701/1/236

    doi:10.1088/0004- 2009

  63. [67]

    Klein, Jean C

    Kristopher G. Klein, Jean C. Perez, Daniel Verscharen, Alfred Mallet, and Benjamin D. G. Chandran. A Modi- fied Version of Taylor’s Hypothesis for Solar Probe Plus Observations.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 801(1): L18, March 2015. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L18

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l18 2015

  64. [68]

    Usmanov, William H

    Rohit Chhiber, Arcadi V. Usmanov, William H. Matthaeus, Tulasi N. Parashar, and Melvyn L. Gold- stein. Contextual Predictions for Parker Solar Probe. II. Turbulence Properties and Taylor Hypothesis.The As- trophysical Journal Supplement Series, 242(1):12, May

  65. [69]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab16d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab16d7

  66. [70]

    C. F. Kennel and F. Engelmann. Velocity Space Diffu- sion from Weak Plasma Turbulence in a Magnetic Field. Physics of Fluids, 9(12):2377–2388, December 1966. doi: 10.1063/1.1761629. END MA TTER SPANi Field-of-View (FOV)In Fig. 4, we show a quantification of the SPANi FOV that combines both look directions,θandϕ[57]. The high metric throughout the interval...

    doi:10.1063/1.1761629 1966

  67. [71]

    In KC16 [8],ε=δv ρ/v⊥ whereδv ρ is the rms fluc- tuation amplitude at each scaleρ=v ⊥/Ω, making εscale dependent

  68. [72]

    This can account for the helicity bar- rier, which causes the power spectrum to steepen at a wavenumberk ∗ ⊥ that is significantly smaller thanρ −1 th,p

    J25 [15] defineε= ˆξi =δv λ/vth,i whereδv λ are the velocity fluctuations at the perpendicu- lar scale corresponding to the smallest nonlinear timescale. This can account for the helicity bar- rier, which causes the power spectrum to steepen at a wavenumberk ∗ ⊥ that is significantly smaller thanρ −1 th,p. We use PSP SCaM (search coil and magnetometer) da...

    2064