Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Polarization geometry of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that transitions in MHD turbulence's spectral scaling coincide with changes in the polarization state of the interacting modes.

desk verdict A novel and tidy geometric reframing of MHD turbulence statistics, undermined as written by a normalization error in the Bloch equation and an asserted spectral-break threshold; send to a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15347 v1 pith:BKZ5F7ZT submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.SR physics.flu-dyn

Raphael Skalidis (Caltech) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.flu-dyn
keywords MHDturbulenceElsässervariablespolarizationPoincaréspherecross-helicityresidualenergysolarwindspectralscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a geometric representation of incompressible MHD turbulence in which the second-order statistics of the Elsasser fields are encoded as a four-component vector on a generalized Poincaré sphere. It derives a Bloch-like evolution equation for this vector and argues that polarization geometry controls cascade dynamics: modes whose polarization vector lies in the s2-s3 plane precess coherently and yield shallow k^-1 spectra, while modes along the s1 axis interact nonlinearly and develop steeper k^-3/2 spectra. The central prediction is that spectral breaks occur when s1^2 is roughly s2^2+s3^2, the point where wave-like and structure-like coherence become comparable. If true, the framework unifies cross-helicity, residual energy, and phase-lag coherence into a single description that can be tested with solar wind data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized coherence vector s = (s1, s2, s3), obtained from the Elsasser coherence matrix J(k) = Ψ_k Ψ_k† after decomposing it in the Pauli basis and invoking local spectral coherence (k' → k). The evolution law is the Bloch-analogue equation ∂t s = Ω × s + D, with Ω = 2 k_parallel V_A oriented along the s1 axis. This machinery maps turbulence diagnostics to points on a Poincaré sphere and distinguishes coherent precessing states (s2-s3 plane) from nonlinear diffusive states (s1 axis).

What would settle it

Measure, in spacecraft data or simulations, the three normalized Stokes components s1, s2, s3 as functions of scale k and check whether the spectral slope changes precisely where s1^2 = s2^2 + s3^2, and whether the break wavenumber scales as 1/B0. A clear counterexample—for instance, a spectral break observed while the polarization vector remains deep in the s2-s3 plane—would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the evolution of MHD turbulence can be described, at the level of second-order statistics, as the motion of a polarization vector s on a Poincaré sphere. The Elsasser coherence matrix J(k) is decomposed onto Pauli matrices, yielding components S0 (total energy), S1 (cross-helicity), S2 (residual energy), and S3 (phase lag). The normalized vector s satisfies the Bloch-analogue equation ∂t s = Ω × s + D, where Ω is set by the Alfvén frequency and D collects nonlinear terms. In this picture, states with s perpendicular to the s1 axis undergo coherent precession and behave like long-lived structures; states along s1 are dominated by nonlinear coupling and produc

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes local spectral coherence, k' → k, so the entire polarization construction applies to a single wavenumber's coherence matrix; if correlations between different wavenumbers are essential to the cascade, the predicted coincidence between spectral breaks and single-mode polarization states would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spectral breaks in the solar wind should appear at wavenumbers where s1^2 ≈ s2^2 + s3^2.
  • The k^-1 (1/f) range corresponds to coherent s2-s3 polarized states, while the k^-3/2 inertial range corresponds to s1-dominated imbalanced states; k^-5/3 Kolmogorov scaling corresponds to depolarized states near the origin.
  • Phase-lag coherence, s3, is a previously underused diagnostic; fluctuations with substantial s3 can be coherent yet invisible in cross-helicity and residual-energy statistics.
  • The transition wavenumber is predicted to scale as k_T ∝ B0^-1, so stronger guide fields extend the shallow 1/f range.
  • The critical balance condition k_parallel V_A ∼ k_perp δV_A emerges as the boundary between coherent precession and depolarizing nonlinear evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the diagonal single-wavenumber closure k' → k is relaxed, the polarization picture may need to be replaced by a full coherence matrix over wavenumber pairs; the predicted spectral breaks could then smear out or shift, offering a direct test of the closure.
  • One could test the framework in numerical MHD simulations by computing s1, s2, s3 as functions of scale and checking whether the spectral slope changes exactly at the claimed threshold.
  • The geometric constraint s1^2 + s2^2 + s3^2 ≤ 1 suggests that scatter in the (σ_c, σ_r) plane observed in solar wind data may be an indirect probe of unresolved phase coherence; this could be checked with joint distributions of all three normalized components.
  • Because the derivation assumes incompressibility, extending the framework to compressible MHD would require augmenting the polarization vector with density terms, and the equivalence between polarization transitions and spectral breaks may not survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geometric (Stokes/Pauli) representation of the second-order statistics of Elsasser fields in incompressible MHD turbulence. It defines a four-vector S containing total energy, cross-helicity, residual energy, and a phase-lag term, normalizes it to a three-component polarization vector s, and derives a Bloch-like evolution equation ∂t s = Ω×s + D. It then argues that s1-dominated states are associated with steeper (k^-3/2) inertial-range spectra while s2–s3 coherent rotations are associated with shallow k^-1 ranges, and that spectral breaks occur when s1^2 ~ s2^2+s3^2. The central claim is that spectral transitions in MHD turbulence are controlled by the polarization geometry of interacting modes.

Significance. If established, the framework would provide a new organizing principle for solar-wind spectral variability, connecting cross-helicity, residual energy, and phase coherence to spectral shape. The use of Pauli/Stokes decomposition to unify these diagnostics is elegant and pedagogically useful, and the paper makes explicit, falsifiable predictions. The core derivation, however, is not yet sound as written: the normalization of the Bloch equation is incomplete, and the key spectral-transition criteria are asserted rather than derived. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or a derivation of the spectrum from Eq. (15), so the interesting phenomenology remains at the level of an analogy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (15)–(16)] The normalization of Eq. (15) is incorrect as written. Starting from ∂t S_i in Eq. (13), the chain rule for s_i = S_i/S0 gives ∂t s_i = (1/S0)∂t S_i − (s_i/S0)∂t S0. The printed Eq. (16) omits the second term, which is not negligible: ∂t S0 = 2 Re[Φ† N] is generally of the same order as the linear and nonlinear terms in strong MHD turbulence, and s_i ∂t S0/S0 ∼ s_i z k is the same order as the retained nonlinear terms. Thus Eq. (15) is not an exact rearrangement of the Elsasser equations. The dimensions also require D to have units of 1/time, whereas the unnormalized nonlinear expressions have units of energy/time; the missing division by S0 is precisely what converts them. The trajectory of s on the Poincaré sphere is therefore not the one implied by Eq. (15). This is a central, load-bearing issue, not a notational slip.
  2. [Eqs. (21)–(22)] The transition conditions are asserted, not derived. Eq. (21) is obtained by writing Ω_k s_k ∼ D_k, but D_k is not computed from Eq. (15); the text simply states D_k ∼ z^3 k, and even dimensionally this is inconsistent with a normalized equation (one needs D_k ∼ z k after dividing by S0). Recovering the critical-balance scaling k∥VA ∼ k⊥δV then requires an implicit assumption that s_k is order unity, which is not stated or justified. Eq. (22), s1^2 ∼ s2^2+s3^2, is presented as the transition location but no derivation is given from the dynamics of Eq. (15). The physical statement that this occurs when coherent-structure and wave energies are comparable is plausible, but it is a separate assumption, not a consequence of the Bloch equation. Since the central prediction (spectral break at this locus) rests entirely on Eq. (22), this is a major gap.
  3. [Local spectral coherence (after Eq. 3)] The entire formalism restricts the coherence matrix to the diagonal slice k′→k, J(k,k′)=J(k). Polarization components S_i are therefore defined at a single wavevector, while the cascade, spectral transfer, and the claimed k^-1→k^-3/2 transition are inherently multi-scale and involve off-diagonal correlations J(k,k′) with k≠k′. No justification is given that the diagonal slice is sufficient to determine spectral scaling or that off-diagonal correlations are negligible for the transition. Without a controlled argument, the claimed coincidence between the polarization state of individual k modes and spectral breaks is not established. This is a structural limitation of the derivation, not a minor omission.
  4. [Discussion and predictions] The assignment of spectral exponents to polarization sectors is post hoc. The paper associates s1-dominated states with k^-3/2 and s2–s3 states with k^-1, and p≈0 with k^-5/3, but it never computes an energy spectrum from Eq. (15) or from any closure based on it. These assignments rely on prior phenomenology (Boldyrev critical balance, dynamic alignment, weak-turbulence/1/f observations) rather than following from the geometric equations. A more developed treatment would need to show how the polarization state at a given k controls the flux of energy through scales, or provide numerical/observational verification of Eq. (22). As it stands, the three 'predictions' are plausible interpretations of known results, not consequences of the framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The name Elsasser is inconsistently spelled ('Elssaser', 'Elssaser', 'Elasser', 'Elsasser'). Please standardize.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The typesetting of the prefactor is ambiguous; if it is intended to be 2/S0, write it explicitly. If it is 2/S0, the normalization issue in the major comment still applies because of the missing −s_i ∂t S0/S0 terms.
  3. [Eq. (8)–(9)] The notation δs_1, δs_2, δs_3 is used without defining whether these are fluctuations around a global mean or variances over some ensemble; please define.
  4. [References] References [16] and [27] are identical (Brodiano et al. 2026); please consolidate or cite distinct works.
  5. [Fig. 1] The figure caption mentions an interactive version at [22]; if this is a permanent URL, adding an archive or DOI would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the spectral-break 'prediction' restates the hand-chosen transition condition Eq. 22, and the polarization-slope associations are largely the cited σ_c/σ_r phenomenology renamed as geometry.

  1. self definitional [Eq. 22 and 'Discussion and predictions', page 5]
    "This transition is signaled by (magenta circles in Fig. 1): s1^2 ∼ s2^2+s3^2 ⇒ |u·b| ∼ |z+_k · z−∗_k|, (22) ... 2) shallow-to-steep spectral transitions should occur when coherent- and wave-like energies become comparable (Eq. 22)."

    Eq. 22 is introduced as the criterion that signals the polarization transition, with no derivation from Eq. 15. The later 'prediction' is the same condition, listed verbatim as an output of the framework. The input assumption is thus presented as a prediction, so the spectral-break prediction is equivalent to its own premise.

  2. renaming known result [Discussion and predictions, page 5; Eq. 5]
    "The various phenomenological turbulence models can be uniquely mapped into a generalized Poincaré representation. Coherent rotations, associated with Ω×s_k, can be physically driven by inhomogeneities, which excite correlated z+ and z− modes and are associated with k−1 cascades [13,25]. ... The s1 sector corresponds to the dynamic-alignment regime, which is commonly associated with a k−3/2 scaling [2,3,26]."

    The 'polarization sectors' are the same σ_c and σ_r whose correlation with spectral slope is the known empirical pattern: Eq. 5 identifies s1 with the Elsasser imbalance (cross-helicity) and s2 with the correlation probing residual energy. The cited k^-1/k^-3/2 associations are imported from that existing phenomenology and then restated in Stokes coordinates. The framework's central prediction of a polarization–spectral-slope connection is therefore a renaming of the cited result, not a consequence of the Bloch equation.

full rationale

The core Bloch-equation formalism (Eq. 15) is an honest rearrangement of the Elsasser dynamics: given the explicit local-coherence assumption k'→k, the Stokes decomposition and evolution follow algebraically. That part is not circular, and the self-citation [24] is not load-bearing. However, the paper's key forward claims are not consequences of that equation. The association of the s2–s3 plane with k^-1 and s1 with k^-3/2 is brought in from the cited phenomenology (refs. [2,3,26] and [13,25]) and then labeled as the framework's prediction. More directly, Eq. 22 is introduced as the signal of the polarization transition without derivation, and then item 2 of 'three directly testable predictions' repeats that same equation. That is an input presented as an output, the clearest circular step. The reviewer-flagged normalization issue in Eq. 16 (missing -s_i dS0/dt terms) is a correctness concern about the derivation, not a circularity, and I do not count it here. Overall, partial circularity: the formalism is independent, but the headline spectral-break prediction reduces to the hand-chosen condition that was already assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is built from standard incompressible MHD and a single-k coherence matrix; no new physical entities are introduced, but the predictive mapping relies on several imported phenomenologies and an underexplained threshold. No numerical free parameters are fit to data; the only hand-chosen constant is the order-unity transition coefficient.

free parameters (1)
  • Spectral transition threshold coefficient = 1 (implicit order-unity coefficient in Eq. 22)
    Eq. 22 posits s1^2 ∼ s2^2+s3^2 as the spectral-break condition without deriving the coefficient from Eq. 15. The predicted break location k_T shifts if this coefficient is not exactly 1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incompressible MHD with constant density governs the turbulence (Eq. 1).
    The entire Elsasser formulation and Pauli decomposition assume ∇·u=0 and ρ=const; compressible terms are deferred to refs [28,29] and excluded from the framework's predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper Local spectral coherence k'→k is assumed for the coherence matrix J(k,k').
    After Eq. 3 the paper sets k'→k, discarding off-diagonal k-space correlations. All S_i and the Bloch equation are defined for this diagonal slice; if cross-scale correlations drive spectral transitions, the geometric state at a single k may be insufficient.
  • standard math The Elsasser fields are represented as z±_k = i φ±_k ê±_k with time-independent unit vectors (Eq. 10).
    This is the standard linear-mode Fourier ansatz, but in strong turbulence the polarization eigenvectors need not be fixed; the Bloch equation inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption The linear-regime closure S2^2+S3^2 ~ S0^2 (Eq. 17) holds.
    Used to derive the sinusoidal solutions Eqs. 18-19 and the s2-s3 precession picture; in real turbulence S0 is not constant and nonlinearity depolarizes the state, so this is an idealized limiting case.
  • domain assumption Spectral exponents k^-1, k^-3/2, and k^-5/3 map respectively to s2-s3 coherent rotations, s1 imbalance, and p≈0 mixed states.
    This mapping is imported from cited phenomenology (refs [2,3,10,13,17,25]) and used to convert polarization geometry into spectral predictions; it is not derived within the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition threshold is set by equality of wave and structure energies (Eq. 22).
    No derivation from Eq. 15 is provided; it is an energy-comparison ansatz.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization geometry of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKZ5F7ZT

@misc{pith2026260715347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization geometry of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKZ5F7ZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15347}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a geometric framework that organizes the second-order statistics of the Elasser fields into polarization states on generalized Poincar\'e spheres. In this representation, energy, cross-helicity, residual energy, and the phase lag between counter-propagating wave packets emerge as complementary polarization parameters. We derive a Bloch-analogue equation governing the evolution of polarization states and show that distinct polarization geometries are associated with different cascade dynamics. The framework predicts that transitions in the turbulent spectral scaling coincide with changes in the polarization state of the interacting modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Geometric representation of second-order statistics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Different initial polarization geometries define dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. S. Iroshnikov, Turbulence of a Conducting Fluid in a Strong Magnetic Field, Soviet Ast.7, 566 (1964)

    1964

  2. [2]

    Boldyrev, On the Spectrum of Magnetohydrody- namic Turbulence, ApJ626, L37 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0503053 [astro-ph]

    S. Boldyrev, On the Spectrum of Magnetohydrody- namic Turbulence, ApJ626, L37 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0503053 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    which corresponds to the critical balance condition [5]

    In contrast,s 1- dominated states are governed primarily by nonlinear inter- actions and are associated with steeper scalings. which corresponds to the critical balance condition [5]. Within the present framework, this condition marks the onset of the transition from coherent to mixed polariza- tion dynamics, as nonlinear interactions progressively de- po...

  4. [4]

    Boldyrev, Spectrum of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbu- lence, Phys

    S. Boldyrev, Spectrum of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbu- lence, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 115002 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0511290 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Sridhar and P

    S. Sridhar and P. Goldreich, Toward a Theory of Inter- stellar Turbulence. I. Weak Alfvenic Turbulence, Astro- phys. J.432, 612 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    Goldreich and S

    P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, Toward a Theory of Inter- stellar Turbulence. II. Strong Alfvenic Turbulence, As- trophys. J.438, 763 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    J. J. Podesta, D. A. Roberts, and M. L. Goldstein, Spec- tral Exponents of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy Spectra in Solar Wind Turbulence, Astrophys. J.664, 543 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    J. J. Podesta, On the cross-helicity dependence of the energy spectrum in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, Physics of Plasmas18, 012907 (2011)

    2011

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Sioulas, Z

    N. Sioulas, Z. Huang, C. Shi, M. Velli, A. Tenerani, T. A. Bowen, S. D. Bale, J. Huang, L. Vlahos, L. D. Wood- ham, T. S. Horbury, T. D. de Wit, D. Larson, J. Kasper, C. J. Owen, M. L. Stevens, A. Case, M. Pulupa, D. M. Malaspina, J. W. Bonnell, R. Livi, K. Goetz, P. R. Har- v...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    W. H. Matthaeus and M. L. Goldstein, Low-frequency 1/f noise in the interplanetary magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 495 (1986)

    1986

  3. [11]

    R. T. Wicks, D. A. Roberts, A. Mallet, A. A. Schekochi- hin, T. S. Horbury, and C. H. K. Chen, Correlations at Large Scales and the Onset of Turbulence in the Fast So- lar Wind, Astrophys. J.778, 177 (2013), arXiv:1312.4585 [physics.space-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mondal, S

    S. Mondal, S. Banerjee, and L. Sorriso-Valvo, Emergence of Two Inertial Subranges in Solar Wind Turbulence: Dependence on Heliospheric Distance and Solar Activ- ity, Astrophys. J.982, 199 (2025), arXiv:2409.03090 [physics.space-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. H. K. Chen, Recent progress in astrophysical plasma turbulence from solar wind observations, Journal of Plasma Physics82, 535820602 (2016), arXiv:1611.03386 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Velli, R

    M. Velli, R. Grappin, and A. Mangeney, Turbulent cas- cade of incompressible unidirectional Alfv´ en waves in the interplanetary medium, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 1807 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    B. D. G. Chandran, Parametric instability, inverse 6 cascade and the 1/f range of solar-wind turbulence, Journal of Plasma Physics84, 905840106 (2018), arXiv:1712.09357 [physics.space-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller and R

    W.-C. M¨ uller and R. Grappin, Spectral Energy Dynamics in Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 114502 (2005), arXiv:physics/0509019 [physics.flu- dyn]

    2005 arXiv

  9. [18]

    R. T. Wicks, A. Mallet, T. S. Horbury, C. H. K. Chen, A. A. Schekochihin, and J. J. Mitchell, Alignment and Scaling of Large-Scale Fluctuations in the Solar Wind, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 025003 (2013), arXiv:1209.5362 [physics.space-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [19]

    L. Zhao, G. Zank, and H. Li, Non-propagating struc- tures and propagating waves in solar wind turbulence re- vealed by simulations and observations, Reviews of Mod- ern Plasma Physics9, 24 (2025)

    2025

  11. [20]

    W. M. Elsasser, The Hydromagnetic Equations, Physical Review79, 183 (1950)

    1950

  12. [21]

    H. Wu, L. Yang, and S. Huang, Coherence of Els¨ asser Variables in the slow solar wind from 0.1 au to 0.3 au, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences10, 1329284 (2024)

    2024

  13. [22]

    Nariyuki and T

    Y. Nariyuki and T. Hada, Self-generation of phase co- herence in parallel Alfv´ en turbulence, Earth, Planets and Space57, e9 (2005)

    2005

  14. [23]

    Skalidis, Interactive wolfram notebook for the bloch- analogue equation,https://www.wolframcloud.com/ obj/e62da2cb-ec9c-4a1b-9bfa-ee811c9599b1(2026)

    R. Skalidis, Interactive wolfram notebook for the bloch- analogue equation,https://www.wolframcloud.com/ obj/e62da2cb-ec9c-4a1b-9bfa-ee811c9599b1(2026)

    2026

  15. [24]

    De Giorgio, S

    E. De Giorgio, S. Servidio, and P. Veltri, Coherent Struc- ture Formation through nonlinear interactions in 2D Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, Scientific Reports7, 13849 (2017)

    2017

  16. [25]

    Skalidis, A

    R. Skalidis, A. Tritsis, J. R. Beattie, and P. F. Hop- kins, Residual energy in weakly compressible turbulence with a mean guide field, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2512.11973 (2025), arXiv:2512.11973 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Velli, On the propagation of ideal, linear Alfven waves in radially stratified stellar atmospheres and winds, A&A 270, 304 (1993)

    M. Velli, On the propagation of ideal, linear Alfven waves in radially stratified stellar atmospheres and winds, A&A 270, 304 (1993)

    1993

  18. [27]

    J. C. Perez and S. Boldyrev, Role of Cross-Helicity in Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 025003 (2009), arXiv:0807.2635 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Brodiano, F

    M. Brodiano, F. Pugliese, N. Andr´ es, and P. Dmitruk, Study of the 1/f spectrum using virtual space- craft sampling in MHD turbulence, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.27728 (2026), arXiv:2605.27728 [astro- ph.SR]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Magyar, T

    N. Magyar, T. Van Doorsselaere, and M. Goossens, The Nature of Els¨ asser Variables in Compressible MHD, Astrophys. J.873, 56 (2019), arXiv:1902.01619 [astro- ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Banerjee and S

    S. Banerjee and S. Galtier, Exact relation with two-point correlation functions and phenomenological approach for compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, Phys. Rev. E87, 013019 (2013), arXiv:1301.2470 [physics.flu- dyn]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.