Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Oscillatory reconnection and resonant response to wave excitation in 2D coronal null points

T0 review · 3 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 Each coronal null point imposes its own resonant frequencies on reconnection and on the fast wave trains it emits.

desk verdict Solid MHD parameter study linking oscillatory reconnection periods to resonant-cavity frequencies in stratified coronal null points, with a genuine but fixable caveat about reconnection proxies. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19978 v1 pith:6DNR7SDU submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR

Konstantinos Karampelas , Tom Van Doorsselaere This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 96.60.-j95.30.Qd
keywords magnetohydrodynamicscoronalnullpointsoscillatoryreconnectionresonantcavitiesquasi-periodicfast-propagatingwavessolarseismologymagnetohydrodynamicalsimulations
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

Coronal magnetic null points—where the field vanishes—are shown in this study to act as resonant cavities that set the rhythm of both the reconnection they undergo and the waves they emit. In a series of 2D and 2.5D magnetohydrodynamics simulations of six different null-point atmospheres, the authors perturb each null with a single asymmetric pulse plus its reflections and find that the reconnection rate oscillates at the same frequencies as the slow and fast waves generated at the null, while the external driver's frequency falls outside the 95% confidence interval. They conclude that the periodic reconnection is oscillatory reconnection—its periodicity is an intrinsic property of the null point and its surrounding plasma, not of the disturbance that triggered it. The outward-propagating fast wave trains produced at these frequencies resemble the quasi-periodic fast-propagating (QFP) waves seen in coronal observations, so the result offers a possible seismological bridge: measuring QFP periods could probe the plasma conditions at a reconnecting null point.

What carries the argument

The central object is the null point as a resonant cavity—a region around the magnetic null where the Alfvén speed drops and the background plasma picks out characteristic frequencies. The argument is carried by comparing Fourier and wavelet spectra of two signal families: reconnection proxies (the average out-of-plane current density in a box around the null and the magnetic flux rates across nearby slits, which stand in for the reconnection rate) and wave signals (the velocity components V_x and V_y at the null and along its spine, tracing fast and slow modes). Matching of the dominant spectral peaks between these families, across six models plus a high-resolution check, is the load-bearin

What would settle it

Run the same setup with adaptive mesh refinement resolving the current sheet (or with strong explicit resistivity) and check whether the magnetic flux rate continues to peak at the cavity frequency and whether those peaks coincide in time with actual field-line breakage; if the period follows the driver instead, or if the flux-rate signal disappears without the unresolved sheet, the intrinsic-period claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coronal null point behaves as a resonant cavity whose frequencies are fixed by the background magnetic field, density, and temperature, and that perturbed nulls reconnect periodically at those cavity frequencies rather than at the driver's. Across six setups the dominant peaks in the magnetic flux rates (reconnection-rate proxies) match the dominant peaks in the velocity signals at the null, while the low-frequency driver is weak or absent there. The authors classify the reconnection as oscillatory reconnection, intrinsic to the null point, and show that the fast waves emitted at these frequencies propagate outward, resembling observed quasi-periodic fast-propagat

Load-bearing premise

The simulations do not resolve the thin current sheets where reconnection actually occurs, so the claim that the flux-rate oscillations are genuine oscillatory reconnection—rather than the wave field sloshing at the null—rests on the unproven assumption that the unresolved reconnection behaves as inferred.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, observed quasi-periodic fast-propagating wave trains can be used to infer the intrinsic reconnection period of the source null point, and through it the local coronal plasma conditions.
  • The reconnection period at a null is set by the background plasma rather than by the driver, so flare quasi-periodic pulsations tied to null reconnection should carry this intrinsic signature regardless of the triggering disturbance.
  • The frequency matching persists across varied setups—different field strengths, null heights, chromospheric densities, a guide field, and a pseudostreamer-like configuration—so it appears to be a generic property of coronal null points, not a quirk of one model.
  • In the 2.5D guide-field model, the Alfvén waves generated by mode conversion away from the null share the same frequencies, extending the cavity imprint to an additional wave channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical discriminator may emerge from the paper's own data: the external driver frequency is visible in the average current density but not in the flux-rate spectra, so observations that separate these signatures could distinguish externally driven from truly oscillatory reconnection.
  • If the causality runs from cavity to reconnection, then the cavity eigenfrequencies should be computable a priori from a reconstructed coronal magnetic field and density; QFP periods observed at a distance could then be checked against such a prediction, effectively turning the null point into a coronal seismometer.
  • The 2.5D result suggests that in 3D nulls with a guide field, the Alfvén wave channel could also carry the cavity frequency, enabling multi-wavelength seismology—an extension the paper does not develop.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2D/2.5D ideal (numerical-resistivity) MHD simulations of coronal null points in a stratified atmosphere, driven by a localized velocity pulse at the bottom boundary. Six models (M1–M6) vary the magnetic field strength, density, guide field, and background temperature. The authors measure the dominant frequencies of the velocity signals at the null point and of the reconnection proxies (mean current density and magnetic flux rates across fixed slits, Eqs. 13–15). They report that the flux-rate frequencies match the velocity frequencies (e.g., ~57 and ~64 mHz for M1) and are distinct from a low-frequency (~26 mHz) reflected driver. They interpret this as oscillatory reconnection with a periodicity intrinsic to the null point, and they note that the generated outward-propagating fast waves resemble QFP waves.

Significance. The claimed connection between the null-point resonant cavity and the periodicity of oscillatory reconnection is potentially important for coronal seismology and for interpreting QFP waves: if the reconnection period is set by the ambient plasma rather than by an external driver, observed periods can be used as diagnostics. The paper's strengths are its six-model parameter study, the inclusion of a 2.5D guide-field case, a resolution-convergence test (Appendix A), and an attempt to separate the cavity/reconnection frequencies from the reflected-driver frequency. However, the central interpretation depends on the flux-rate signals being genuinely reconnection-dominated, which is not established at the available resolution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (14)-(15), Fig. 7; Sec. 4, Appendix A] The magnetic flux rates used as reconnection-rate proxies are line integrals of B_x over fixed segments. In ideal MHD these vary with any passing wave, so the detected periodicity is not necessarily due to reconnection. The manuscript explicitly states that the current sheets are not resolved (Sec. 3.1 near Fig. 6; Sec. 4) and that only numerical resistivity is present (Sec. 2). The convergence test in Appendix A doubles the resolution but still leaves current sheets far thicker than the grid scale (5 km), so it does not validate the proxy. The authors need a reconnection-specific diagnostic with a quantitative period—e.g., tracking the X-point position, measuring the change in flux function across the separatrices, or resolving the current sheet with explicit resistivity—before the periodicity can be attributed to oscillatory reconnection.
  2. [Sec. 3.1-3.2, Fig. 9, Table 2] The central comparison is self-consistent because both the flux-rate frequencies and the velocity frequencies are measured from the same simulation output; the agreement could simply reflect that both diagnostics sample the same cavity wave field. The statement that the ~26 mHz driver is outside the 95% confidence interval does not break this circularity. Moreover, the dominant V_y frequency in several models (≈63-64 mHz for M1, M4, M6) is close to the fundamental of the initial half-sine driver (P=15.58 s, f≈64 mHz), a point not discussed. A control with a different driver waveform/period, or a quantitative comparison with the independent semi-empirical formula of Karampelas et al. (2023), is needed to support the claim that the period is intrinsic to the null point.
  3. [Figs. 5 and 7] The 95% confidence levels are central to the claim that the low-frequency driver is outside the confidence interval, but their construction is not described. Please specify the null hypothesis (e.g., red-noise AR(1) for wavelet spectra), the degrees of freedom, and the treatment of multiple independent frequencies, so that the significance statements can be checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The header 'Vx f0 Vx f0' should be 'Vx f0 Vy f0'.
  2. [Sec. 4] Typo: 'magnetoaccoustic' should be 'magnetoacoustic'; also 'does not much that' should be 'does not match that'.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 7 caption] 'current density density' should be 'current density'.
  4. [Appendix A] The flux rates for M1hr are evaluated at X=7.3 Mm, whereas Eq. (14) in the main text uses X=7.4 Mm; please clarify whether this is intentional.
  5. [Sec. 2] The assumption that the unresolved transition region can be treated as a semi-elastic wall is an important modeling approximation; the resolution study provides indirect support, but this simplification should be explicitly listed as a limitation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The flux-rate reconnection proxy inherits wave frequencies via Faraday's law, so the claimed frequency match is partly by construction; independent field-line evidence remains qualitative.

  1. other [Section 3.1, Eqs. (14)-(15), Fig. 7; Table 2]
    "Our setup does not have the necessary resolution to properly resolve the generated current sheets and the reconnection dynamics. ... The magnetic flux rates, being the equivalent of the reconnection rate (McLaughlin et al. 2009; Tarr & Linton 2019), trace the evolution of the magnetic field as the latter is “pushed” by the lateral movement of the separatrices due to the periodic reconnection."

    Eq. (14) defines Φ̇_B(X)=d/dt∫B_x dY. In 2D ideal MHD, ∂B_x/∂t = -∂(v_y B_x - v_x B_y)/∂y, so Φ̇_B(X) is, up to sign, (v_y B_x - v_x B_y) evaluated at the two slit endpoints. Thus the Fourier peaks of Φ̇_B are linear functionals of the local V_x,V_y wave signals at the slit. The paper then compares these peaks with V_x/V_y at the null and reports matching frequencies (Table 2) as evidence that the null 'imposes' its frequency on reconnection. But any wave train passing the slit produces those same frequencies in Φ̇_B even without reconnection. Since the current sheet is explicitly unresolved, the quantitative frequency match is built into the diagnostic rather than independently measuring reconnection periodicity. Field-line topology (Fig. 6) is more reconnection-specific, but it is qualit

full rationale

The self-citations (Santamaria & Van Doorsselaere 2018; Karampelas et al. 2022a,b, 2023) are used for context and seismological framing rather than as the load-bearing derivation of the central match, so they do not by themselves raise the circularity score. The central reduction is diagnostic: the magnetic flux rates used as 'reconnection rates' are time derivatives of line integrals of B, which in ideal MHD equal combinations of the local velocity components at the slit boundaries. Hence the dominant frequencies of Φ̇_B are expected to coincide with those of V_x,V_y even if no reconnection occurs. The paper's own admission that current sheets are not resolved makes this proxy the only quantitative reconnection diagnostic, and its agreement with the cavity-wave frequencies is therefore partly a consequence of the diagnostic's construction rather than an independent confirmation that the null point imposes its period on reconnection. Some independent content remains: the low-frequency driver (~26 mHz) is excluded from the flux-rate spectra, the field-line topology shows qualitative periodic reconnection, and the model-to-model variation in Table 2 is not a simple fit. The result is partial circularity rather than a fully forced derivation, so the score is 6.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's load-bearing assumptions are the MHD model of the corona, the potential-field null point, the equivalence of numerical and physical resistivity for the period, the treatment of the unresolved transition region, and the mode-identification diagnostics. All are grounded in prior literature or standard practice, but none are independently verified in this paper.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The compressible MHD equations with an ideal gas hydrogen plasma adequately describe the wave–null point interaction in the solar corona.
    Invoked in Section 2 as the governing equations solved with PLUTO; the validity of MHD in the corona is assumed, with no kinetic or two-fluid effects considered.
  • domain assumption The potential magnetic field with an X-point null (Eqs. 8–9) is a reasonable representation of coronal magnetic topology, and the stratification chosen (Eqs. 5–7) is a valid background.
    Laid out in Section 2 (Eq. 8–9, temperature profile Eq. 6–7). The paper relies on this specific background to define the resonant cavity and null point.
  • domain assumption Effective numerical resistivity behaves like physical resistivity for the purpose of the reconnection period.
    The paper quotes this in Section 4: 'it has been shown that the levels of resistivity do not affect the period of oscillatory reconnection' (citing Talbot et al. 2024). This transfers a result from a different setup to the present stratified, unresolved-current-sheet model.
  • ad hoc to paper The unresolved transition region acts as a semi-elastic wall that reflects waves, and its unresolved structure does not corrupt the cavity frequencies.
    Section 2: 'This transition region is not properly resolved by the resolution in our domain... we use the transition region as a semi-elastic wall.' This is an admitted modeling compromise that affects wave propagation and reflection.
  • domain assumption The wave identifiers C|| and C⊥ (Eqs. 11–12) map onto the slow and fast MHD modes in low-beta plasma.
    Section 3.1 introduces C|| and C⊥ following Enerhaug et al. (2024) and states that in low-beta plasma they correspond to slow and fast modes, respectively. The interpretation of wave frequencies depends on this identification.
  • standard math Fourier peaks above the 95% confidence level represent genuine periodicities in the finite-time simulation signals.
    Used throughout Section 3 to assign main frequencies to Vx, Vy, and flux rates. The statistical method is standard but the short time series (156 s, about 10 periods) limits frequency resolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Oscillatory reconnection and resonant response to wave excitation in 2D coronal null points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DNR7SDU

@misc{pith2026260719978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Oscillatory reconnection and resonant response to wave excitation in 2D coronal null points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DNR7SDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19978}
}
abstract

Null points are magnetic field singularities, where the magnetic field strength rapidly drops to zero. In the solar atmosphere, null points are known sites of magnetic reconnection and wave generation and are associated with highly energetic phenomena, such as flares. The aim of this study is to explore the connection between the properties of oscillatory reconnection at null points and the latter's nature as resonant cavities for waves. We perform a set of 2D and 2.5D magnetohydrodynamics simulations of single null points in a stratified solar atmosphere, using the PLUTO code. We perturb each null point through a single propagating pulse and its reflections from the bottom boundary, hitting the null point in an asymmetrical fashion. This leads to both periodic reconnection events and wave refraction around the null point. We find that each null point imposes frequencies on the reconnection matching those of the waves generated from the individual resonant cavity. These frequencies also differ from those excited by the low frequency driver of the reflected waves returning to the null point, the latter lying outside the $95\%$ confidence interval. As such, excited periodic reconnection can be characterised as oscillatory reconnection, i.e. with properties intrinsic to the null points. Finally, the generated waves at the null propagate across the domain, reminiscent of the observed quasi-periodic fast-propagating waves. We provide results showing a direct connection between oscillatory reconnection and the generated high-frequency wavetrains at null points in the solar corona. The propagating waves generated at the resonant cavity, reminiscent of the observed quasi-periodic fast-propagating waves can provide us a diagnostic tool for the reconnection process at the null point and the coronal plasma conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Profiles of the temperature, density and planar magnetic field components for the default null point model (M1), over-plotted with the magnetic field lines. The dashed black line is the top of the transition region (where T = 0.1 MK). The black circle is the β = 1 layer. 2019; Mancuso et al. 2020; Ramsay et al. 2021). In addition, pe￾riodically driven reconnection in null points has also been shown to drive spicule … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Profiles of the temperature (top row) and density (bottom row), over-plotted with the magnetic field lines, for models M2, M3, M5 and M6, starting from the left. The transition region (where T = 0.1 MK) is plotted as a dashed purple line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of the Vy (top row) and Vx (bottom row) velocity components, for M1. The β = 1 layer (white circle), top of the transition region (white dashed line) and magnetic field lines (black arrows) are also shown. Accompanying animations for the two velocities can be found in the online version of this manuscript. 2. Numerical setup Our numerical setup consists of a 2D null point consisting of a potential magnetic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-distance profiles of the Vx (top left panel) and Vy (bottom left panel) velocity components, along a vertical slit at X = 7.5 Mm. The horizontal white dashed lines show the top of the transition region and the dotted white lines show the vertical borders of the β …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Velocity signals at different locations (left panels) and their respective Fourier spectra (middle panels) for the Vx and Vy velocities. Alongside the spectra, the 95% confidence levels are plotted in less opaque curves, shown here in matching colours and line styles t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Close-up snapshots of the Jz current density at the null point during the reconnection events. Also shown here are the β = 1 layer (purple circle), a sample of the magnetic field lines (in black and white) the vectors for the velocity field. An accompanying animation c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time series of the average Jz current density at the null, as well as the magnetic flux rates Φ˙ B(X, Y) for the Bx,y magnetic field components, near the null point. Shown here are also their respective Fourier, with the 95% confidence levels in grey and matching line …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profiles of the Vx (top row), Vy (middle row) and Vz (bottom row) velocities for each model M1 to M6 (from left to right) at t = 155.71 s. Also shown here are the top of the transition region (white dashed horizontal line) and the β = 1 layer (white contour line). For …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fourier spectra of the magnetic flux rates Φ˙ B(X, Y) and of the Vx,y velocity components at the location of the null points, for models M1, M2 and M3 (top three dual panels) and for M4, M5 and M6 (bottom three dual panels). The 95% confidence level curves are shown fo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-distance profiles of the Vx (left panel) and Vy (right panel) velocity components, along a horizontal slit at Y = 10 Mm, for model M1. even though β < 1 in the chromospheric part, the Alfvén speed drops more than an order of magnitude drop as we cross the tran￾si…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time series of the Vx velocity components at the (X, Y) = (10, 10) Mm point for all six of our models and their respective Fourier spectra, alongside the 95% confidence level curves corresponding to each spectrum, in matching, less opaque lines. the frequencies of the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aschwanden, M. J. & Schrijver, C. J. 2002, ApJS, 142, 269

    2002

  2. [2]

    M., Thomas, A

    Broomhall, A. M., Thomas, A. E. L., Pugh, C. E., Pye, J. P., & Rosen, S. R. 2019, A&A, 629, A147

    2019

  3. [3]

    Brown, D. S. & Priest, E. R. 2001, A&A, 367, 339

    2001

  4. [4]

    V ., Shasharina, S

    Bulanov, S. V ., Shasharina, S. G., & Pegoraro, F. 1992, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion, 34, 33

    1992

  5. [5]

    Bulanov, S. V . & Syrovatskii, S. I. 1980, Fizika Plazmy, 6, 1205

    1980

  6. [6]

    R., Li, H

    Cheng, X., Priest, E. R., Li, H. T., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 2107

    2023

  7. [7]

    P., Hayes, L

    Clarke, B. P., Hayes, L. A., Gallagher, P. T., Maloney, S. A., & Carley, E. P. 2021, ApJ, 910, 123 Article number, page 12 of 15 Karampelas & Van Doorsselaere: Oscillatory reconnection and resonance at coronal null points

    2021

  8. [8]

    Craig, I. J. D. & McClymont, A. N. 1991, ApJ, 371, L41

    1991

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2018, ApJ, 862, 6

    2018

  2. [10]

    A., & De Moortel, I

    Enerhaug, E., Howson, T. A., & De Moortel, I. 2024, A&A, 681, L11

    2024

  3. [11]

    M., & Arber, T

    Gruszecki, M., Vasheghani Farahani, S., Nakariakov, V . M., & Arber, T. D. 2011, A&A, 531, A63

    2011

  4. [12]

    Hassam, A. B. & Lambert, R. P. 1996, ApJ, 472, 832

    1996

  5. [13]

    2009, ApJ, 705, L217

    He, J., Marsch, E., Tu, C., & Tian, H. 2009, ApJ, 705, L217

    2009

  6. [14]

    Heggland, L., De Pontieu, B., & Hansteen, V . H. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1

    2009

  7. [15]

    Hood, A. W. & Hughes, D. W. 2011, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 187, 78 Jelínek, P., Karlický, M., & Murawski, K. 2015, ApJ, 812, 105

    2011

  8. [16]

    A., Botha, G

    Karampelas, K., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., & Régnier, S. 2023, ApJ, 943, 131

    2023

  9. [17]

    T., DeV ore, C

    Karpen, J. T., DeV ore, C. R., Antiochos, S. K., & Pariat, E. 2017, ApJ, 834, 62

    2017

  10. [18]

    M., & Cho, K.-S

    Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V . M., & Cho, K.-S. 2017, ApJ, 844, 149

    2017

  11. [19]

    M., Karpen, J

    Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V . M., Karpen, J. T., & Cho, K.-S. 2024, Nature Com- munications, 15, 2667

    2024

  12. [20]

    2020, Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3

    Kupriyanova, E., Kolotkov, D., Nakariakov, V ., & Kaufman, A. 2020, Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3

    2020

  13. [21]

    G., Kashapova, L

    Kupriyanova, E. G., Kashapova, L. K., Reid, H. A. S., & Myagkova, I. N. 2016, Sol. Phys., 291, 3427

    2016

  14. [22]

    2005, ApJ, 624, 392

    Landi, S., Velli, M., & Einaudi, G. 2005, ApJ, 624, 392

    2005

  15. [23]

    & Chen, W

    Li, D. & Chen, W. 2022, ApJ, 931, L28

    2022

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 179

    Li, D., Ge, M., Dominique, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 179

    2021

  17. [25]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 7

    Li, D., Lu, L., Ning, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 7

    2020

  18. [26]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1032099

    Li, D., Shi, F., Zhao, H., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1032099

    2022

  19. [27]

    2018, ApJ, 868, L33

    Li, L., Zhang, J., Peter, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, L33

    2018

  20. [28]

    M., Zhao, J., et al

    Liu, W., Title, A. M., Zhao, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, L13

    2011

  21. [29]

    Longcope, D. W. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 7

    2005

  22. [30]

    Longcope, D. W. & Priest, E. R. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 122905

    2007

  23. [31]

    J., Edmondson, J

    Lynch, B. J., Edmondson, J. K., & Li, Y . 2014, Sol. Phys., 289, 3043

    2014

  24. [32]

    2020, A&A, 636, A96

    Mancuso, S., Barghini, D., & Telloni, D. 2020, A&A, 636, A96

    2020

  25. [33]

    G., Shah, N., & Thyagaraja, A

    McClements, K. G., Shah, N., & Thyagaraja, A. 2006, Journal of Plasma Physics, 72, 571

    2006

  26. [34]

    A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A

    McLaughlin, J. A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A. W., & Brady, C. S. 2009, A&A, 493, 227

    2009

  27. [35]

    McLaughlin, J. A. & Hood, A. W. 2004, A&A, 420, 1129

    2004

  28. [36]

    McLaughlin, J. A. & Hood, A. W. 2006, A&A, 459, 641

    2006

  29. [37]

    A., Hood, A

    McLaughlin, J. A., Hood, A. W., & de Moortel, I. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 158, 205

    2011

  30. [38]

    A., Nakariakov, V

    McLaughlin, J. A., Nakariakov, V . M., Dominique, M., Jelínek, P., & Takasao, S. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 45

    2018

  31. [39]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    2007

  32. [40]

    K., Pontin, D

    Mondal, S., Srivastava, A. K., Pontin, D. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 235

    2024

  33. [41]

    V ., & Nakariakov, V

    Murawski, K., Zaqarashvili, T. V ., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2011, A&A, 533, A18

    2011

  34. [42]

    J., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Baker, D

    Murray, M. J., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Baker, D. 2009, A&A, 494, 329

    2009

  35. [43]

    M., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., & Young, N

    Nakariakov, V . M., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., & Young, N. P. 2006, A&A, 452, 343

    2006

  36. [44]

    Nakariakov, V . M. & Roberts, B. 1995, Sol. Phys., 159, 399

    1995

  37. [45]

    2008, ApJ, 683, L83

    Nishizuka, N., Shimizu, M., Nakamura, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, L83

    2008

  38. [46]

    Parker, E. N. 1957, J. Geophys. Res., 62, 509

    1957

  39. [47]

    Petschek, H. E. 1964, Magnetic Field Annihilation, ed. W. N. Hess, V ol. 50 (Washington, DC: NASA), 425

    1964

  40. [48]

    Pontin, D. I. 2011, Advances in Space Research, 47, 1508

    2011

  41. [49]

    Pontin, D. I. & Priest, E. R. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1

    2022

  42. [50]

    & Forbes, T

    Priest, E. & Forbes, T. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection, ed. E. Priest & T. Forbes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2000

  43. [51]

    2022, Thesis, Monash University, doi:10.26180/19233735.v1

    Raboonik, A. 2022, Thesis, Monash University, doi:10.26180/19233735.v1

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    G., & Doyle, L

    Ramsay, G., Kolotkov, D., Doyle, J. G., & Doyle, L. 2021, Sol. Phys., 296, 162 Régnier, S., Parnell, C. E., & Haynes, A. L. 2008, A&A, 484, L47

    2021

  45. [53]

    C., Khomenko, E., & Collados, M

    Santamaria, I. C., Khomenko, E., & Collados, M. 2015, A&A, 577, A70

    2015

  46. [54]

    C., Khomenko, E., Collados, M., & de Vicente, A

    Santamaria, I. C., Khomenko, E., Collados, M., & de Vicente, A. 2016, A&A, 590, L3

    2016

  47. [55]

    C., Khomenko, E., Collados, M., & de Vicente, A

    Santamaria, I. C., Khomenko, E., Collados, M., & de Vicente, A. 2017, A&A, 602, A43

    2017

  48. [56]

    Santamaria, I. C. & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2018, A&A, 611, A10

    2018

  49. [57]

    Schiavo, L. A. C. A., Botha, G. J. J., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2024, ApJ, 975, 10

    2024

  50. [58]

    Schiavo, L. A. C. A., Botha, G. J. J., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2026, ApJ, 999, 50

    2026

  51. [59]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 1

    Shen, Y ., Liu, Y ., Song, T., & Tian, Z. 2018, ApJ, 853, 1

    2018

  52. [60]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 105017

    Shi, F., Ning, Z., & Li, D. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 105017

    2022

  53. [61]

    & Magara, T

    Shibata, K. & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    2011

  54. [62]

    K., Mondal, S., Priest, E

    Srivastava, A. K., Mondal, S., Priest, E. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 36

    2025

  55. [63]

    Sweet, P. A. 1958, in IAU Symp. 6, Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, ed. B. Lehnert, V ol. 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 123

    1958

  56. [64]

    A., Botha, G

    Talbot, J., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., & Hancock, M. 2024, ApJ, 965, 133

    2024

  57. [65]

    Tarr, L. A. & Linton, M. 2019, ApJ, 879, 127

    2019

  58. [66]

    A., Linton, M., & Leake, J

    Tarr, L. A., Linton, M., & Leake, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 94

    2017

  59. [67]

    Thurgood, J. O. & McLaughlin, J. A. 2012, A&A, 545, A9

    2012

  60. [68]

    O., Pontin, D

    Thurgood, J. O., Pontin, D. I., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 844, 2 Van Doorsselaere, T., Kupriyanova, E. G., & Yuan, D. 2016, Sol. Phys., 291, 3143

    2017

  61. [69]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 160

    Vida, K., Oláh, K., K˝ovári, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 160

    2019

  62. [70]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.24335

    Wang, Y ., Ni, L., Cheng, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.24335

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M., Cécere, M., & Costa, A

    Zhong, Y ., Nakariakov, V . M., Cécere, M., & Costa, A. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 28

    2026

  64. [72]

    V ., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V ., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 66 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. paper Appendix A: High resolution run for M1 model Fig. A.1.Close-up snapshots of theJ z current density at the null point duri...

    2021

Pith tools

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