Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Photospheric Kelvin--Helmholtz Vortices as Possible Drivers of Coronal Heating: Implications of the DKIST Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DKIST-resolved photospheric Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices carry enough shear energy to meet the quiet Sun's 300 W/m² coronal-heating loss if 5–8% of it becomes magnetic free energy that reaches weakly collisional heights.

desk verdict A transparent feasibility estimate for photospheric KHI as a quiet-Sun heating driver; the math holds up, but the controlling upward-transport factor is unmeasured. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12796 v1 pith:NHJXKHYC submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Katariina Nykyri This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords Kelvin-HelmholtzinstabilitycoronalheatingphotospheremagneticreconnectionquietSunenergybudgetmagnetohydrodynamics
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 estimates whether the Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices that DKIST has resolved at photospheric magnetic-flux boundaries—rolls with a characteristic 65 km wavelength and a measured shear around 3 km/s—can act as the footpoint driver for heating the corona. Each characteristic vortex stores about $2.2\times10^{24}$ erg of shear energy, and the paper shows that a small fraction of that reservoir is energetically sufficient for the quiet Sun: converting and transporting 5–8% of the shear energy as magnetic free energy to weakly collisional heights meets the $300\ \mathrm{W\,m^{-2}}$ quiet-Sun loss. The calculation also derives a self-limiting twist: complete conversion of the shear reservoir produces a field increment of $b_{\rm cs}=184$ G, identical to the Kelvin–Helmholtz marginal-stability field and equivalent to a $7.6^\circ$ effective twist. The paper is explicit that it does not prove coronal heating; the key open question is whether the magnetic stress created by these vortices survives upward transport through the chromosphere, a factor it calls directly testable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photospheric Kelvin–Helmholtz vortex: a roll-up of a shear layer at a magnetic-flux boundary, resolved by DKIST with a characteristic wavelength of 65 km and modeled by the MURaM radiation-MHD simulation as having a 12 km shear width, density contrast of 4, and 500 km vertical extent. The load-bearing identity is the center-of-momentum shear-energy density $u_{\rm sh} = \frac{1}{4}\frac{\rho_1\rho_2}{\rho_1+\rho_2}(\Delta U)^2$, which with $\Delta U=3.0\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ equals $135\ \mathrm{J\,m^{-3}}$, and the marginal-stability field of a tangential discontinuity, $B_{\parallel,c} = \Delta U\left(\frac{\mu_0\rho_1\rho_2}{2(\rho_1+\rho_2)}\right)^{1/2} = 184$ G. The paper's key observation is that these are the same quantity: setting the shear energy equal to the magnetic energy density $b_{\rm cs}^2/(2\mu_0)$ yields $b_{\rm cs}=B_{\parallel,c}$. This self-limiting identity means a KH vortex can twist the field by at most $\alpha_c=7.6^\circ$ before its growth rate vanishes, and it caps the stored magnetic energy at $135\ \mathrm{J\,m^{-3}}$ regardless of assumed efficiency. The rest of the argument is the energy-budget chain: shear reservoir ($u_{\rm sh}$) to magnetic free energy with fraction $\xi_B$, upward transport with fraction $\eta_{\rm up}$, and local reconnection heating with fraction $\epsilon_{\rm rec}=0.28$–$0.44$, giving the areal heat flux $F_{\rm heat} = f_{\rm KH}\,\xi_B\,\eta_{\rm up}\,\epsilon_{\rm rec}\,u_{\rm sh}H/T$.

What would settle it

Coordinated DKIST spectropolarimetry and chromospheric diagnostics above a known photospheric KH vortex should detect upward Poynting flux and intermittent reconnection signatures (bidirectional flows, nonthermal line broadening, brightenings); their absence would bound the product $\xi_B\eta_{\rm up}$ below the 5–8% needed for quiet-Sun heating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the newly resolved photospheric Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices constitute a viable footpoint driver for cross-scale heating from the photosphere to the low corona. For the observed 65 km wavelength, the MURaM-derived shear width of 12 km, density contrast $\rho_1/\rho_2=4$, and 500 km vertical extent, the center-of-momentum shear-energy density is $u_{\rm sh}=135\ \mathrm{J\,m^{-3}}$, giving $2.2\times10^{24}$ erg per vortex. Magnetic fields tilted $1^\circ$–$7^\circ$ away from the exact perpendicular orientation ($\mathbf{B}\perp\mathbf{k}$) remain KH unstable, providing an in-plane component that can be wound into current layers. In the limiting case where the entire shear reservoir becomes magnetic free energy, the amplified field is $b_{\rm cs}=184$ G, identical to the ideal marginal-stability field and equivalent to a $7.6^\circ$ twist; the vortex therefore self-limits its own magnetic amplification. Combining this twist with empirical collisionless reconnection heating fractions of 0.28–0.44, the same footpoint twist yields ion heating from about $20$ eV at the photosphere (diluted by neutrals to roughly $14$ K) to about $1.4$ keV in the low corona. For an illustrative KH-active surface fraction of 0.03, the quiet-Sun loss of $300\ \mathrm{W\,m^{-2}}$ requires only 5–8% of the shear reservoir to become reconnecting magnetic free energy that reaches weakly collisional heights; coronal holes require 14–21%. The paper explicitly stops short of proof: it states that the required upward transport has not been measured and that active-region heating demands a separate guide-field twist and helicity reservoir.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that at least some of the magnetic stress a photospheric vortex creates survives the trip through the chromosphere to weakly collisional heights; if none of it arrives, the shear reservoir cannot heat the corona.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 5–8% conversion-and-transport requirement is met, the quiet Sun's coronal-heating budget is supplied by a photospheric driver that is already observed, without needing a separate coronal energy source.
  • The self-limiting twist of $7.6^\circ$ sets a quantitative upper bound on the magnetic increment that KH winding can create in nearly perpendicular fields, a prediction that MURaM simulations and future DKIST vector-field observations can check.
  • Coronal-hole heating would require 14–21% of the shear reservoir to reach weakly collisional heights—more than twice the quiet-Sun fraction—so the mechanism is a tighter fit for quiet-Sun than for coronal-hole losses.
  • Active-region radiative losses are not met by this reservoir (the required fraction would exceed 100%); the paper concludes that active regions need a separate guide-field twist and helicity reservoir, with KH dynamics acting as a current-sheet builder rather than the primary energy source.
  • The altitude ladder predicts that the same footpoint twist heats photospheric ions to only about 20 eV (diluted to roughly 14 K by neutrals) yet reaches about 1.4 keV (about $10^7$ K) in the low corona, yielding nanoflare-class exhaust temperatures exactly where coronal heating is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism holds, the quiet-Sun heating problem shifts from finding an energy source to measuring a transport coefficient: the decisive uncertainty becomes the vertical survival of magnetic stress through the chromosphere, which coordinated DKIST and coronal observations could measure directly.
  • Because per-vortex shear energy scales as $\lambda^2(\Delta U)^2$, the observed 25–170 km wavelength range matters greatly: a 25 km vortex carries roughly one-sixth the energy of the 65 km fiducial, so the size distribution of vortices, not just the peak wavelength, determines the global heat-flux contribution.
  • The altitude ladder implies that photospheric KH reconnection may be thermally invisible—the ~20 eV per-ion heating is diluted by neutrals to ~14 K—so searches for this mechanism at the surface should target nonthermal or wave signatures such as bidirectional flows, nonthermal line broadening, or radio emission rather than temperature enhancements.
  • The equality between the shear-limited field increment and the marginal-stability field is general enough that it likely applies to any nearly perpendicular shear layer, including other stars with photospheric convection; the $7.6^\circ$ twist limit could be tested against stellar magnetograms and would serve as a flux-braiding bound in stellar coronal-heating models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper estimates whether photospheric Kelvin–Helmholtz (KH) vortices resolved by DKIST, with a characteristic wavelength of 65 km, could power quiet-Sun coronal heating. Using MURaM-derived shear parameters (ΔU = 3 km/s, density contrast 4, 500 km vertical extent) and a representative photospheric density, the author computes a shear-energy density of 135 J m^-3 and 2.2×10^24 erg per vortex. The central limiting calculation shows that complete conversion of the shear reservoir into magnetic free energy yields a field increment of 184 G, identical to the ideal marginal-stability field, equivalent to a 7.6° twist. Combining this with empirical collisionless reconnection heating fractions ε_rec = 0.28–0.44, the author derives per-particle heating from ~20 eV at the photosphere to ~1.4 keV in the low corona. The areal heat flux formula (Eq. 15) implies that quiet-Sun losses require ξ_B η_up = 0.051–0.079 and coronal-hole losses require 0.135–0.212, where ξ_B is the shear-to-magnetic conversion efficiency and η_up is the upward transport fraction. The paper explicitly states that neither quantity is measured by DKIST and that the mechanism should be regarded as a possible contributor rather than a demonstrated solution, with a concrete MURaM-based test proposed.

Significance. The energy bookkeeping is transparent and the mathematics check out; the identity between the complete-conversion field and the marginal-stability field is a genuine self-limiting constraint. The paper makes a clear, falsifiable statement: if the mechanism operates at the quiet-Sun level, ξ_B η_up must lie in the quoted range, and this can be tested by measuring the vertical Poynting flux in the existing MURaM cube. The explicit identification of the controlling unknown (ξ_B η_up) and the proposal of a concrete diagnostic are strengths. If the required efficiencies were realized, photospheric KHI would be a newly identified, observationally motivated energy channel for coronal heating. However, because both ξ_B and η_up are unconstrained, the paper currently establishes a necessary condition rather than a positive heating mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Eq. (15)] The central heating claim is controlled entirely by the product ξ_B η_up, which is not measured or bounded in this manuscript. As the paper itself states ('Neither quantity has yet been constrained by DKIST'), the required range ξ_B η_up = 0.051–0.079 for the quiet Sun is a requirement, not a prediction, and the mechanism cannot currently be distinguished from a null version with η_up ≈ 0. Since Section 5 proposes testing the vertical Poynting flux in the existing MURaM cube, I request that this analysis be performed (or a quantitative upper bound on the photospheric Poynting flux be reported) so that the abstract can either claim a constrained conversion or explicitly state that the heating claim is conditional on an unmeasured transport efficiency.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (11) and Table 2] The reconnection heating fractions ε_rec = 0.28–0.44 are calibrated at magnetopause guide-field ratios of 0–1 and magnetotail ratios ≲0.2, yet they are applied here at B_g/b_cs = cot α_c ≈ 7.5. The paper acknowledges this extrapolation but does not quantify the possible reduction in ε_rec. Since Equation (15) uses ε_rec linearly, a guide-field suppression of ε_rec by a factor of 2 would raise the required ξ_B η_up to 0.10–0.16 for the quiet Sun, changing the feasibility assessment. Please provide a physical argument or a sensitivity estimate for ε_rec at large guide field.
  3. [§2, Table 1, f_KH] The adopted f_KH = 0.03 comes from a single MURaM snapshot whose wavelength histogram peaks at 49 km, whereas the DKIST observations peak at 65 km; the paper notes the alternative estimate 0.018. This factor-of-1.7 uncertainty directly propagates into the required efficiencies in Equation (15). I recommend either quoting a range f_KH = 0.018–0.032 and giving the corresponding range of required ξ_B η_up, or adding a sensitivity table.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'V ortices' should be 'Vortices'.
  2. [§1] In the first paragraph, 'magentosheath' should be 'magnetosheath'.
  3. [Table 1] The caption and header contain a spacing error: 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1'.
  4. [§2] The phrase 'Figure 1b-d' should be 'Figures 1b–d' for consistency.
  5. [§3.5] Equation (15) defines an areal flux averaged over the whole surface; it would be clearer to state explicitly that the per-vortex flux is f_KH times larger, to avoid confusion about the normalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coronal-heating estimate is an explicitly conditional energy budget whose unmeasured conversion and transport factors are labeled as requirements, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper walks a transparent bookkeeping chain from observed KH parameters (DKIST wavelength, MURaM shear and density contrast) through a shear-energy reservoir to a conditional coronal-heating flux. The controlling unknowns are isolated in Eq. (15) as the product ξ_B η_up, and the paper states plainly that 'The required upward transport has not been measured by DKIST' and that 'Neither quantity has yet been constrained by DKIST.' The derived requirement ξ_B η_up = 0.051–0.079 for the quiet Sun is not a prediction of an efficiency but a statement of what the mechanism would have to accomplish, explicitly described by the author as 'not measurements of its efficiency.' The apparent identity b_cs = 184 G = B_{∥,c} is an algebraic consequence of expressing both the shear-energy reservoir and the marginal-stability condition in terms of the same ΔU, ρ1, and ρ2; it is not a fit of one quantity to another and is correctly presented as a self-limiting upper bound. The reconnection heating fractions (0.28–0.44) are imported from external magnetospheric studies (Phan et al.; Øieroset et al.) with a stated extrapolation caveat. The author's own prior KHI simulations are cited as evidence of the plausibility of current-sheet formation, but the central claim does not depend on a self-citation chain: it is an openly conditional estimate that would be falsified if a vertical Poynting-flux analysis finds no upward transport. The limitations—MURaM's 500 km extent lying mostly below the visible surface, the absence of measured ξ_B and η_up, and the large guide-field ratio for the heating scalings—are disclosed in the manuscript, further indicating that the argument is not circular but merely incomplete in its empirical support.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. All free parameters are adopted from observations, simulations, or external empirical scalings, and are clearly tabulated in Table 1.

free parameters (9)
  • rho1 = 3.0e-4 kg/m3
    Adopted reference photospheric density near tau500=1, not measured in the DKIST event; used for absolute normalization of shear energy.
  • f_KH = 0.03
    Adopted from instantaneous active-area fraction in a single MURaM snapshot; not a measured time average.
  • T = 150 s
    Illustrative KH evolution and renewal time, not a measured recurrence period; used to normalize areal heat flux.
  • H = 500 km
    Vertical coherence length of KH rolls from MURaM simulation; used to estimate vortex volume.
  • Delta_U = 3.0 km/s
    Shear velocity from MURaM analysis, not directly measured by DKIST.
  • rho1_rho2_ratio = 4
    Mean density contrast from MURaM linear analysis.
  • Bz = 1.4 kG
    Representative photospheric field strength used for angle normalization.
  • alpha_range = 1-7 deg
    Sensitivity range for effective field inclination relative to perpendicular; not measured.
  • epsilon_rec = 0.28-0.44
    Empirical reconnection heating fraction from magnetopause and magnetotail observations; applied to solar corona (extrapolated).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Chandrasekhar tangential discontinuity stability criterion (incompressible ideal MHD)
    Used in Eqs. (2)-(4) to derive marginal stability field and growth-rate ratios. Its applicability to the partially ionized, stratified, compressible photosphere is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Empirical reconnection heating fractions from magnetosphere apply to corona
    Eq. (11) transfers Phan et al. (2013, 2014) and Oieroset et al. (2024) heating coefficients to solar conditions with guide ratio about 7.5, an extrapolation acknowledged in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption KH vortex can wind in-plane magnetic field into thin current sheets
    Based on simulations (Nykyri and Otto 2001, 2004) rather than direct observation of current sheets above the DKIST vortices.
  • domain assumption Twist angle is preserved along the expanding flux tube
    Eq. (14) assumes the 7.6 degree twist propagates upward with the field; this is part of eta_up and is unmeasured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photospheric Kelvin--Helmholtz Vortices as Possible Drivers of Coronal Heating: Implications of the DKIST Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHJXKHYC

@misc{pith2026260812796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photospheric Kelvin--Helmholtz Vortices as Possible Drivers of Coronal Heating: Implications of the DKIST Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHJXKHYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12796}
}
abstract

The Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) has resolved Kelvin--Helmholtz (KH) vortices at photospheric magnetic-flux boundaries with a characteristic wavelength of 65 km. I estimate whether these vortices can supply the photospheric driver for cross-scale plasma heating through reconnection across different heights from photosphere to low-corona. Using the simulated MURaM shear, density contrast, and 500 km vertical extent, together with a representative photospheric density, gives a shear-energy density of $1.35\times10^{2}$ J m$^{-3}$ and $2.2\times10^{24}$ erg per characteristic vortex. Magnetic fields $1^\circ$--$7^\circ$ from the exact perpendicular orientation ($ {\bf{B}}\perp{\bf{k}}$) remain KH unstable in an idealized calculation and provide an in-plane component that can be wound or compressed into current layers. The limiting case, in which the center-of-momentum shear reservoir becomes new magnetic free energy, gives $b_{\rm cs}=184$ G, identical to the ideal marginal-stability field and equivalent to a $7.6^\circ$ effective twist. This stores at most 135 J m$^{-3}$ in the layers. Using empirical collisionless reconnection heating fractions of 0.28--0.44, the same twist mapped to weakly collisional heights gives ion heating from $\approx$20 eV at the photosphere to $\approx$1.4 keV in the low corona. For an illustrative, snapshot-based KH-active surface fraction of 0.03, quiet-Sun and coronal-hole losses require 5--8\% and 14--21\%, respectively, of the shear reservoir to become reconnecting magnetic free energy that reaches such heights. Active regions likely require a separate guide-field twist and helicity reservoir. The required upward transport has not been measured by DKIST, but it is directly testable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A possible cross-scale path from photospheric KH forcing to the low corona through KH driven reconnection and component reconnection. (a): A photospheric DKIST-scale tornado-like vortex acts at the footpoint of an expanding twisted magnetic structure at the magnetic-flux boundaries, with short horizontal, reconnecting current layers at several heights, locally perpendicular to the dominant guide field that extends f… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, ApJL, 787, L22, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L22

    Antolin, P., Yokoyama, T., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2014, ApJL, 787, L22, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L22

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l22 2014

  2. [2]

    H., & Loeser, R

    Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 2008, ApJS, 175, 229, doi:10.1086/523671

    doi:10.1086/523671 2008

  3. [3]

    1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford: Clarendon)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford: Clarendon)

    1961

  4. [4]

    A., & Drake, J

    Cassak, P. A., & Drake, J. F. 2009, ApJL, 707, L158, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/L158

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/l158 2009

  5. [5]

    P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A166, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244170 2022

  6. [6]

    R., & Winebarger, A

    Cranmer, S. R., & Winebarger, A. R. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 157, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416 De Moortel, I., & Browning, P. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140269, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0269

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Eriksson, S., Lavraud, B., Wilder, F. D., et al. 2016, GRL, 43, 5606, doi:10.1002/2016GL068783

    doi:10.1002/2016gl068783 2016

  8. [8]

    2012, EPL, 100, 69001, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/100/69001

    Faganello, M., Califano, F., Pegoraro, F., & Andreussi, T. 2012, EPL, 100, 69001, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/100/69001

    doi:10.1209/0295-5075/100/69001 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Faganello, M., & Califano, F. 2017, J. Plasma Phys., 83, 535830601, doi:10.1017/S0022377817000770

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Avrett, E., Thuillier, G., & Harder, J

    Fontenla, J. M., Avrett, E., Thuillier, G., & Harder, J. 2006, ApJ, 639, 441, doi:10.1086/499345

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Nykyri, K., & Farrugia, C

    Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., Nakariakov, V. M., Nykyri, K., & Farrugia, C. J. 2011, ApJL, 729, L8, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L8

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    J., & Hannah, I

    Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., Nykyri, K., Aschwanden, M. J., & Hannah, I. G. 2013, ApJ, 767, 170, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/170

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Hasegawa, H., Nakamura, T. K. M., Gershman, D. J., et al. 2020, JGR Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027595, doi:10.1029/2019JA027595

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, ApJL, 864, L10, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad9a5

    Hillier, A., & Polito, V. 2018, ApJL, 864, L10, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad9a5

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A., De Moortel, I., & Antolin, P

    Howson, T. A., De Moortel, I., & Antolin, P. 2017, A&A, 607, A77, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731178

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    A., De Moortel, I., & Pontin, D

    Howson, T. A., De Moortel, I., & Pontin, D. I. 2021, A&A, 656, A112, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141620

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, A&A, 604, A130, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730598

    Karampelas, K., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Antolin, P. 2017, A&A, 604, A130, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730598

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2006, Sol. Phys., 234, 41, doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140256, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0256

    2015

  12. [20]

    Johnston, C. D. 2023, Front. Phys., 11, 1198194, doi:10.3389/fphy.2023.1198194

    2023

  13. [21]

    DeVore, C. R. 2019, ApJ, 883, 26, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3afd

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    V., Henriques, V., et al

    Kuridze, D., Zaqarashvili, T. V., Henriques, V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 133, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/133

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2026, Nature, doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10871-3

    Kuridze, D., et al. 2026, Nature, doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10871-3

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    Lapenta, G., & Knoll, D. A. 2003, Sol. Phys., 214, 107, doi:10.1023/A:1024036917505

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Lukin, V

    Leake, J. E., Lukin, V. S., Linton, M. G., & Meier, E. T. 2012, ApJ, 760, 109, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/109

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    V., et al

    Li, W., Andr´ e, M., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., et al. 2016, GRL, 43, 5635, doi:10.1002/2016GL069192

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, Geophys

    Li, T., Li, W., Tang, B., et al. 2023, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL105539, doi:10.1029/2023GL105539

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, Sci

    Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, S., Hou, Y., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2018, Sci. Rep., 8, 8136, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Phys. Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi:10.1063/1.2783986

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Ma, X., Otto, A., & Delamere, P. A. 2014a, JGR Space Physics, 119, 781, doi:10.1002/2013JA019224

    doi

  23. [31]

    Ma, X., Otto, A., & Delamere, P. A. 2014b, JGR Space Physics, 119, 808, doi:10.1002/2013JA019225

    doi

  24. [32]

    A., Otto, A., & Burkholder, B

    Ma, X., Delamere, P. A., Otto, A., & Burkholder, B. 2017, JGR Space Physics, 122, 10382, doi:10.1002/2017JA024394

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Nykyri, K., et al

    Ma, X., Delamere, P. A., Nykyri, K., et al. 2019, JGR Space Physics, 124, 6654, doi:10.1029/2019JA026890

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, Space Sci

    Masson, A., & Nykyri, K. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 71, doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0505-6 Mart´ ınez-G´ omez, D., Soler, R., & Terradas, J. 2015, A&A, 578, A104, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525785

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Nykyri, K., & Dimmock, A

    Moore, T. W., Nykyri, K., & Dimmock, A. P. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 1164, doi:10.1038/nphys3869

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Nykyri, K., & Dimmock, A

    Moore, T. W., Nykyri, K., & Dimmock, A. P. 2017, JGR Space Physics, 122, 11128, doi:10.1002/2017JA024591

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2566, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw703 10Nykyri

    Khomenko, E. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2566, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw703 10Nykyri

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Nakamura, T. K. M., Fujimoto, M., & Otto, A. 2006, GRL, 33, L14106, doi:10.1029/2006GL026318

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Nakamura, T. K. M., Hasegawa, H., Daughton, W., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1582, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01579-0

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2013, GRL, 40, 4154, doi:10.1002/grl.50807

    Nykyri, K., & Foullon, C. 2013, GRL, 40, 4154, doi:10.1002/grl.50807

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2001, GRL, 28, 3565, doi:10.1029/2001GL013239

    Nykyri, K., & Otto, A. 2001, GRL, 28, 3565, doi:10.1029/2001GL013239

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    2004, Ann

    Nykyri, K., & Otto, A. 2004, Ann. Geophys., 22, 935, doi:10.5194/angeo-22-935-2004

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    2006, Ann

    Nykyri, K., Otto, A., Lavraud, B., et al. 2006, Ann. Geophys., 24, 2619, doi:10.5194/angeo-24-2619-2006

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    Nykyri, K., Ma, X., & Johnson, J. R. 2021a, in Magnetospheres in the Solar System, ed. R. Maggiolo, N. Andr´ e, H. Hasegawa, et al. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/AGU), 109, doi:10.1002/9781119815624.ch7

    doi

  37. [45]

    2021b, JGR Space Physics, 126, e2019JA027698, doi:10.1029/2019JA027698

    Nykyri, K., Ma, X., Burkholder, B., et al. 2021b, JGR Space Physics, 126, e2019JA027698, doi:10.1029/2019JA027698

    doi

  38. [46]

    2024, GRL, 51, e2024GL110477, doi:10.1029/2024GL110477

    Nykyri, K. 2024, GRL, 51, e2024GL110477, doi:10.1029/2024GL110477

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2026, GRL, 53, e2026GL124403, doi:10.1029/2026GL124403

    Nykyri, K., Arya, N., Boardsen, S., et al. 2026, GRL, 53, e2026GL124403, doi:10.1029/2026GL124403

    2026 doi

  40. [48]

    Ofman, L., & Thompson, B. J. 2011, ApJL, 734, L11, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L11

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    2026, ApJL, 997, L28, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3136

    Ofman, L., Khabarova, O., Kwon, R.-Y., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L28, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3136

    2026 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Øieroset, M., et al

    Oka, M., Phan, T. D., Øieroset, M., et al. 2022, Phys. Plasmas, 29, 052904, doi:10.1063/5.0085647

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, Space Sci

    Oka, M., Birn, J., Egedal, J., et al. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 75, doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8 Øieroset, M., Phan, T. D., Oka, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 118, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdf44 Øieroset, M., Phan, T. D., Drake, J. F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 144, doi:10.3847/15...

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Three-Dimensional Simulation of Kelvin–Helmholtz Modes at the Magnetospheric Boundary,

    Otto, A. 2008, “Three-Dimensional Simulation of Kelvin–Helmholtz Modes at the Magnetospheric Boundary,”AGU Spring Meeting Abstracts, 2008, SM53A-02, ADS

    2008

  45. [53]

    Otto, A., & Fairfield, D. H. 2000, JGR, 105, 21175, doi:10.1029/1999JA000312

    2000 doi

  46. [54]

    G., et al

    Paouris, E., Stenborg, G., Linton, M. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 139, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2208

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Parker, E. N. 1988, ApJ, 330, 474, doi:10.1086/166485

    1988 doi

  48. [56]

    E., & De Moortel, I

    Parnell, C. E., & De Moortel, I. 2012, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 370, 3217, doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0113

    2012

  49. [57]

    D., Shay, M

    Phan, T. D., Shay, M. A., Gosling, J. T., et al. 2013, GRL, 40, 4475, doi:10.1002/grl.50917

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Drake, J

    Phan, T. D., Drake, J. F., Shay, M. A., et al. 2014, GRL, 41, 7002, doi:10.1002/2014GL061547

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., & Dahlburg, R

    Rappazzo, A. F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., & Dahlburg, R. B. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1348, doi:10.1086/528786

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 233, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda54

    Shi, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., Guo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 233, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda54

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2010, ApJ, 712, 875, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/875

    Goossens, M. 2010, ApJ, 712, 875, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/875

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Eriksson, S., Wilder, F

    Stawarz, J. E., Eriksson, S., Wilder, F. D., et al. 2016, JGR Space Physics, 121, 11021, doi:10.1002/2016JA023458

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    2008, ApJL, 687, L115, doi:10.1086/593203 Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A

    Terradas, J., Andries, J., Goossens, M., et al. 2008, ApJL, 687, L115, doi:10.1086/593203 Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A. K., Antolin, P., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 140, doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00770-y

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    2016, JGR Space Physics, 121, 9926, doi:10.1002/2016JA023051

    Vernisse, Y., Lavraud, B., Eriksson, S., et al. 2016, JGR Space Physics, 121, 9926, doi:10.1002/2016JA023051

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Ergun, R

    Wilder, F. D., Ergun, R. E., Schwartz, S. J., et al. 2016, GRL, 43, 8859, doi:10.1002/2016GL070404

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    Wilmot-Smith, A. L. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140265, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0265

    2015

  59. [67]

    L., & Noyes, R

    Withbroe, G. L., & Noyes, R. W. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 363, doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051

    1977

  60. [68]

    V., Zhelyazkov, I., & Ofman, L

    Zaqarashvili, T. V., Zhelyazkov, I., & Ofman, L. 2015, ApJ, 813, 123, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/123

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.