Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Inverse cascade from helical and nonhelical decaying columnar magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Columnar magnetic fields spontaneously isotropize and then decay like isotropic MHD turbulence.

desk verdict A solid numerical bridge from anisotropic columnar seed fields to isotropic decaying-MHD phenomenology; the isotropization result is solid, but the Hosking-scaling claim needs a box-size test before it is load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12200 v1 pith:2LSEXY52 submitted 2025-01-21 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.CO

Axel Brandenburg , Longqing Yi , Xianshu Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.CO
keywords inversecascademagnetichelicityHoskingintegralturbulentdecaymagnetohydrodynamicsRobertsfieldsisotropizationcosmological
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

Powerful lasers may soon create magnetic fields in the laboratory, but those fields would be highly anisotropic, tube-like structures rather than the isotropic turbulence studied in simulations. This paper uses direct numerical simulations of two textbook initial conditions—the helical Roberts field I and the pointwise nonhelical Roberts field II—to ask whether such anisotropic fields still undergo the familiar turbulent decay and inverse cascade. It finds that both fields are unstable and spontaneously isotropize: the anisotropy measure ⟨J²⊥⊥⟩/⟨J²⟩ grows from zero toward the isotropic value of 4/15. Once isotropized, the decay follows the same power laws as isotropic MHD turbulence, and in the nonhelical case the decay is consistent with the Hosking integral being the conserved quantity that controls the evolution. The paper also confirms that the ratio of the magnetic decay time to the Alfvén time is about 50, reaching 100 at intermediate times, which matters for how long cosmological magnetic fields persist.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two ingredients. The first is the Roberts fields, a family of two-dimensional periodic magnetic fields used as initial conditions: Roberts field I is maximally helical, with B·∇×B ≠ 0 everywhere, and Roberts field II is pointwise nonhelical, with B·∇×B = 0; they represent an array of flux tubes along one axis. The second is the anisotropy diagnostic based on the decomposition of the current density J = ∇‖×B⊥ + ∇⊥×B‖ + ∇⊥×B⊥, where the ratio ⟨J²⊥⊥⟩/⟨J²⟩ isolates the contribution that vanishes for a columnar field and rises to 4/15 for isotropic turbulence, tracking the isotropization. For the nonhelical case, the decay analysis is tied to the Hosking integral IH = ∫ w(k,R) Sp(h; k,t) dk, evaluated by a box-counting method, which quantifies the variance of magnetic helicity and is argued to be the conserved quantity controlling decay when the mean helicity is zero.

What would settle it

In a simulation of the nonhelical Roberts field II with larger scale separation and longer run time, measure the instantaneous slopes of ξM(t) and EM(t) and the time dependence of IH(t). If, during the developed turbulent phase, the slopes do not approach 4/9 and −10/9 respectively, or if IH(t) drifts by a factor of order unity rather than staying constant, the claim that the Hosking integral governs this decay is falsified. Alternatively, a laboratory experiment starting from a columnar magnetic field that does not isotropize within a few Alfvén times would falsify the spontaneous-isotropization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a columnar, highly anisotropic magnetic field spontaneously isotropizes during turbulent decay, after which its dynamics match those of isotropic MHD turbulence. For the helical Roberts field I, this means the familiar inverse cascade with correlation length ξM ∝ $t^{{2/3}}$ and magnetic energy EM ∝ $t^{{−2/3}}$; for the pointwise nonhelical Roberts field II, it means a decay consistent with ξM ∝ $t^{{4/9}}$ and EM ∝ $t^{{−10/9}}$, the exponents associated with the Hosking integral. A second claim is that the pointwise nonhelical field is unstable: it develops magnetic helicity fluctuations that grow rapidly, and once turbulence is fully developed the Hosking integral IH is conserved and takes values exceeding the dimensional estimate EM²ξM⁵ by a factor of several thousand. A third claim is that the magnetic decay time exceeds the Alfvén time by a factor that approaches about 50 at late times and can reach 100 in the intermediate phase, in both helical and nonhelical cases.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the nonhelical runs depends on the assumption, taken from earlier work rather than derived here, that the Hosking integral is exactly conserved and controls the turbulent decay when the mean magnetic helicity vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Laboratory experiments that generate anisotropic, tube-like magnetic fields should observe the same inverse cascade and decay laws as isotropic MHD turbulence once the field isotropizes, provided the initial scale separation is roughly four or more flux tubes per side.
  • The pointwise nonhelical Roberts field II is unstable to small perturbations and spontaneously generates magnetic helicity fluctuations; the Hosking integral becomes well conserved after turbulence develops, supporting its role as the invariant governing nonhelical magnetic decay.
  • The decay time is resistively prolonged, with t/τA ≈ 50 at late times and up to 100 at intermediate times, implying that cosmological magnetic fields survive longer than an Alfvén-time estimate would suggest.
  • The dimensionless prefactors in the decay laws differ from those found in earlier isotropic simulations, indicating that these prefactors are not universal and that simple power-law fits with arbitrary normalization are misleading.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If spontaneous isotropization is generic, then the anisotropy of laser-produced magnetic fields is not an obstacle to laboratory studies of inverse cascade; waiting a few Alfvén times should suffice, so near-term experiments with only moderate scale separation could be feasible.
  • The authors read the transient exponents near 3 in the nonhelical run as an approach to the Hosking scaling (20/9), but an alternative reading is that the Hosking integral only becomes the controlling invariant after a very long transient, or that an additional invariant matters in the anisotropic phase; longer simulations or runs with different scale separations would distinguish these options.
  • The apparent non-universality of the prefactors, if upheld, would mean that the amplitude of a primordial magnetic field today cannot be predicted solely from the power-law exponents; the initial conditions and the conserved quantities (IM and IH) must be specified as well.
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. This paper studies the turbulent decay of strongly anisotropic, columnar magnetic fields realized as Roberts fields I and II. Using direct numerical simulations of compressible MHD, the authors report that both fields are unstable to small perturbations and spontaneously isotropize, as monitored by the ratio ⟨J⊥⊥²⟩/⟨J²⟩ approaching the isotropic value 4/15. For the helical Roberts field I, the decay follows the familiar helical inverse-cascade behavior. For the pointwise nonhelical Roberts field II, the authors report that magnetic helicity fluctuations grow and that the Hosking integral becomes approximately conserved at late times, with the decay purportedly controlled by the Hosking scaling. They also discuss the ratio of magnetic decay time to Alfvén time, finding values around 50 and up to about 100 at intermediate times, and they compare dimensionless prefactors in the decay laws with earlier isotropic simulations, questioning their universality.

Significance. The isotropization result is potentially significant for laboratory experiments with laser-produced magnetic fields, because it suggests that highly anisotropic initial conditions may still decay like isotropic MHD turbulence after a transient. The paper's strengths include direct simulations with a documented numerical code, openly available data, an explicit isotropic baseline in Appendix A, and a clear diagnostic (⟨J⊥⊥²⟩/⟨J²⟩) for quantifying emergent isotropization. The nonhelical part of the paper is more delicate: it imports the Hosking-integral phenomenology from earlier work and attempts to verify it in a new anisotropic setting, but the verification is incomplete. The prefactor comparison in Section 4.2 is also not yet conclusive. If the nonhelical decay law is confirmed by further tests, the paper would provide a useful bridge between anisotropic initial conditions and the established isotropic decay phenomenology.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 6] The paper's central nonhelical claim is that the Hosking integral governs the decay, but the measured late-time slopes of ξ_M^5 and E_M^2 are about 3 (Figure 6a), whereas the Hosking prediction is 20/9. The statement in §3.3 that the instantaneous exponents 'show a clear evolution toward the expected values' is not supported by any quantitative convergence test or by a demonstration that the slope is approaching 20/9 rather than 3. Since this is the only direct evidence for the Hosking decay law in the anisotropic setup, the authors should provide a finite-box convergence study (at least two domain sizes or scale-separation ratios) or an explicit fit of the transient approach to the asymptotic exponent before asserting that the Hosking integral governs the decay.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 5] The plateau in I_H(R) that is used to identify the conserved Hosking integral occurs at R ≈ 1, which the paper itself associates with scales comparable to the computational domain. Because the Hosking integral is defined through the limit of large R but still R small compared with the domain size, this plateau could be a finite-domain artifact. No run with a different box size L⊥ is presented. A box-size test, varying L⊥ while keeping k0/k1 fixed, or an examination of a wider range of R*, is needed to demonstrate that the inferred conservation is not an artifact of the periodic box.
  3. [§4.2, Table 2] The dimensionless prefactors determined here differ from earlier values by factors of about 2–25 (for example, C_M^(E) = 15 versus 4.3, and C_H^(E) = 6 versus 3.7–4.0), yet the conclusions in §5 describe the prefactors as 'roughly similar'. The discussion of whether these prefactors are universal is therefore internally inconsistent, and it is based on single simulations with no quoted uncertainties. The authors should either report uncertainties and assess whether the differences are statistically significant, or substantially soften the universality discussion in both §4.2 and §5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, final paragraph] The sentence 'the decay time can exceed the Alfvén time by a factor of about' is incomplete; a numerical value appears to be missing after 'about'.
  2. [§2.2] The text contains the typo 'i,e.' where 'i.e.' is meant.
  3. [§3.3, inset of Fig. 6] The text says that the early growth of I_H is closer to a power law with an exponent 'around six', while the inset is labeled with a line ∝ e^{30t}; these two statements should be reconciled.
  4. [Fig. 7(a) and §4.1] The description of the open and filled symbols marking t = 10 and t = 100, together with the lines of constant τ_A, would be clearer if the figure distinguished data points from reference lines more explicitly; in the current version it is easy to misread the τ_A lines as data.
  5. [Table 1] The growth rates λ are read from single runs, and the table does not state the time window over which the semilogarithmic derivative is measured or give any uncertainty estimate; adding this information would make the comparison across k0 values more meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Hosking-integral and decay-law scalings are used as external benchmarks, not fitted outputs; the paper reports the observed deviations rather than redefining them away.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are direct numerical measurements: the growth of the anisotropy ratio J_perp_perp^2 / J^2, the spectral evolution of magnetic energy and helicity variance, the compensated decay of xi_M and E_M, and the time history of the Hosking integral. The decay exponents p = 10/9, q = 4/9 and the conserved character of the Hosking integral are imported from prior work, notably Hosking & Schekochihin (2021) and Zhou et al. (2022), and are used as benchmarks against which the new anisotropic simulations are compared. There is no equation in the paper in which the predicted quantity is defined in terms of the data used to 'verify' it, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. In fact, the paper explicitly documents disagreement with the Hosking predictions: the late-time slopes of xi_M^5 and E_M^2 are about 3 rather than 20/9, and the authors label these as transient instantaneous exponents evolving toward the expected values. That is an honest comparison against an external hypothesis, not a circular derivation. The self-citations are numerous, but they support the interpretive framework and the numerical method (box-counting evaluation of the Hosking integral) rather than supplying the measured results. The empirical observations of isotropization, instability of the Roberts field II, and growth of magnetic helicity fluctuations stand independently of those citations. No specific reduction of a conclusion to its input, whether by definition, fitting, or self-citation chain, can be exhibited from the text. The paper is therefore self-contained as an experimental/numerical study, and the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central numerical results rest mainly on two imported physical assumptions: Hosking-integral conservation for nonhelical decay and the isotropic benchmark value 4/15 for the anisotropy diagnostic, plus the stated numerical scheme. No new free parameters or entities are introduced; the hand-set drag coefficient cα = 3 in Appendix B is not used for the main claims.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Hosking integral IH is a conserved quantity that governs turbulent decay when the mean magnetic helicity vanishes.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 when expecting ξM^5 ∝ t^{20/9} and EM^2 ∝ t^{20/9}; imported from Hosking and Schekochihin (2021) and Zhou et al. (2022), not derived here.
  • domain assumption In isotropic turbulence, the anisotropy diagnostic ⟨J⊥⊥²⟩/⟨J²⟩ tends to 4/15.
    Used in Section 2.2 and Figure 1 as the signature of isotropization; supported only by a single isotropic simulation in Appendix A, not by an analytic derivation.
  • domain assumption The turbulent decay is self-similar, with EM ∝ t^{-p} and ξM ∝ t^q over the phases of interest.
    Used in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 to interpret diagnostic diagrams and compensated evolutions; taken from earlier self-similar decay literature.
  • domain assumption The Pencil Code's sixth-order spatial discretization and 1024^3 resolution adequately resolve the simulated dynamics, with lower-Lundquist runs confirming that large-scale evolution is unaffected.
    A practical numerical assumption stated around Figure 3 and in the discussion of the Nyquist bump; no formal convergence proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse cascade from helical and nonhelical decaying columnar magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LSEXY52

@misc{pith2026250112200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse cascade from helical and nonhelical decaying columnar magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LSEXY52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12200}
}
abstract

Powerful lasers may in future produce magnetic fields that would allow us to study turbulent magnetohydrodynamic inverse cascade behavior. This has so far only been seen in numerical simulations. In the laboratory, however, the produced fields may be highly anisotropic. Here, we present corresponding simulations to show that, during the turbulent decay, such a magnetic field undergoes spontaneous isotropization. As a consequence, we find the decay dynamics to be similar to that in isotropic turbulence. We also find that an initially pointwise nonhelical magnetic field is unstable and develops magnetic helicity fluctuations that can be quantified by the Hosking integral. It is a conserved quantity that characterizes magnetic helicity fluctuations and governs the turbulent decay when the mean magnetic helicity vanishes. As in earlier work, the ratio of the magnetic decay time to the Alfv\'en time is found to be around $50$ in the helical and nonhelical cases. At intermediate times, the ratio can even reach a hundred. This ratio determines the endpoints of cosmological magnetic field evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of hJ 2 ⊥⊥i/hJ 2 i for (a) Roberts field I with k0 = 4 (blue), 8 (green), 16 (orange), 32 (red), and 64 (black dashed), and for (b) Roberts field II with k0 = 2 (black), 4 (blue), 8 (green), 16 (orange), 32 (red), and 64 (black dashed). The short thick line on the upper right indicates the value of 4/15, which is reached only at much later times outside this plot. The insets demonstrates that hJ 2 ⊥⊥i/hJ 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualizations of Bz on the periphery of the computational domain at times t = 1, 10, 30, and 100 for Roberts field I (top) and at times t = 1, 10, 100, and 1000 for Roberts field II (bottom). an approximation to the value of the Hosking integral (Hosking & Schekochihin 2021). Again, we see a sharp rise in both time series when the fields becomes unstable. We also see that at late times, a bump appears in the spectr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of magnetic energy and magnetic helicity variance spectra, Sp(B) and Sp(h), respectively, for Roberts field I with k0 = 16 at different times ti indicated by different colors and line types as seen in the time traces on the right. The open black symbols in panels (b) and (d) correspond to the dotted lines in panels (a) and (c). by Hosking & Schekochihin (2021), and the present experiments with the Roberts … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as figure 3, but for the Roberts field II at different times ti as seen in the time traces on the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: IH(R) for Roberts field II with (a) k0 = 4 at t = 1 (black), 1.5 (blue), 2.2 (green), 3.2 (orange), and 4.6 (red). and (b) k0 = 16 at t = 46 (black), 147 (blue), 316 (green), 570 (orange), and 824 (red). The arrow indicates the sense of time. E 2 M ∝ t 20/9 , i.e, the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time dependence of (a) IH(t) (black solid line) along with E 2 Mξ 5 M (red solid line) in units of v 4 Ak −5 0 as well as E 2 M/v4 A0 (blue dashed line) and ξ 5 Mk 5 0 (orange dashed line) and (b) the ratio IH/E 2 Mξ 5 M for Roberts field II with k0 = 16. The plateaus …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Parametric representation of vA versus ξM for Roberts fields I (red) and II (blue). The solid (dotted) curves are for η = 2 × 10−7 (η = 4 × 10−6 ). Note that the red dotted line for η = 4 × 10−6 starts at the same value vA = √ 1.28 as the nonhelical runs (blue line…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) t/τA and (b) Lu versus time for Roberts fields I (red) and II (blue). length scales is probably related to the breakup of the initially organized tube-like struc￾tures into smaller scales. In the helical case, however, the nonlinear interaction among helical modes …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Compensated evolutions of ξM and EM allowing the nondimensional prefactors in equation (4.1) to be estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of hJ 2 ⊥mi/hJ 2 i, hJ 2 ⊥⊥i/hJ 2 i, and hJ 2 k i/hJ 2 i for decaying isotropic turbulence with an initial peak wavenumber k0/k1 = 8 using 10243 meshpoints (a) with helicity and (b) without helicity. Declaration of Interests The authors report no conflict of…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as figure 7(a), but for cα = 3, showing a parametric representation of Brms versus Brms/Jrms and ξM for Roberts field I (left) with k0 = 2 (black), 4 (blue), 8 (green), and 16 (orange), 32 (red), 64 (black), and 128 (blue). The open (filled) symbols in both plots…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Berera , A

    Armua , A. , Berera , A. & Calder \'o n-Figueroa , J. 2023 Parameter study of decaying magnetohydrodynamic turbulence . 107 (5), 055206 , arXiv:arXiv: 2212.02418

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    & Jedamzik, K

    Banerjee, R. & Jedamzik, K. 2004 Evolution of cosmic magnetic fields: From the very early universe, to recombination, to the present . 70 , 123003

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Decay laws for three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    Biskamp , D. & M \"u ller , W.-C. 1999 Decay Laws for Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence . 83 (11), 2195--2198 , arXiv:arXiv: physics/9903028

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    Turbulent magnetic decay controlled by two conserved quantities

    Brandenburg , A. & Banerjee , A. 2025 Turbulent magnetic decay controlled by two conserved quantities . J. Plasma Phys. 91 (1), E5 , arXiv:arXiv: 2406.11798

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    & Kahniashvili , T

    Brandenburg , A. & Kahniashvili , T. 2017 Classes of Hydrodynamic and Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulent Decay . 118 , 055102 , arXiv:arXiv: 1607.01360

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    , Kahniashvili , T

    Brandenburg , A. , Kahniashvili , T. & Tevzadze , A. G. 2015 Nonhelical inverse transfer of a decaying turbulent magnetic field . 114 (7), 075001 , arXiv:arXiv: 1404.2238

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Turbulence with Magnetic Helicity that is Absent on Average

    Brandenburg , A. & Larsson , G. 2023 Turbulence with Magnetic Helicity That Is Absent on Average . Atmosphere 14 (6), 932 , arXiv:arXiv: 2305.08769

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    , Neronov , A

    Brandenburg , A. , Neronov , A. & Vazza , F. 2024 Resistively controlled primordial magnetic turbulence decay . 687 , A186 , arXiv:arXiv: 2401.08569

    arXiv 2024

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    , Sharma , R

    Brandenburg , A. , Sharma , R. & Vachaspati , T. 2023 Inverse cascading for initial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence spectra between Saffman and Batchelor . J. Plasma Phys. 89 (6), 905890606 , arXiv:arXiv: 2307.04602

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    & Subramanian , K

    Brandenburg , A. & Subramanian , K. 2005 Astrophysical magnetic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory . 417 , 1--209 , arXiv:arXiv: astro-ph/0405052

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , Pouquet , A

    Frisch , U. , Pouquet , A. , Leorat , J. & Mazure , A. 1975 Possibility of an inverse cascade of magnetic helicity in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence . J. Fluid Mech. 68 , 769--778

    1975

  4. [12]

    1984 Kolmogorov-Style Argument for the Decaying Homogeneous MHD Turbulence

    Hatori , T. 1984 Kolmogorov-Style Argument for the Decaying Homogeneous MHD Turbulence . Phys. Soc. Jpn. 53 (8), 2539

    1984

  5. [13]

    Hosking , D. N. & Schekochihin , A. A. 2021 Reconnection-Controlled Decay of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence and the Role of Invariants . Phys. Rev. X 11 (4), 041005 , arXiv:arXiv: 2012.01393

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hosking , D. N. & Schekochihin , A. A. 2023 Cosmic-void observations reconciled with primordial magnetogenesis . Nat. Comm. 14 , 7523 , arXiv:arXiv: 2203.03573

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    , Pukhov , A

    Jiang , K. , Pukhov , A. & Zhou , C. T. 2021 Magnetic field amplification to gigagauss scale via hydrodynamic flows and dynamos driven by femtosecond lasers . New J. Phys. 23 (6), 063054 , arXiv:arXiv: 2006.03326

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    a pyl \"a , P. , Schreiber , A. , Chatterjee , P. , K \

    Pencil Code Collaboration , Brandenburg , A. , Johansen , A. , Bourdin , P. , Dobler , W. , Lyra , W. , Rheinhardt , M. , Bingert , S. , Haugen , N. , Mee , A. , Gent , F. , Babkovskaia , N. , Yang , C.-C. , Heinemann , T. , Dintrans , B. , Mitra , D. , Candelaresi , S. , Warn...

    2021

  9. [17]

    , Devlen , E

    Rheinhardt , M. , Devlen , E. , R \"a dler , K.-H. & Brandenburg , A. 2014 Mean-field dynamo action from delayed transport . 441 , 116--126 , arXiv:arXiv: 1401.5026

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Roberts , G. O. 1972 Dynamo Action of Fluid Motions with Two-Dimensional Periodicity . Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 271 (1216), 411--454

    1972

  11. [19]

    , Rigby , A

    Tzeferacos , P. , Rigby , A. , Bott , A. F. A. , Bell , A. R. , Bingham , R. , Casner , A. , Cattaneo , F. , Churazov , E. M. , Emig , J. , Fiuza , F. , Forest , C. B. , Foster , J. , Graziani , C. , Katz , J. , Koenig , M. , Li , C. K. , Meinecke , J. , Petrasso , R. , Park ,...

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2021 Progress on cosmological magnetic fields

    Vachaspati , T. 2021 Progress on cosmological magnetic fields . Reports on Progress in Physics 84 (7), 074901 , arXiv:arXiv: 2010.10525

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    , Sharma , R

    Zhou , H. , Sharma , R. & Brandenburg , A. 2022 Scaling of the Hosking integral in decaying magnetically dominated turbulence . J. Plasma Phys. 88 (6), 905880602 , arXiv:arXiv: 2206.07513

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.