Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Alfv\'enic Motions in a Stratified Open Flux Tube: Transition from Propagating to Locally Standing Motions and Implications for the Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Propagating kink waves in a gravitationally stratified open solar flux tube can still drive Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices, because resonant absorption plus weak non-WKB reflection makes the boundary Alfvénic motions locally standing.

desk verdict A credible and well-diagnosed simulation study that demonstrates, for the first time, well-developed Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices driven by propagating kink waves in a stratified open flux tube; the proposed non-WKB reflection mechanism is plausible but not fully nailed down by the missing uniform-Alfvén-speed control run and an unspecified driver parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01695 v1 pith:3DTSIAVE submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.SR

Mingzhe Guo , Bo Li , Yuhang Gao , Yao Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcoronaMHDwaveskinkKelvin-Helmholtzinstabilityresonantabsorptionnon-WKBreflectionopenfluxtubesimulation
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 asks whether propagating transverse waves, which are ubiquitous in the open corona, can produce the turbulent fine structure that standing waves are known to produce. Using a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a stratified open flux tube rooted in the chromosphere, it finds that they can. Kink waves driven at the footpoint propagate upward, but near the tube boundary resonant absorption transfers their energy to azimuthal Alfvénic motions; gravitational stratification then causes weak non-WKB reflection off the Alfvén speed gradient, giving those boundary motions a locally standing character. The result is a persistent boundary shear that drives well-developed Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices. If correct, this provides a mechanism for wave energy to reach small dissipative scales in open-field regions without requiring a globally standing mode.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the ratio $\lambda_A/L_A$ between the local Alfvén wavelength $\lambda_A = v_A(y,z)\,P$ and the Alfvén speed variation scale $L_A = |d\ln v_A/dz|^{-1}$. Where this ratio reaches or exceeds unity, the WKB approximation fails, weak non-WKB reflection generates a counter-propagating Alfvénic component, and the Elsässer variables $z^\pm$ become comparable in amplitude near the boundary while the phase difference between $\delta v_x$ and $\delta B_x$ shifts from $\pi$ (propagating) toward $\pi/2$ (standing). This locally standing shear is what sustains the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.

What would settle it

Run the same setup with gravitational stratification removed, so the Alfvén speed is height-independent, while keeping the driver, transverse density structuring, and absorbing buffer unchanged. If the boundary layer still develops a $\delta v_x$–$\delta B_x$ phase difference near $\pi/2$, comparable Elsässer amplitudes, and Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices, the standing character does not require stratification and the proposed causal chain is falsified. A second check is whether the phase transition time shifts when the buffer is moved; the paper reports it does not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that in a three-dimensional MHD model of an open, density-enhanced flux tube extending from the chromosphere into the corona, kink waves driven periodically at the footpoint propagate upward yet still produce well-developed Kelvin-Hmholtz vortices near the tube boundary. The mechanism is two-step: resonant absorption at the inhomogeneous boundary converts kink-wave energy into azimuthal Alfvénic motions, which locally have an Alfvén wavelength comparable to or larger than the scale height of the Alfvén speed; this makes the WKB approximation fail and generates a weak counter-propagating component, so the boundary motions become locally standing rather than purely upward. The resulting persistent boundary shear drives the KHI even though the global wave field is dominated by the upward-propagating kink mode.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the locally standing boundary motions are caused by stratification-driven reflection inside the physical domain, not by waves bouncing off the artificial absorbing layer or closed top boundary; the paper tests this by relocating the absorbing layer but does not run a control with a uniform Alfvén speed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In open flux tubes, the traditional argument that propagating Alfvénic waves cannot feed the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability no longer holds when stratification is included.
  • Boundary-localized standing Alfvénic motions provide a sustained shear layer, so wave energy can cascade to small dissipative scales without requiring a globally standing mode.
  • The effect is height-dependent: locally standing motions and KHI onset are strongest where $\lambda_A/L_A$ is large, and weaken where the WKB condition is well satisfied.
  • Unresolved KH vortices and boundary turbulence from propagating waves may contribute to the enhanced non-thermal line widths observed in coronal holes and plumes.
  • Adding a torsional Alfvénic component to the driver should increase boundary shear and produce a more developed turbulent state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism holds, a clean control run that removes only the Alfvén speed gradient while keeping the same driver, transverse structuring, and buffer should show no locally standing boundary component, which would isolate non-WKB reflection from residual numerical reflection.
  • If that control passes, open-field wave heating may not require mode conversion to compressive waves: locally standing Alfvénic boundary layers could do the dissipative work themselves.
  • The same $\lambda_A/L_A$ criterion could be used to predict which observed open structures, such as plumes, plumelets, or spicules, are most likely to show KHI signatures, since it depends only on the local Alfvén speed profile and the wave period.
  • Synthetic spectral synthesis of the simulated boundary turbulence would give a concrete observable: non-thermal line broadening concentrated near the tube periphery, distinguishable from the central propagating kink.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D MHD simulations of a gravitationally stratified open magnetic flux tube extending from the chromosphere to the corona, driven at the bottom by propagating kink waves. The central claim is that resonant absorption transfers kink-wave energy to azimuthal Alfvénic motions near the tube boundary, while non-WKB reflection off the longitudinal Alfvén-speed gradient gives these boundary motions a locally standing character; this persistent shear then enables well-developed Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices even though the global wave field remains predominantly propagating. The evidence includes phase differences between δv_x and δB_x, Elsässer-variable amplitudes, Poynting-flux maps, λ_A/L_A ratio maps, and a buffer-location test in Appendix A.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, the paper overturns a long-standing expectation that propagating Alfvénic/kink waves in open coronal structures cannot efficiently drive the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, and it provides a plausible pathway to turbulent fine structure and nonthermal line broadening in coronal holes and plumes. The study is notable for its multiple, cross-consistent diagnostics and for the absence of any fitted parameters: the λ_A/L_A ratio is computed from the background equilibrium and predicts where standing behavior should appear, and the simulation matches that prediction. The height dependence and boundary localization of the standing signatures are also presented as falsifiable aspects of the mechanism. The paper's main weakness is that the causal attribution to non-WKB reflection is not isolated from residual reflection at the top boundary or the dissipative buffer, a point the authors themselves acknowledge in Appendix A.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix A] The buffer-location test does not isolate non-WKB reflection from residual reflection off the buffer or the closed top boundary. Moving z_buf from 50 to 60 Mm leaves the stratified v_A profile unchanged, so the two candidate mechanisms are not discriminated. The claim that the transition time to quadrature is 'nearly the same' is qualitative; for a 10 Mm shift and v_A ≈ 400 km/s, the round-trip delay is about 50 s, which may be comparable to the temporal resolution of the phase-difference estimate, and no quantitative tolerance is given. The authors also admit that 'a weak residual reflected component cannot be completely excluded.' A control run with a uniform Alfvén speed along z (no stratification) but the same transverse density contrast and driver amplitude is necessary to establish that the locally standing motions originate from stratification rather than from boundary reflection.
  2. [§4.2] The claim that the locally standing character is essential for the development of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is not tested within the present model. The comparison with Gao et al. (2024) involves different driver amplitude, domain extent, and chromospheric treatment, so those differences do not isolate the role of the standing component. A run that suppresses the standing component while keeping the global propagating wave field (for example, a non-reflecting upper boundary or a nearly uniform-v_A profile) would be needed to show that the KHI growth requires the locally standing motions rather than merely the large boundary shear produced by resonant absorption and phase mixing.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2 (after Eq. 3)] There is a typo: 'chromosphpere' should be 'chromosphere'.
  2. [§4.2 (last paragraph)] The word 'tranfer' should be 'transfer' in 'highlight the tranfer of propagating waves'.
  3. [§4.3 (heading)] The heading 'Implications for dynamics in open filed regions' contains 'filed', which should be 'field'.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The factor 1/2 in the driver profile is not explained; the authors should specify how the transverse profile is normalized so that the tube center experiences v0 x-hat and the boundary behavior is as intended.
  5. [Fig. 6] The λ_A/L_A color scale is difficult to interpret in a black-and-white version; adding contour lines or an explicit colorbar with numerical labels would improve readability.
  6. [§2 (buffer description)] The phrase 'the Reynolds number Re is of order of 10' is awkward; suggest 'the Reynolds number is approximately 10' or 'Re ∼ 10'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the λ_A/L_A criterion is computed from the equilibrium and tested against simulation diagnostics rather than fitted to the KHI outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that resonant absorption transfers kink-wave energy to boundary Alfvénic motions and that non-WKB reflection off the stratified Alfvén-speed gradient makes those motions locally standing, thereby sustaining the KHI. The key diagnostic ratio λ_A/L_A is defined directly from the prescribed background equilibrium and the driving period (Eqs. 7 and 8) and then compared with independently simulated phase differences, Elsässer amplitudes, and Poynting-flux reductions. No parameter is fitted to the standing-wave or KHI outcome; the driver amplitude, period, and temperatures are observationally motivated rather than tuned to force the result. Self-citations to Guo et al. (2019b, 2020, 2023) are methodological or provide standard phase relations and model setup elements, and they are not used as an unverified uniqueness argument. The Appendix A buffer test and the admitted possibility of 'a weak residual reflected component' address causal identification, not circularity: a missing uniform-Alfvén-speed control would be a robustness concern, but the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain makes the predicted standing behavior equivalent to an input, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MHD modeling plus several domain assumptions about the equilibrium, driver, and the interpretation of reflection and Elsässer variables. The key assumptions are stated and partially tested (buffer shift), but the causality of local standing to KHI is not isolated with a control run.

free parameters (10)
  • Driver amplitude v0 = 5 km/s
    Amplitude of the transverse kink-like velocity driver at the bottom boundary, chosen as observationally motivated input, not fitted to achieve KHI.
  • Driver period P = 100 s
    Period of the monoperiodic driver, typical of chromospheric transverse oscillations; affects wavelength and thus λA/LA.
  • Internal coronal temperature T_i = 1.8 MK
    Sets density contrast and Alfvén speed profile; chosen representative value for density-enhanced flux tube.
  • External coronal temperature T_e = 3.6 MK
    Ambient temperature, sets the density contrast with the tube.
  • Chromospheric pressure/density contrast p_i/p_e = 3
    Initial pressure ratio in chromosphere, chosen to give a clear transverse Alfvén speed contrast.
  • Magnetic field strength B0 = 20 G
    Uniform vertical magnetic field, a model input.
  • Tube radius R = 1 Mm
    Radius of the flux tube, chosen to represent an elementary strand.
  • Buffer start height z_buf = 50 Mm (main run), 60 Mm (test)
    Start of enhanced-viscosity buffer; test shows insensitivity.
  • Buffer Reynolds number Re_buf = ~10
    Viscosity in buffer region; chosen to absorb waves.
  • Driver transverse profile parameter b = not specified
    Shape parameter in f(r) = 1 - tanh[b(r/R-1)]; value not given in the paper, leaving a gap for exact reproduction.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Ideal MHD equations with anisotropic thermal conduction and explicit viscosity govern the plasma.
    Standard model for solar coronal plasma, solved with PLUTO code.
  • domain assumption Initial density and pressure are obtained from hydrostatic balance and the ideal gas law.
    Assumed fully ionized hydrogen plasma; standard for coronal models.
  • domain assumption The enhanced-viscosity buffer effectively suppresses reflections from the closed top boundary.
    Tested in Appendix A with z_buf=60 Mm; residual reflection judged negligible.
  • domain assumption λA/LA > 1 indicates non-negligible non-WKB reflection.
    Based on Heinemann & Olbert (1980) and Cranmer & van Ballegooijen (2005); used to explain location of standing behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper Elsässer variables z± separate upward and downward propagation in this compressible MHD flow.
    Authors explicitly call it an ad hoc proxy, acknowledging unclear meaning in compressible MHD.
  • domain assumption The kink driver at the bottom excites a propagating kink wave with prescribed profile.
    Driver formula in Eq. (3) with v0=5 km/s, P=100 s; profile parameter b unspecified.
  • ad hoc to paper The straight, non-expanding tube does not alter the qualitative mechanism.
    Stated as a limitation in the Summary; expansion could modify Alfvén speed gradient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alfv\'enic Motions in a Stratified Open Flux Tube: Transition from Propagating to Locally Standing Motions and Implications for the Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DTSIAVE

@misc{pith2026260801695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alfv\'enic Motions in a Stratified Open Flux Tube: Transition from Propagating to Locally Standing Motions and Implications for the Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DTSIAVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01695}
}
read the original abstract

Standing transverse waves in closed coronal structures have been widely studied as a possible route to energy dissipation, with resonant absorption transferring kink wave energy to localized Alfv\'enic motions and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI) accelerating the formation of small dissipative scales. However, it remains unclear whether the same mechanism applies to the open corona, given the long-standing consensus that the KHI tends to be prohibited for propagating Alfv\'enic waves. Within the framework of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), we perform three-dimensional MHD simulations of boundary-driven kink waves in a gravitationally stratified open flux tube extending from the chromosphere into the corona. We find that propagating waves in open magnetic structures can also drive the system toward a turbulent state, with KH vortices clearly identifiable across the flux tube. This occurs because resonant absorption transfers energy from the propagating kink waves to azimuthal Alfv\'enic motions near the tube boundary, and wave reflection off the gradient of the Alfv\'en speed subsequently enables these boundary motions to acquire a locally standing character. Our results provide a possible answer to the long-standing question of whether and how propagating waves in open magnetic structures can generate nonlinear turbulent fine structures despite their globally propagating nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Selected slices of the relaxed state of the 3D magnetic flux tube embedded in a stratified atmosphere. Panels (b) and (c) show the temporal evolution of the tube cross section at z = 10 Mm and z = 20 Mm, respectively, at the indicated times. An animated version of this figure is available in the HTML version of the article. The animation shows the continuous evolution of the tube cross sections from t = 0 to 174… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of (a) vx and (b) the z-component of the Poynting flux, Sz, on the x = 0 plane at the selected times as labelled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of δvx, δBx, z +, z −, and Sz along the y-axis at x = 0, z = 20 Mm. The dashed lines here indicate the positions at y = 0.8 Mm and y = 0, which are examined in more detail in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of δvx, δBx, z +, z −, and Sz at the two positions marked by the dashed lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time distance maps of the ratio between the local Alfv´en wavelength, λA, and the characteristic length scale of the Alfv´en speed variation, LA, along the y-direction at (a) x = 0, z = 20 Mm and (b) x = 0, z = 40 Mm. The black dashed lines indicate the positions at y …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of δvx and δBx at (a) (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 20) Mm and (b) (x, y, z) = (0, 0.8, 20) Mm in the test run with zbuf = 60 Mm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of the absolute phase difference between δvx and δBx at (x, y, z) = (0, 0.8, 20) Mm for the test run with zbuf = 60 Mm (solid line) and the reference run in the main text with zbuf = 50 Mm (dashed line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 5 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]

    R., & van Ballegooijen, A

    Cranmer, S. R., & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, ApJS, 156, 265, doi: 10.1086/426507

    doi:10.1086/426507 2005

  3. [3]

    Skirvin, S. J. 2023, ApJ, 955, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf454

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf454 2023

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 689, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450769

    Karampelas, K. 2024, A&A, 689, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450769

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450769 2024

  5. [5]

    Goossens, M., Erd´ elyi, R., & Ruderman, M. S. 2011, SSRv, 158, 289, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9702-7

    doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9702-7 2011

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd347

    Guo, M., Duckenfield, T., Van Doorsselaere, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd347

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd347 2023

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1df

    Guo, M., Li, B., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc1df 2020

  8. [8]

    2019a, ApJ, 883, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab338e

    Guo, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., Karampelas, K., & Li, B. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab338e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab338e

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    2019b, ApJ, 870, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d0

    Guo, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., Karampelas, K., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 870, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d0

    doi

  2. [10]

    Hahn, M., & Savin, D. W. 2013, ApJ, 776, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/78

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Heinemann, M., & Olbert, S. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 1311, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA03p01311

    1980 doi

  4. [12]

    Heyvaerts, J., & Priest, E. R. 1983, A&A, 117, 220

    1983

  5. [13]

    Doorsselaere, T., & Wright, A. N. 2019, A&A, 631, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936146

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    2019, A&A, 623, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834309

    Karampelas, K., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Guo, M. 2019, A&A, 623, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834309

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2001, ApJ, 546, 542, doi: 10.1086/318254

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/902

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Marsch, E., & Mangeney, A. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 7363, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA07p07363

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316 Miki´ c, Z., Lionello, R., Mok, Y., Linker, J

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316 Miki´ c, Z., Lionello, R., Mok, Y., Linker, J. A., &

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    Winebarger, A. R. 2013, ApJ, 773, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/94

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Gao, Y., Tajfirouze, E., et al

    Morton, R. J., Gao, Y., Tajfirouze, E., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 42, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02690-9

    2026 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R

    Morton, R. J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7813, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8813

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Verth, G., Fedun, V., Shelyag, S., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Morton, R. J., Verth, G., Fedun, V., Shelyag, S., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2013, ApJ, 768, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/17

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Kolotkov, D

    Nakariakov, V. M., & Kolotkov, D. Y. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032320-042940

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Anfinogentov, S

    Nakariakov, V. M., Anfinogentov, S. A., Antolin, P., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00847-2

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, A&A, 601, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630059

    Pagano, P., & De Moortel, I. 2017, A&A, 601, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630059

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Wright, A

    Pascoe, D. J., Wright, A. N., & De Moortel, I. 2010, ApJ, 711, 990, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/990

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 7, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-7

    Poletto, G. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 7, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-7

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5792

    Qi, Y., Guo, M., Huang, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5792

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    2008, ApJL, 687, L115, doi: 10.1086/593203

    Terradas, J., Andries, J., Goossens, M., et al. 2008, ApJL, 687, L115, doi: 10.1086/593203

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    O., Morton, R

    Thurgood, J. O., Morton, R. J., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2014, ApJL, 790, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L2

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Keil, S

    Tomczyk, S., McIntosh, S. W., Keil, S. L., et al. 2007, Science, 317, 1192, doi: 10.1126/science.1143304

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    M., DeForest, C

    Uritsky, V. M., DeForest, C. E., Karpen, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd186 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/81 Van Doorsselaere, T., Li, B., Goossens, M., Hnat, B., &

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2020a, ApJ, 899, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba0b8 Van Doorsselaere, T., Sieyra, M

    Magyar, N. 2020a, ApJ, 899, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba0b8 Van Doorsselaere, T., Sieyra, M. V., Magyar, N., Goossens, M., & Banovi´ c, L. 2025, A&A, 696, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450630 Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A. K., Antolin, P., et al. 2020b, SSRv, 216, 1...

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, A&A Rv, 19, 35, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0035-7

    Wilhelm, K., Abbo, L., Auch` ere, F., et al. 2011, A&A Rv, 19, 35, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0035-7

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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