Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 55 references

Impacts of Tidal Locking on Magnetospheric Energy Input to Exoplanet Atmospheres

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global MHD simulations show that a tidally locked Jupiter-like exoplanet attains roughly twice the cross-polar cap potential—and thus twice the magnetosphere–ionosphere energy input—of a fast-rotating planet with the same field and…

desk verdict The qualitative tidal-locking effect on CPCP is confirmed in a second MHD code, but the headline factor-of-two is read off a still-rising transient and needs a saturation check before it can be quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16825 v1 pith:7N6H5FKT submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.EP physics.space-ph

Fatemeh Bagheri , Alex Glocer , Ramon E. Lopez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords exoplanetmagnetospheretidallockingcross-polarcappotentialMHDsimulationstellarwindinteractioncentrifugalforceradioemissionhotJupiter
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

Tidally locked exoplanets are the norm for close-in orbits, yet their magnetospheric interaction with the stellar wind is often treated as an afterthought. This paper uses global MHD simulations of Jupiter-like planets to compare a tidally locked state with fast rotation, and finds that the locked planet reaches roughly twice the cross-polar cap potential—the voltage that sets magnetosphere–ionosphere energy input. The reason, the authors argue, is centrifugal force: rapid rotation pushes the magnetopause outward, lowering the dayside reconnection rate, while a locked planet's magnetopause sits closer, so more solar-wind energy couples in. If correct, the result changes predictions for atmospheric heating, auroral power, and radio emission from magnetized exoplanets, and implies that rotation period matters most for large planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-polar cap potential (CPCP), the voltage across the polar cap that measures the rate at which solar-wind energy is delivered to the ionosphere. In the simulations, constant ionospheric Pedersen conductance and a southward interplanetary magnetic field are used to maximize dayside reconnection. The argument is carried by the momentum equation in the rotating frame, whose centrifugal term $\rho\Omega^2 r$ and Coriolis term $2\rho \vec v \times \vec\Omega$ appear only for rotating planets; the centrifugal term pushes the magnetopause sunward, and the resulting increase in standoff distance is tied, through the reconnection-rate dependence, to a lower CPCP. The absence of Vasyliunas reconnection in the tidally locked tail is invoked to explain the asymmetrical distribution of dayside versus nightside reconnection.

What would settle it

Run the tidally locked Jupiter simulation past 15 hours until the cross-polar cap potential plateaus and compare the plateau value with the fast-rotating case; if the ratio falls well below two, the claimed doubling is an artifact of stopping time. As an observational check, predict the auroral radio flux from the ECMI scaling for a tidally locked hot Jupiter such as NGTS-10 b and compare it with existing radio upper limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a Jupiter-like planet with a given magnetic field immersed in the same stellar wind, the maximum cross-polar cap potential (CPCP) of a tidally locked planet is approximately twice that of a fast-rotating planet. In the authors' explanation, the extra corotation terms in the magnetosheath momentum equation—centrifugal and Coriolis forces—are responsible: on a fast rotator the centrifugal force pushes the magnetopause farther from the planet, and a more distant magnetopause means a lower dayside reconnection rate and a smaller CPCP. The tidally locked planet lacks this effect, keeping the magnetopause close and the reconnection rate high. The paper also shows that the CPCP difference persists across a wide range of solar wind densities and interplanetary magnetic field strengths, including the extreme conditions of hot Jupiters; that CPCP decreases linearly as corotation period shortens; and that for Earth-sized planets the corotation effect is negligible, consistent with the centrifugal mechanism because the force scales with radius. A corollary the authors draw is that tidally locked magnetized exoplanets may emit more cyclotron radio emission than equally magnetized fast rotators.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the CPCP values taken at 10–15 hours of simulated time are representative; the tidally locked run is still climbing at 15 hours, so the 'approximately twice' ratio is a snapshot, not a demonstrated equilibrium peak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, magnetized tidally locked exoplanets receive roughly twice the magnetosphere–ionosphere energy input of fast rotators of the same size and field, implying stronger Joule heating and auroral acceleration.
  • The difference persists under hot-Jupiter-like extreme solar wind conditions, so rotation state should be included in models of atmospheric escape and thermal evolution of close-in planets.
  • CPCP decreases linearly with increasing rotation speed, so the shortest-period tidally locked planets (corotation period around a day) behave like fast rotators, narrowing the window where the doubling applies.
  • For Earth-sized planets, rotation speed barely affects CPCP, so the centrifugal mechanism is mainly relevant for gas giants with large radii.
  • Tidally locked exoplanets with dynamo-generated magnetic fields are expected to be brighter sources of electron-cyclotron maser radio emission than equally magnetized fast rotators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the centrifugal-force mechanism is correct, the CPCP enhancement should scale with $\Omega^2 R_p^2$; this is directly testable with a grid of simulations varying radius and rotation period, which the paper does not run.
  • The enhanced CPCP implies stronger ionospheric Joule heating concentrated on the permanent dayside, which could alter atmospheric circulation and drive thermal escape asymmetries—an extension the paper does not model.
  • The result suggests a selection effect for radio surveys: strongly magnetized, tidally locked planets should be the loudest ECMI sources, so surveys that only target fast rotators may miss the brightest radio exoplanets.
  • For planets in orbits where the corotation period is short (like NGTS-10 b at ~18.5 hours), the paper's linear trend predicts that tidal locking does not boost CPCP much, so the 'locked equals brighter' conclusion applies mainly to long-period, wide-orbit locked planets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the SWMF/BATS-R-US global MHD code, coupled to the Ridley ionospheric electrodynamics model, to compute the cross-polar cap potential (CPCP) of model exoplanets as a function of corotation state. For a Jupiter-like planet at 0.4 AU with a southward IMF stellar wind, the authors report that a tidally locked (2220 h) case develops a CPCP roughly twice that of a fast-rotating (10 h) case (Fig. 1), and that this ordering persists over sweeps of solar wind density and IMF strength (Fig. 4), over corotation periods of 10-25 h (Fig. 5), for Saturn-like planets (Fig. 6), and for hot-Jupiter conditions at 0.05 AU in both super- and sub-Alfvénic winds (Fig. 7). The proposed mechanism is that the centrifugal term rho-Omega^2-r in the rotating-frame momentum equation (Eq. 1) pushes magnetosheath plasma sunward on fast rotators, displacing the magnetopause outward and lowering the dayside reconnection rate and CPCP; tidally locked planets lack this term. An Earth-sized null result is claimed to support the radius dependence of the mechanism. The paper concludes that tidally locked magnetized exoplanets receive roughly twice the magnetosphere-ionosphere energy input of fast rotators, with implications for auroral and radio emission.

Significance. If the factor-of-two conclusion survives scrutiny, the paper makes a consequential and falsifiable prediction: for a fixed planetary magnetic moment and stellar wind, tidal locking roughly doubles the magnetosphere-ionosphere energy input and the associated auroral/radio power, and it attributes the effect to a specific physical cause (loss of the centrifugal contribution to the dayside force balance). The cross-code corroboration with the authors' earlier GAMERA study, the systematic variation of wind density, IMF, planetary radius, and hot-Jupiter conditions, and the use of a well-tested framework (BATS-R-US with the Ridley IE model) are genuine strengths, and the CPCP values are direct simulation outputs, so the main comparison is not circular. The principal quantitative claim, however, is currently supported only by a non-saturated transient (Fig. 1), and the radius-dependent null test is asserted without data; both are fixable with additional runs and figures rather than a change of scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Fig. 1; §4, Fig. 4; §5, Fig. 6; §6, Fig. 7; §7] The central quantitative claim—that 'the maximum CPCP of a tidally locked planet is approximately twice that of a fast-rotating planet' (Conclusion, §7)—is read off simulations that have not reached a steady state. In Figure 1 the tidally locked (2220 h) CPCP is still increasing at the end of the 15 h run, and the text itself says the curve 'continuously increases, ultimately peaking'; no plateau, asymptotic fit, or convergence criterion is shown. The fast-rotating (10 h) curve is flat by that time, so the ratio of 2.0 is a comparison between a saturated fast-rotating state and an unsaturated tidally locked state. The same pattern appears for the Saturn-like case in Figure 6 (15 h) and the hot-Jupiter cases in Figure 7 (11 h), where the text acknowledges that the tidally locked CPCP values continue to increase. This also affects the parameter study in Figure 4, where the claimed amplification of the disparity with increasing density or IMF is inferred from fixed 10 h snapshots of still-developing runs. Please extend the tidally locked runs until the CPCP demonstrably plateaus (or fit an asymptotic function of time), quote the saturation value together with an estimated uncertainty, and restate the 'approximately twice' claim accordingly. Because CPCP is the quantity that carries every conclusion in the paper, this convergence check is load-bearing.
  2. [§5] The Earth-sized null result is asserted but never shown: 'The results show no significant difference in CPCP when varying the corotation speed, even for a 10-hour corotation period. For conciseness, the corresponding results are not presented here.' This is the only direct test of the proposed radius dependence of the centrifugal mechanism, and it is repeated in the Conclusion ('from 6 hours to 24 hours') still without a supporting figure or table. Please include the Earth-like CPCP time series (or a table of late-time values in the same format as Fig. 1) so that the null result and the claimed consistency with the GAMERA model can be assessed quantitatively.
  3. [§2 and §3] The magnetic geometry of the runs is described inconsistently. Section 2 states that all simulations use 'a northward magnetic dipole for the planets and a southward IMF,' chosen so that the IMF is antiparallel to the planetary dipole; Section 3 states that 'Jupiter's dipole magnetic moment aligns with its rotation axis and points southward, mirroring Earth's magnetic configuration.' These two descriptions are mutually exclusive, and only the second is consistent with the stated rationale that dayside reconnection is maximized for an IMF antiparallel to the dayside equatorial field. Please state explicitly the dipole moment vector and the IMF vector (for example, the sign of Bz in the simulation frame) for each run and correct the contradictory sentences.
  4. [§3, Eq. (1)] The centrifugal-force explanation is advanced qualitatively and its magnitude is never checked. The term rho-Omega^2-r in Eq. (1) is asserted to push the magnetopause outward on fast rotators and thereby to reduce the dayside reconnection rate enough to change CPCP by roughly a factor of two, but the paper gives no estimate of this term relative to the solar wind dynamic pressure (or its gradient) at the subsolar standoff distance, nor the length scale over which it acts. Because applying Eq. (1) to shocked magnetosheath plasma, which is not in solid-body corotation with the planet, is nonstandard, please add a quantitative force-balance estimate for the quoted Jupiter parameters (10 h rotation period and the simulated standoff distance) showing that the centrifugal term is of the correct order to produce the simulated magnetopause displacement; otherwise the factor-of-two effect cannot yet be attributed to this mechanism rather than to the still-evolving transient discussed above.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3] The sentence 'All planetary parameters, such as mass, radius, magnetic field strength, and angular velocity, are kept consistent with those of Jupiter' contradicts the following text, in which the corotation period is varied from 10 h to 2220 h; state explicitly that angular velocity is the parameter being varied.
  2. [§3] The term 'geoeffective length' is used without definition; it is not standard exoplanet terminology and should be defined at first use.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption sentence 'The scale and size of Earth's magnetosphere are consistent across both panels in the figure' appears to be a leftover from an Earth-magnetosphere figure and is not meaningful for the Jupiter-like exoplanet runs shown; correct or delete it.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'fist time step' should be 'first time step.'
  5. [§6] Typo: 'Pederesen conductance' should be 'Pedersen conductance.'
  6. [§4, Fig. 5] The linear fit of CPCP versus corotation period over 10-25 h is not reconciled with the tidally locked point at 2220 h from Fig. 1: a naive linear extrapolation to 2220 h would predict a CPCP far larger than the factor-of-two value, so the functional form between 25 h and 2220 h (saturation or change of slope) should be discussed explicitly.
  7. [§2] No grid resolution or numerical parameters for the BATS-R-US runs (cell counts, AMR criteria, time stepping) are reported; please add at least a sentence on the grid and any resolution tests so that the simulations are reproducible.
  8. [References] Several reference entries need cleanup: the Ridley et al. (2004) entry has a malformed 'in' and publisher field, and the 'Cheyenne' HPC system is cited in a non-standard format. In addition, the claimed consistency with Bagheri et al. (2024b) is only qualitative; quoting the GAMERA CPCP values for the same configurations would make the cross-code corroboration quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CPCP comparisons are direct MHD outputs, and self-citations to Bagheri et al. (2024b) are corroborative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that tidally locked planets reach roughly twice the CPCP of fast-rotating planets under identical stellar-wind and dipole inputs—is a direct output of the SWMF/BATS-R-US MHD runs, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. CPCP is computed from the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling (Ridley Ionosphere Model) after the MHD solution, and no equation in the paper expresses CPCP as a function of corotation period a priori; the dependence emerges from the simulations. The linear relationship noted in Section 4 and Figure 5 is a best fit to the authors' own simulation points and is used descriptively, not as a hidden constraint or as a predicted test of the model. Self-citations to Bagheri et al. (2024b) are used to state consistency ('This outcome is consistent with the GAMERA model results') and to frame the question, but they are not the evidence for the SWMF results; the GAMERA result is an independent code run by the same group, and the present work's claim stands on the SWMF simulations. The constant-Pedersen-conductance assumption and the southward-IMF setup are stated modeling choices, not conclusions derived from the target result. The reviewer concern that the tidally locked CPCP curves in Figures 1, 6, and 7 are still rising at the final plotted time is a saturation-check issue, not circularity: it affects whether a claimed maximum is a true equilibrium value, but it does not make the reported values identical by construction to the inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force the conclusion. Therefore no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar can be identified.

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

The paper's claims rest on a standard MHD code and physical inputs, not on new particles or forces. The main uncharged assumption is that the rotating-frame centrifugal force is the correct mechanism for the CPCP difference, and the main hidden methodological choice is the fixed-duration comparison without steady-state verification.

free parameters (1)
  • Linear fit slope/intercept for CPCP vs corotation period (Fig. 5) = not reported
    A straight-line fit summarizes the corotation-period scan; parameters are not reported, and no uncertainties are given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-fluid ideal MHD describes global exoplanet magnetosphere and stellar wind coupling.
    Invoked throughout Section 2; no kinetic effects are included.
  • domain assumption BATS-R-US with the Ridley ionosphere model and constant Pedersen conductivity (105 mho) gives adequate CPCP for comparing corotation states.
    Sections 2 and 3; the constant-conductivity assumption is acknowledged by the authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The rotating-frame momentum equation with centrifugal term (Eq. 1) explains the magnetopause standoff difference and the CPCP trend.
    Section 3; this is the paper's proposed mechanism, not established from a direct force-balance calculation.
  • domain assumption Magnetopause standoff distance is anti-correlated with dayside reconnection rate.
    Section 3, citing Borovsky et al. 2008 and Kim et al. 2024.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulations have reached a state where CPCP at t=10-15h is comparable between runs; no steady-state convergence check is shown.
    Figures 1, 4, 6, 7; the tidally locked CPCP is still rising at the end of Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption Planetary dipole is aligned with the rotation axis and IMF is southward for all runs.
    Section 2; only the anti-parallel reconnection configuration is explored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impacts of Tidal Locking on Magnetospheric Energy Input to Exoplanet Atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7N6H5FKT

@misc{pith2026250516825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impacts of Tidal Locking on Magnetospheric Energy Input to Exoplanet Atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7N6H5FKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16825}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the effect of planetary corotation on energy dissipation within the magnetosphere-ionosphere system of exoplanets. Using MHD simulations, we find that tidally locked exoplanets have a higher cross-polar cap potential (CPCP) compared to fast-rotating planets with the same magnetic field strength, confirming previous studies. Our simulations show that for a given interplanetary magnetic field, an increase in corotation period leads to a higher CPCP. Notably, this difference in CPCP between tidally locked and rotating planets persists across a range of solar wind conditions, including extreme environments such as those experienced by hot Jupiters. Furthermore, we observe that variations in corotation have little impact on CPCP for Earth-sized planets. These results underscore the significance of both corotation dynamics and planetary size in understanding how exoplanets interact with their stellar environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross Polar Cap Potential for a tidally locked planet at 0.4 au (2220 hours corotation period), a slow-rotating (20 hours), and a fast-rotating planet (10 hours) in 15 hours of simulations. A potential explanation for the disparity in CPCP values between tidal and rotating planets lies in variations of the energy dissipation mechanism in these cases. In the case of rapidly rotating gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field lines at the fist time step of the simulation of top-left- a tidally locked planet, and top-right- a fast-rotating planet (10 hours rotation period); and after 8 hours of running simulation of a lower-left- tidally locked planet, and lower-right-fast-rotating planet. Furthermore, on fast-rotating planets (assuming rotation from dawn to dusk), the magnetospheric dynamics dif￾fer significantly than tida… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The location of magnetic nulls and separators for right- a tidally locked planet, and left- a fast-rotating planet (10 hours rotation period). The scale and size of Earth’s magnetosphere are consistent across both panels in the figure. The lack of Vasyliunas reconnection in a tidally locked planet can result in the elongation of its magnetospheric tail and the accumulation of magnetic field lines within it. In summa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CPCP for fast-rotating planets (solid lines) and tidally locked planets (dashed lines) under varying left- solar wind density and right- solar wind IMF. All other parameters are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: left-CPCP and right-maximum of radial component of the ionospheric current vs. corotation period for a Jupiter-like planet. The solar wind parameters used in these simulations are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CPCP for a tidally locked Saturn-like planet at 0.4 au (2220 hours corotation period) and a fast-rotating planet (10 hours) in 15 hours of simulations. The solar wind parameters used in these simulations are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CPCP for a tidally locked planet at 0.05 au (4-day corotation period, dashed lines) compared to a fast-rotating planet (10-hour period, solid lines). Results are shown over 11 hours of simulations with varying Pedersen conductance, in the left- super-Alfv´enic and righ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136 Anglada-Escud´ e, G., Amado, P

    Airapetian, V., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136 Anglada-Escud´ e, G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bagheri, F., & Lopez, R. E. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 960535

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1581

    Bagheri, F., Sajadian, S., & Rahvar, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1581

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    E., Hesse, M., Birn, J., & Kuznetsova, M

    Borovsky, J. E., Hesse, M., Birn, J., & Kuznetsova, M. M. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L20

    Chin, L., Dong, C., & Lingam, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L20

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 57

    Cohen, O., Drake, J., Glocer, A., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 57

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L85

    Cohen, O., Drake, J., Kashyap, V., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L85

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 67

    Cohen, O., Kashyap, V., Drake, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 67

    work page 2011

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Cohen, O., Ma, Y., Drake, J. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 41

    2015

  2. [10]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 202 Computational, & Laboratory, I

    Cohen, O., Moschou, S.-P., Glocer, A., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 202 Computational, & Laboratory, I. S. 2017, Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA system (climate simulation laboratory), National Center for Atmospheric Research

    2018

  3. [11]

    Jones, T. W. 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2011

  4. [12]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028281

    Diego, P., Piersanti, M., Laurenza, M., & Villante, U. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028281

    2020

  5. [13]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 336

    Dobler, W., Stix, M., & Brandenburg, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 336

    2006

  6. [14]

    2017, in Habitable Worlds 2017: A System Science Workshop, Vol

    Dong, C., Huang, Z., Jin, M., et al. 2017, in Habitable Worlds 2017: A System Science Workshop, Vol. 2042, 4021

    2017

  7. [15]

    2008, in Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, Vol

    Dubey, A., Fisher, R., Graziani, C., et al. 2008, in Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, Vol. 385, 145

    2008

  8. [16]

    Dungey, J. W. 1961, Physical Review Letters, 6, 47

    1961

  9. [17]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 457, 371

    Fromang, S., Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 457, 371

    2006

  10. [18]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 833, L4

    2016

  11. [19]

    Gaudi, B. S. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 411

    2012

  12. [20]

    H., Demory, B.-O., et al

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456

    2017

  13. [21]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 140

    Glocer, A., Dorelli, J., Toth, G., Komar, C., & Cassak, P. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 140

    2016

  14. [22]

    2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1635

    Glocer, A., Fok, M., Meng, X., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1635

    2013

  15. [23]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    Glocer, A., T´ oth, G., Gombosi, T., & Welling, D. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  16. [24]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 640

    Guo, R., Yao, Z., Wei, Y., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 640

    2018

  17. [25]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L14

    Guo, R., Yao, Z., Sergis, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L14

    2019

  18. [26]

    A., Galicher, R., et al

    Guyon, O., Pluzhnik, E. A., Galicher, R., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 744

    2005

  19. [27]

    1984, Magnetospheric currents, 28, 340

    Hill, T. 1984, Magnetospheric currents, 28, 340

    1984

  20. [28]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1396

    Jackson, B., Greenberg, R., & Barnes, R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1396

    2008

  21. [29]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A27

    Johnstone, C., G¨ udel, M., L¨ uftinger, T., Toth, G., & Brott, I. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A27

    2015

  22. [30]

    K., Zou, Y., et al

    Kim, H., Connor, H. K., Zou, Y., et al. 2024, Earth, Planets and Space, 76, 165

    2024

  23. [31]

    2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    Kivelson, M., & Southwood, D. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    2005

  24. [32]

    1973, Planetary and Space Science, 21, 741 SWMF Simulations of Tidally Locked Exoplanets11

    Knight, S. 1973, Planetary and Space Science, 21, 741 SWMF Simulations of Tidally Locked Exoplanets11

    1973

  25. [33]

    A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D

    Knutson, H. A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D. 2014, Nature, 505, 66

    2014

  26. [34]

    2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115

    Lopez, R., Bruntz, R., Mitchell, E., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115

    2010

  27. [35]

    Lopez, R. E. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 4435

    2016

  28. [36]

    2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1333

    Lyon, J., Fedder, J., & Mobarry, C. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1333

    2004

  29. [37]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171

    Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, L171

    2002

  30. [38]

    McCormac, J., Gillen, E., Jackman, J. A. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 126

    2020

  31. [39]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228

    2007

  32. [40]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 2353

    Nichols, J., & Milan, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 2353

    2016

  33. [41]

    2018, The exoplanet handbook (Cambridge university press)

    Perryman, M. 2018, The exoplanet handbook (Cambridge university press)

    2018

  34. [42]

    T., & Hammond, M

    Pierrehumbert, R. T., & Hammond, M. 2019, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 51, 275

    2019

  35. [43]

    G., Roe, P

    Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & De Zeeuw, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284

    1999

  36. [44]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 1004

    Seager, S., & Hui, L. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 1004

    2002

  37. [45]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1038

    Seager, S., & Mallen-Ornelas, G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1038

    2003

  38. [46]

    Simon, J. B. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 137

    2008

  39. [47]

    M., & Norman, M

    Stone, J. M., & Norman, M. L. 1992, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ISSN 0067-0049), vol. 80, no. 2, June 1992, p. 753-790. Research supported by University of Illinois., 80, 753 T´ oth, G. 1996, Astrophysical Letters and Communications, Vol. 34, p. 245, 34, 245 T´ ot...

    1992

  40. [48]

    A., & Oppenheimer, B

    Traub, W. A., & Oppenheimer, B. R. 2010, Direct imaging of exoplanets (University of Arizona Press, Tucson)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Vasyliunas, V. M. 1983, Physics of the Jovian magnetosphere, 1, 395

    1983

  42. [50]

    F., Connerney, J

    Vogt, M. F., Connerney, J. E., DiBraccio, G. A., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027486

    2020

  43. [51]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 160

    Wright, J., Marcy, G., Howard, A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 160

    2012

  44. [52]

    A., Ryabov, B

    Zarka, P., Treumann, R. A., Ryabov, B. P., & Ryabov, V. B. 2001, in Physics of Space: Growth Points and Problems (Springer), 293–300

    2001

  45. [53]

    A., Lyon, J

    Zhang, B., Sorathia, K. A., Lyon, J. G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 244, 20

    2019

  46. [54]

    2008, Computer Physics Communications, 179, 227

    Ziegler, U. 2008, Computer Physics Communications, 179, 227

    2008

  47. [55]

    I., Bustamante, S., Cuartas, P

    Zuluaga, J. I., Bustamante, S., Cuartas, P. A., & Hoyos, J. H. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 23

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.