Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Spatio-Temporal Energy Cascade in Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that magnetic fluctuations in 3D MHD turbulence split at the nonlinear frequency: slower fluctuations cascade inversely toward lower frequencies and smaller wavenumbers, while faster fluctuations cascade directly and…

desk verdict A genuinely new spatio-temporal coarse-graining tool and a notable frequency-space bifurcation, but low-frequency injection from the driver is not quantified enough to lock in the in-situ origin story. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19927 v1 pith:GY25AOS4 submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Giuseppe Arrò , Hui Li , William H. Matthaeus This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords spatio-temporalcoarsegrainingmagnetohydrodynamicturbulenceinversecascadelow-frequencyfluctuationssolarwindenergytransferchannelsfrequency-spacebifurcation3DMHDsimulation
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

This paper introduces a spatio-temporal coarse-graining method that filters the magnetohydrodynamic equations in both wavenumber and time, and applies it to 3D MHD turbulence simulations to track where turbulent energy goes in (k, ω) space. The central claim is that the magnetic energy cascade splits at the nonlinear frequency: fluctuations slower than the nonlinear time τ_nl move energy to even lower frequencies and smaller wavenumbers, while faster fluctuations cascade directly toward dissipation. The energy that piles up at low frequencies is converted into low-frequency kinetic energy by electromagnetic work, and that kinetic energy then cascades directly to small scales. The authors conclude that low-frequency fluctuations observed in the solar wind can be produced locally by turbulence itself and that they actively participate in the cascade rather than being passive remnants. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a mechanism for the long-debated origin of low-frequency, quasi-two-dimensional fluctuations and implies that frequency must be treated as a cascade dimension in plasma turbulence models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatio-temporal low-pass filter $q(\mathbf{x},t,k,\tau) = \sum_{k'<k} \int dt'\, Q(\mathbf{k}',t') e^{i\mathbf{k}'\cdot\mathbf{x}} G_\tau(t-t')$, with a boxcar kernel $G_\tau$ of width $\tau$, applied to density-weighted MHD fields; the filtered quantity contains wavenumbers below $k$ and time scales above $\tau$. Applying this filter to the MHD equations yields a global energy budget whose energy transfer channels—injection, electromagnetic and pressure work, magnetic and kinetic cascade rates, and dissipation—are functions of the cutoff scale $(k,\tau)$. The load-bearing diagnostic is the sign of the magnetic cascade rate $\Pi_B = \langle \tau_E \cdot J \rangle$ as a function of $\tau$: negative values at $\tau \gtrsim \tau_{\rm nl}$ diagnose the inverse magnetic cascade, positive values at $\tau < \tau_{\rm nl}$ the direct cascade, with $\tau_{\rm nl} = 2\pi/(k_{\rm int}^\perp \delta u_{\rm rms})$ the nonlinear time marking the bifurcation.

What would settle it

Run the same spatio-temporal coarse-graining analysis on a simulation whose forcing is band-limited to $\omega > \omega_{\rm nl}$ with no low-frequency tail; if $\Pi_B$ no longer turns negative for $\tau \gtrsim \tau_{\rm nl}$, the inferred inverse cascade is an artifact of broadband injection. Alternatively, compute $\Pi_B$ from solar-wind measurements near 1 AU using multi-spacecraft spectra and check for a sign change at the local nonlinear frequency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Applying the spatio-temporal coarse-graining filter to the MHD equations, the authors compute the magnetic cascade rate Π_B as a function of wavenumber and temporal scale τ. They find a bifurcation: for τ ≳ τ_nl, corresponding to frequencies ω < ω_nl, Π_B is negative, indicating an inverse cascade carrying magnetic energy from the injection range to smaller wavenumbers and lower frequencies, while for τ < τ_nl Π_B is positive, a direct cascade. In the same low-frequency range the electromagnetic work W_em is positive and comparable in magnitude, converting the accumulated magnetic energy into low-frequency kinetic energy, and the kinetic cascade rate Π_u is positive at all scales, carrying that energy to high wavenumbers and frequencies where dissipation acts. The result is a closed cycle in frequency space: injection near ω_nl, a partial inverse magnetic cascade that builds a low-frequency reservoir, conversion to kinetic energy, and a direct kinetic cascade to dissipation. The same spatio-temporal pattern is reproduced in imbalanced and high-β simulations, so the authors present it as a generic property of MHD turbulence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the broadband Langevin forcing does not itself inject a dominant share of the low-frequency magnetic energy; if the low-frequency reservoir is mostly a direct product of the driver's low-frequency tail rather than of the inverse cascade, the central mechanism would not be established by these runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-frequency magnetic fluctuations in the solar wind can be generated in situ by the inverse cascade, so their presence does not by itself require advection of long-lived structures from the Sun.
  • Low-frequency modes actively support the turbulent cascade: they feed low-frequency kinetic energy that cascades directly to dissipation, so models that treat them as passive two-dimensional debris miss an energy pathway.
  • The direction of the magnetic cascade in frequency space is set by comparing fluctuation time scales with the nonlinear time; only fluctuations with $\tau > \tau_{\rm nl}$ inverse-cascade, while the rest dissipate directly.
  • In MHD turbulence the net direct kinetic cascade is carried by the Lorentz-force channel $\Pi^L_u$, while the hydrodynamic stress channel $\Pi^S_u$ is inverse and opposes it—unlike hydrodynamic turbulence, where only the stress term exists.
  • The frequency-space bifurcation appears in balanced, imbalanced, and high-$\beta$ simulations, indicating it is robust across solar-wind-like parameter regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if the inverse cascade is genuine, a simulation driven by a narrowband injector confined to $\omega > \omega_{\rm nl}$ should still build up low-frequency magnetic energy; if it does not, the effect may be an artifact of broadband forcing.
  • The boxcar window of width $\tau$ imposes a particular time-frequency uncertainty; repeating the analysis with Gaussian or other windows, and checking whether the $\Pi_B$ sign change remains pinned at $\tau_{\rm nl}$, would test the robustness of the bifurcation.
  • The distinction between $\Pi^S_u$ (inverse) and $\Pi^L_u$ (direct) suggests a magnetic-Prandtl-number dependence: varying viscosity relative to resistivity should shift the crossover where the net kinetic cascade changes sign, a prediction that could be checked numerically.
  • If the same mechanism operates in the solar wind, multi-spacecraft measurements of energy transfer in $(k,\omega)$ space should show negative magnetic cascade rates below the local nonlinear frequency; the low-frequency "1/f" range is a natural place to look.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a spatio-temporal coarse-graining (CG) method for MHD turbulence, low-pass filtering in both wavenumber and time. Applying this method to a 3D Athena++ simulation with Langevin forcing, the authors derive filtered energy balance equations and compute injection, cascade, electromagnetic work, pressure work, and dissipation terms. They report that the magnetic energy cascade rate Π_B is negative for time scales longer than the nonlinear time τ_nl and positive for shorter scales, that the electromagnetic work W_e.m. is positive in the same low-frequency region, and that the kinetic cascade rate Π_u is positive at all scales. They interpret this as a frequency-space bifurcation: low-frequency magnetic fluctuations undergo an inverse cascade toward lower frequencies and smaller wavenumbers, are then converted into low-frequency kinetic energy by W_e.m., and this kinetic energy cascades directly to small scales where it is dissipated. The authors propose this as a turbulence-generated reservoir of low-frequency fluctuations, with potential relevance to the solar wind.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper offers a new mechanism for the origin of low-frequency turbulent fluctuations and introduces a general diagnostic tool for spatio-temporal energy transfer. The algebraic derivation of the filtered equations in the Supplemental Material is clear and standard; the signs of the cascade rates are measured from simulation data rather than imposed; and the main qualitative conclusions are checked in two additional runs with different plasma beta and cross helicity. The principal weakness is that the broadband Langevin driver injects energy directly into the low-frequency band where the inverse cascade is claimed, so the key attribution of this inverse cascade to turbulence alone requires quantitative separation of injection and cascade, which the manuscript does not currently provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (3)] The central claim that the inverse cascade is generated by turbulence in situ is not established because the Langevin driver directly injects energy into the same low-frequency band. In the main text, Itot is described as 'almost constant' for τ > 15 τ_A (Fig. 3(a)-(b)), and the supplement (Fig. 4(a)-(d)) shows that IB and Iu individually have the same broadband behavior. For the stationary balance (Eq. (3)), ∂t(⟨1/2 ρ ũ²⟩) and ∂t(⟨1/2 B̄²⟩) should be small in the quasi-steady interval, and DB and Du are weak at large scales; if IB and Iu are comparable to |Π_B| and W_e.m. in the τ > τ_nl band, then the negative Π_B could simply represent the transport of directly injected low-frequency energy rather than the generation of a low-frequency reservoir by nonlinear interactions. The paper does not report the magnitudes of IB and Iu relative to |Π_B| and W_e.m. at representative (k, τ), nor a quantitative closure check of Eq. (3). The two auxiliary runs use the same broadband forcing, so they do not resolve this attribution problem. Please provide the term-by-term balance for a few (k_∥, τ) and (k_⊥, τ) points in the τ > τ_nl region, including the time-derivative term, and quantify the fraction of the low-frequency energy that originates from direct injection versus cascade.
  2. [Methods: temporal filtering and stationarity] The temporal filter is a boxcar of width τ centered at t = 70 τ_A, with τ varying from 0.2 to 100 τ_A while the analysis interval is T = [20 τ_A, 120 τ_A]. For τ approaching 100 τ_A, the filter window extends to the edges of the stationary interval, and for τ close to the largest values it covers the entire interval; there is no check that the results are insensitive to the choice of center time or to the spectral leakage of the boxcar window. Because the claimed bifurcation threshold is τ_nl and the low-frequency behavior is the main result, windowing artifacts could affect the sign and magnitude of Π_B at large τ. Please show either a convergence test with respect to the filter center and window shape, or an explicit estimate of the leakage error, and report the ∂t terms in Eq. (3) to demonstrate that the balance is closed.
  3. [Statistical robustness of quantitative claims] All ETCs in Fig. 3 are computed from a single realization, and no error bars or confidence intervals are given. The statement that |W_e.m.| and |Π_B| are 'similar' in the τ > τ_nl region, and the precise location of the sign change at τ ≈ τ_nl, are quantitative claims used to support the energy-balance interpretation. Without an estimate of sampling uncertainty (e.g., from multiple realizations, sub-interval averaging, or bootstrap over field lines), it is difficult to assess whether the bifurcation is robust or a fluctuation. I request an uncertainty estimate for the key quantities, or at least a demonstration that the sign pattern is stable when the analysis interval is split into two halves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated article: 'Dashed lines indicate the the dispersion relations' should read 'Dashed lines indicate the dispersion relations.'
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The name 'Alfvén' is misspelled as 'Aflv´en' in the Fig. 2 caption and in the supplemental material; please correct it throughout.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Fig. 6 discussion] The text describing Fig. 6 states that integral scales are horizontal green dashed lines and τ_nl is a vertical line, while the figure caption says the opposite; please make these descriptions consistent.
  4. [Footnote 1] The definition of 'inverse cascade' in footnote 1 is useful, but the term is already used in the abstract without a definition; consider defining it in the main text before first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cascade bifurcation is a measured sign pattern of ΠB, not a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The spatio-temporal coarse-grained balance in Eqs. (3)-(4) is derived by applying the filter in Eq. (2) to the MHD equations, and the Supplemental Material provides the full algebra without any load-bearing appeal to prior work. The central claim—that ΠB is negative for τ ≳ τnl and positive for τ < τnl—is a diagnostic output computed from the simulated fields, not an input to the computation. The nonlinear time τnl is defined from the run's own integral scale and rms velocity, but the sign of ΠB is not constrained by that definition, so the bifurcation is an empirical finding rather than a tautology. No model parameter is fitted to reproduce the inverse-cascade conclusion, and the two auxiliary runs with different β and σC independently reproduce the same sign pattern. The paper's self-citations (e.g., refs. [55]-[59]) are for the established CG formalism and prior spectral analyses; the present derivation does not rely on an unverified uniqueness theorem from those papers. The main caveat is physical attribution, not circularity: the Langevin driver injects energy over a broad frequency range, with Itot described as 'almost constant' at large τ, so the paper does not quantify IB relative to |ΠB| and We.m. in the low-frequency balance. That omission affects whether the low-frequency reservoir is generated in situ by turbulence, but it does not make the cascade-rate calculation equivalent to its inputs. I therefore find no circular step; the small nonzero score only registers that minor attribution caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a measured sign pattern in a single simulation family, not a derived constant, so no free parameters are fitted to force the result. The burden lies in modeling assumptions: the MHD closure, the boxcar windowing, stationarity, and the broadband Langevin driver. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • viscosity and magnetic diffusivity = nu = eta = 2.5e-4 (L0^2/tauA)
    Chosen for numerical resolution at 256x512^2; not fitted to the cascade result, but affects where dissipation appears in frequency space.
  • Langevin driving frequency and decorrelation rate = omega0 = 0.8 tauA^-1, gamma0 = -0.7 tauA^-1
    Chosen to mimic solar-wind Alfvenic driving; the broad frequency response of the injection depends on these values.
  • plasma beta and cross helicity of the main run = beta = 0.5, sigmaC ~ 0
    Solar-wind-like parameters; robustness is checked with two additional runs, but the main quantitative claim is from this single run.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MHD equations with isothermal pressure and prescribed viscosity and magnetic diffusivity adequately model the solar-wind turbulent cascade.
    The paper's physical conclusions about solar wind rest on a collisional single-fluid MHD model, while solar-wind dissipation is kinetic, as the authors acknowledge.
  • standard math The spatio-temporal boxcar filter and Favre density weighting yield an exact global energy balance whose cross terms are interpretable as energy cascade in (k, tau) space.
    The derivation is algebraically standard for coarse graining, but the finite-width boxcar is not a spectral projection and the sign is interpreted as cascade direction.
  • domain assumption The system is statistically stationary over the analyzed interval and the time-derivative term in the filtered energy balance is negligible or correctly accounted for.
    The transfer-channel plots do not report the residual time-derivative of filtered energy; if the interval is not stationary, the inferred balance is incomplete.
  • domain assumption A single global nonlinear time tau_nl marks the frequency bifurcation for all wavenumbers.
    This reference separates low from high frequency in the interpretation, but the nonlinear time is scale-dependent in real turbulence.
  • domain assumption The Langevin driver's broad frequency injection does not dominate the low-frequency energy balance attributed to the inverse cascade.
    The injection rate is nonzero at large tau, so direct injection at low frequencies is present and is not subtracted when interpreting the inverse cascade.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatio-Temporal Energy Cascade in Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GY25AOS4

@misc{pith2026241119927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatio-Temporal Energy Cascade in Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GY25AOS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19927}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new scale decomposition method to investigate turbulence in wavenumber-frequency space. Using 3D magnetohydrodynamic turbulence simulations, we show that magnetic fluctuations with time scales longer than the nonlinear time exhibit an inverse cascade toward even smaller frequencies. Low frequency magnetic fluctuations support turbulence, acting as an energy reservoir that is converted into plasma kinetic energy, the latter cascading toward large wavenumbers and frequencies, where it is dissipated. Our results shed new light on the spatio-temporal properties of turbulence, potentially explaining the origin and role of low frequency turbulent fluctuations in the solar wind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Temporal evolution of magnetic and kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows (k∥, ω) and (k⊥, ω) projections of mag￾netic field, velocity and density spectra PB , Pu and Pρ, for run A, panels (a)-(f), and for run B, panels (g)-(l), with dashed lines indicating dispersion relations of Alfv´en waves (AW), slow modes (SM), and fast modes (FM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Electron scale magnetic holes generation driven by Whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion in fully kinetic plasma turbulence

    physics.space-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A fully kinetic turbulence simulation shows electron-scale magnetic holes can form via whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion that builds a current vortex, locally reducing the magnetic field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bruno and V

    R. Bruno and V. Carbone, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 10, 2 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Armstrong, B

    J. Armstrong, B. Rickett, and S. Spangler, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 443, no. 1, p. 209-221 443, 209 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    S. A. Balbus and J. F. Hawley, Reviews of modern physics 10 70, 1 (1998)

    1998

  4. [4]

    Zhuravleva, E

    I. Zhuravleva, E. Churazov, A. Schekochihin, S. Allen, P. Ar´ evalo, A. Fabian, W. Forman, J. Sanders, A. Simionescu, R. Sunyaev, et al., Nature 515, 85 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    J. V. Shebalin, W. H. Matthaeus, and D. Montgomery, Journal of plasma physics 29, 525 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Goldreich and S

    P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 438, no. 2, p. 763-775 438, 763 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Cho and E

    J. Cho and E. T. Vishniac, The Astrophysical Journal 539, 273 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    T. S. Horbury, M. Forman, and S. Oughton, Physical Review Letters 101, 175005 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Wicks, T

    R. Wicks, T. Horbury, C. Chen, and A. Schekochihin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Let- ters 407, L31 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    S. S. Cerri, D. Groˇ selj, and L. Franci, Frontiers in As- tronomy and Space Sciences 6, 64 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Oughton and W

    S. Oughton and W. H. Matthaeus, The Astrophysical Journal 897, 37 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Parashar, S

    T. Parashar, S. Servidio, B. Breech, M. Shay, and W. Matthaeus, Physics of Plasmas 17 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Markovskii and B

    S. Markovskii and B. J. Vasquez, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 903, 80 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Papini, A

    E. Papini, A. Cicone, L. Franci, M. Piersanti, S. Landi, P. Hellinger, and A. Verdini, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 917, L12 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    X. Fu, H. Li, Z. Gan, S. Du, and J. Steinberg, The As- trophysical Journal 936, 127 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Z. Gan, H. Li, X. Fu, and S. Du, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 926, 222 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Narita, F

    Y. Narita, F. Sahraoui, M. Goldstein, and K.-H. Glass- meier, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 115 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    L.-L. Zhao, G. Zank, M. Nakanotani, and L. Adhikari, The Astrophysical Journal 944, 98 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Alexandrova, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 15, 95 (2008)

    O. Alexandrova, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 15, 95 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    S. Lion, O. Alexandrova, and A. Zaslavsky, The Astro- physical Journal 824, 47 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Zank, L.-L

    G. Zank, L.-L. Zhao, L. Adhikari, D. Telloni, J. Kasper, and S. Bale, Physics of Plasmas 28 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Arr` o, F

    G. Arr` o, F. Pucci, F. Califano, M. E. Innocenti, and G. Lapenta, The Astrophysical Journal 958, 11 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Arr` o, F

    G. Arr` o, F. Califano, F. Pucci, T. Karlsson, and H. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 970, L6 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    G. P. Zank, L.-L. Zhao, L. Adhikari, D. Telloni, P. Baruwal, P. Baruwal, X. Zhu, M. Nakanotani, A. Pitˇ na, J. C. Kasper,et al., The Astrophysical Journal 966, 75 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    W. H. Matthaeus, M. L. Goldstein, and D. A. Roberts, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 95, 20673 (1990)

    1990

  18. [26]

    Zank and W

    G. Zank and W. Matthaeus, Journal of geophysical re- search 97, 17189 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    G. Zank, A. Dosch, P. Hunana, V. Florinski, W. Matthaeus, and G. Webb, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 745, 35 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Ng and A

    C. Ng and A. Bhattacharjee, Astrophysical Journal v. 465, p. 845 465, 845 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    Galtier, S

    S. Galtier, S. Nazarenko, A. C. Newell, and A. Pouquet, Journal of plasma physics 63, 447 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Dmitruk and W

    P. Dmitruk and W. Matthaeus, Physics of Plasmas 16 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    K. H. Yuen, H. Li, and H. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03806 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dmitruk and W

    P. Dmitruk and W. Matthaeus, Physical Review E 76, 036305 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Dmitruk, P

    P. Dmitruk, P. D. Mininni, A. Pouquet, S. Servidio, and W. Matthaeus, Physical Review E 83, 066318 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    W. H. Matthaeus, G. P. Zank, S. Oughton, D. Mullan, and P. Dmitruk, The Astrophysical Journal 523, L93 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Dmitruk, W

    P. Dmitruk, W. H. Matthaeus, L. Milano, S. Oughton, G. P. Zank, and D. Mullan, The Astrophysical Journal 575, 571 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    S. R. Cranmer, A. A. Van Ballegooijen, and R. J. Edgar, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 171, 520 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    S. R. Cranmer, M. Asgari-Targhi, M. P. Miralles, J. C. Raymond, L. Strachan, H. Tian, and L. N. Woolsey, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 373, 20140148 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Matthaeus and M

    W. Matthaeus and M. Goldstein, Physical review letters 57, 495 (1986)

    1986

  31. [39]

    Matthaeus, B

    W. Matthaeus, B. Breech, P. Dmitruk, A. Bemporad, G. Poletto, M. Velli, and M. Romoli, The Astrophysical Journal 657, L121 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Giacalone and J

    J. Giacalone and J. Jokipii, The astrophysical journal 520, 204 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Yan and A

    H. Yan and A. Lazarian, Physical review letters 89, 281102 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Yan and A

    H. Yan and A. Lazarian, The Astrophysical Journal 614, 757 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    H. H. Klahr and P. Bodenheimer, The Astrophysical Journal 582, 869 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Sano, S.-i

    T. Sano, S.-i. Inutsuka, N. J. Turner, and J. M. Stone, The Astrophysical Journal 605, 321 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    R. B. Larson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 194, 809 (1981)

    1981

  38. [46]

    Schneider, S

    N. Schneider, S. Bontemps, R. Simon, V. Ossenkopf, C. Federrath, R. S. Klessen, F. Motte, P. Andr´ e, J. Stutzki, and C. Brunt, Astronomy & Astrophysics529, A1 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, S. F. Taylor, J. L. Maron, and J. C. McWilliams, The Astrophysical Journal 612, 276 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Ponty, H

    Y. Ponty, H. Politano, and J.-F. Pinton, Physical Review Letters 92, 144503 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Beresnyak, Physical Review Letters 108, 035002 (2012)

    A. Beresnyak, Physical Review Letters 108, 035002 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    G. L. Eyink and H. Aluie, Physics of Fluids 21 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Aluie, S

    H. Aluie, S. Li, and H. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 751, L29 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Mondal, A

    A. Mondal, A. J. Morten, B. K. Arbic, G. R. Flierl, R. B. Scott, and J. Skitka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02259 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aluie and G

    H. Aluie and G. L. Eyink, Physical review letters 104, 081101 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Aluie, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 247, 54 (2013)

    H. Aluie, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 247, 54 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Y. Yang, Y. Shi, M. Wan, W. H. Matthaeus, and S. Chen, Physical Review E 93, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Y. Yang, W. H. Matthaeus, T. N. Parashar, C. C. Hag- gerty, V. Roytershteyn, W. Daughton, M. Wan, Y. Shi, and S. Chen, Physics of Plasmas 24 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Y. Yang, W. H. Matthaeus, Y. Shi, M. Wan, and S. Chen, 11 Physics of Fluids 29 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    W. H. Matthaeus, Y. Yang, M. Wan, T. N. Parashar, R. Bandyopadhyay, A. Chasapis, O. Pezzi, and F. Valen- tini, The Astrophysical Journal 891, 101 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Arr` o, F

    G. Arr` o, F. Califano, and G. Lapenta, Astronomy & As- trophysics 668, A33 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Favre, Soc

    A. Favre, Soc. Indust. , 231 (1969)

    1969

  53. [61]

    G. L. Eyink, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 549, 159 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    J. M. Stone, K. Tomida, C. J. White, and K. G. Felker, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 249, 4 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    TenBarge, G

    J. TenBarge, G. G. Howes, W. Dorland, and G. W. Hammett, Computer Physics Communications 185, 578 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Bandyopadhyay, L

    R. Bandyopadhyay, L. Sorriso-Valvo, A. Chasapis, P. Hellinger, W. H. Matthaeus, A. Verdini, S. Landi, L. Franci, L. Matteini, B. L. Giles, et al., Physical re- view letters 124, 225101 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    S. Du, H. Li, X. Fu, and Z. Gan, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 948, 72 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Hellinger, A

    P. Hellinger, A. Verdini, V. Montagud-Camps, L. Franci, E. Papini, L. Matteini, and S. Landi, Astronomy & As- trophysics 684, A120 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Eswaran and S

    V. Eswaran and S. B. Pope, Computers & Fluids 16, 257 (1988)

    1988

  60. [68]

    TenBarge and G

    J. TenBarge and G. Howes, Physics of Plasmas19 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Frisch, Turbulence: the legacy of AN Kolmogorov (Cambridge university press, 1995)

    U. Frisch, Turbulence: the legacy of AN Kolmogorov (Cambridge university press, 1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    Alexandrova, C

    O. Alexandrova, C. H. Chen, L. Sorriso-Valvo, T. S. Hor- bury, and S. D. Bale, Space Science Reviews 178, 101 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Squire, R

    J. Squire, R. Meyrand, M. W. Kunz, L. Arzamasskiy, A. A. Schekochihin, and E. Quataert, Nature Astronomy 6, 715 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Papini, L

    E. Papini, L. Franci, S. Landi, A. Verdini, L. Matteini, and P. Hellinger, The Astrophysical Journal 870, 52 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Arr` o, F

    G. Arr` o, F. Califano, and G. Lapenta, Astronomy & As- trophysics 642, A45 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Biskamp and D

    D. Biskamp and D. Biskamp, Nonlinear magnetohydro- dynamics, 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  67. [75]

    Lugones, P

    R. Lugones, P. Dmitruk, P. D. Mininni, A. Pouquet, and W. H. Matthaeus, Physics of Plasmas 26 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    A. A. Schekochihin, Journal of Plasma Physics 88, 155880501 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Fraternale, L

    F. Fraternale, L. Zhao, N. V. Pogorelov, L. Sorriso-Valvo, S. Redfield, M. Zhang, K. Ghanbari, V. Florinski, and T. Y. Chen, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 9, 1064098 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    C. Chen, S. Bale, J. Bonnell, D. Borovikov, T. Bowen, D. Burgess, A. Case, B. Chandran, T. D. de Wit, K. Goetz, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 246, 53 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Frisch, A

    U. Frisch, A. Pouquet, J. L´ eorat, and A. Mazure, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 68, 769 (1975)

    1975

  72. [80]

    Alexakis, P

    A. Alexakis, P. D. Mininni, and A. Pouquet, The Astro- physical Journal 640, 335 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Hu and B

    Q. Hu and B. U. Sonnerup, Geophysical research letters 28, 467 (2001)

    2001

  74. [82]

    Lui, Space science reviews 158, 43 (2011)

    A. Lui, Space science reviews 158, 43 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Pecora, A

    F. Pecora, A. Greco, Q. Hu, S. Servidio, A. G. Chasapis, and W. H. Matthaeus, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 881, L11 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.