Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 300 references

Current-sheet thinning still drives the energy cascade in MHD turbulence with a strong guide field; the guide field itself reverses energy conversion at small scales.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 09:16 UTC pith:N5FIJ65J

load-bearing objection Solid controlled extension of their isotropic flux decomposition: current-sheet thinning still dominates under guide fields, plus a clean new split of the conversion term that reverses sign at small scales. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06572 v1 pith:N5FIJ65J submitted 2026-07-01 physics.plasm-ph physics.flu-dyn

Energy transfer and conversion in Strongly Anisotropic Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

Damiano Capocci , Sean Oughton , Moritz Linkmann This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph physics.flu-dyn PACS 52.30.Cv47.27.Gs52.35.Ra95.30.Qd
keywords MHD turbulenceenergy cascadecurrent-sheet thinningguide fieldanisotropic turbulenceenergy conversionsubgrid-scale fluxesreduced MHD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Magnetized plasmas with a large-scale guide field, such as the solar wind or fusion devices, are strongly anisotropic, yet the route by which turbulent energy reaches small scales has remained unclear. This paper applies an exact multi-scale decomposition of the energy fluxes to direct numerical simulations with zero, weak, and strong imposed magnetic fields. It finds that the same process identified in the isotropic case—current-sheet thinning—continues to dominate the forward cascade, while classic hydrodynamic mechanisms stay suppressed. At the same time the guide field itself opens a new conversion channel: it drives kinetic energy into magnetic energy at large and intermediate scales, then returns magnetic energy to kinetic energy at small scales. The result matters because it shows that reduced or two-dimensional models already capture the essential cascade physics once a strong guide field is present, and it supplies a concrete physical target for subgrid closures in anisotropic MHD.

Core claim

Even when a strong uniform magnetic field is imposed, current-sheet thinning remains the leading mechanism that transfers both kinetic and magnetic energy from large to small scales; the background-field contribution to kinetic–magnetic conversion acts as a nonlinear dynamo at large and intermediate scales and reverses to net magnetic-to-kinetic conversion at small scales.

What carries the argument

Exact Gaussian-filter decomposition of the four MHD energy subfluxes into single-scale and multi-scale contractions of strain, vorticity, magnetic shear and current; the same identities separate the resolved-scale conversion into isotropic and anisotropic (guide-field) parts.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest-guide-field run has not reached statistical stationarity, so every quantitative claim for that regime rests on the assumption that the chosen quasi-stationary intervals faithfully represent the long-time anisotropic state.

What would settle it

A statistically stationary simulation at the same strong guide-field strength in which the volume-averaged current-sheet-thinning subfluxes fall below the vortex-stretching or strain-self-amplification contributions, or in which the anisotropic conversion term remains positive down to the dissipation scale.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Subgrid-scale models for anisotropic MHD should keep current-sheet thinning as the leading cascade term and add an antidiffusive correction for large-scale kinetic-energy accumulation.
  • Reduced MHD already retains the dominant cascade process once the guide field is strong enough to enforce progressive two-dimensionalisation.
  • The scale-dependent sign change of guide-field-mediated conversion supplies a concrete diagnostic for distinguishing large-scale dynamo action from small-scale magnetic-to-kinetic back-reaction in spacecraft or laboratory data.
  • Enhanced scale-independence of the individual subfluxes with increasing guide-field strength implies that spectral plateaus become more robust diagnostics of the inertial range in anisotropic plasmas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because current-sheet thinning survives the fully two-dimensional limit, any model that preserves magnetic shear and current should recover the correct cascade direction even if three-dimensional vortex stretching is omitted.
  • The small-scale magnetic-to-kinetic reversal mediated by the guide field may set a natural floor on magnetic-energy accumulation and therefore on the saturation level of large-scale dynamos in strongly magnetized plasmas.
  • The same decomposition applied to compressible or Hall-MHD data would test whether the dominance of current-sheet thinning is an incompressible ideal-MHD feature or a more universal plasma process.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends an exact Gaussian-filter decomposition of MHD energy fluxes (previously applied to isotropic, zero-mean-field turbulence) to mechanically forced homogeneous MHD with weak and strong imposed background fields B0. Using three hyperdiffusive DNS datasets (B0/Brms = 0, 1.2, 12.7), it shows that current-sheet thinning (the single- and multi-scale SJΣ / JΣS terms) remains the dominant forward-cascade mechanism, while hydrodynamic-like vortex stretching and strain self-amplification stay suppressed. Subfluxes become more scale-independent with increasing B0, the Dynamo contribution is depleted, and a large-scale inverse Inertial contribution appears under strong anisotropy. Separately, the resolved-scale conversion is split into isotropic and anisotropic (B0-dependent) parts; the latter produces net kinetic-to-magnetic conversion at large/intermediate scales that reverses to magnetic-to-kinetic conversion at small scales.

Significance. If the results hold, they supply a concrete, filter-exact mechanistic picture of the energy cascade that survives into the strongly anisotropic regime relevant to solar wind, magnetospheres and fusion plasmas. The kinematic identities (Eqs. 2.19–2.20 and Appendix B) are parameter-free and reusable; the clean isolation of W_anis yields a falsifiable, scale-dependent conversion channel that is not visible in conventional spectral formulations. The work also indicates that reduced-MHD and SGS models can retain current-sheet thinning as the leading process while adding an antidiffusive term for large-scale kinetic-energy accumulation. Public DNS data further strengthen reproducibility.

major comments (2)
  1. §3 and Table 1 / Fig. 4: the strong-B0 run (C10, B0/Brms = 12.7) has not reached statistical stationarity; kinetic energy continues to grow and only quasi-stationary sampling intervals are used. All quantitative statements for that regime (scale-independence of subfluxes, magnitude of inverse Inertial transfer, late-time W_anis o −1, error-bar growth) rest on the assumption that these intervals represent the asymptotic anisotropic state. The paper should either (i) demonstrate that the leading subflux ordering is insensitive to the residual growth (e.g., by comparing the three intervals side-by-side for Π_M and Π_A) or (ii) clearly restrict the strongest claims to the stationary B0 = 0 and B0/Brms = 1.2 cases and treat C10 as qualitative support only.
  2. §5, Fig. 10 (top) and surrounding text: for the late-stage C10 interval the authors report ⟨Wℓ⟩/εb o 1.8 as ℓ o 0, while stationarity would require convergence to 1. The text acknowledges residual non-stationarity and large error bars, yet still draws quantitative conclusions about a “three-times-stronger” fluctuation dynamo. Either the late-stage data should be omitted from the quantitative conversion analysis or an explicit non-stationary budget (including the time derivative of magnetic energy) should be supplied so that the excess can be accounted for.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section ordering in the Introduction (p. 2) is inverted: the text announces “sec. 5 … conversion … In 4 we apply …”; renumber or reorder for sequential reading.
  2. Figure captions for Figs. 7–9 label the datasets inconsistently (A2 vs A3, B0 = 1 vs 1.2, B0 = 10 vs 12.7). Align captions with Table 1.
  3. Typographical slips: “nuemrical similations” (§3), “Visuaisations” (Fig. 3 caption), “when B0 becomeslargeenough” (p. 11), and the sign convention sentence for Wℓ (p. 3) that twice says “kinetic-to-magnetic”.
  4. Appendix B: the extra factor-of-two for the SJΣ and SΩS terms is mentioned but the corresponding Maxwell and Inertial definitions already include it; a one-sentence clarification would prevent double-counting confusion.
  5. A brief remark on whether the same leading-order current-sheet-thinning dominance survives under standard (α = 1) viscosity would strengthen the claim that the result is not an artefact of hyperdiffusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: flux decompositions are kinematic identities from the Gaussian filter; DNS results and self-citations serve only as baseline comparison, not as inputs that force the anisotropic conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on two independent pillars: (1) exact kinematic identities for the SGS stresses and energy subfluxes that follow from the diffusion property of the Gaussian filter (eqs. 2.18–2.20 and the subsequent gradient decompositions in §§2.1–2.4 and Appendix B), and (2) direct numerical evaluation of those identities on three independent DNS datasets (A3, C1, C10). The identities hold for any sufficiently smooth solenoidal fields and do not encode the target physical conclusion (dominance of current-sheet thinning). The DNS data are generated by solving the forced MHD equations and are therefore external to the analytic decomposition. Self-citation of Capocci et al. (2025) is used solely to supply the isotropic baseline and the physical interpretation of the same subflux terms; it is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a fitted parameter that forces the anisotropic results. The only soft point is the non-stationarity of the strong-guide-field run, which is a data-quality issue already flagged by the authors and does not constitute circular reasoning. Consequently the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is minimal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard MHD equations, the kinematic properties of a Gaussian filter, and three specific DNS realizations. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the usual simulation controls (hyperviscosity exponent, forcing band, B0 strength) rather than quantities fitted to force the cascade conclusion.

free parameters (3)
  • hyperviscosity exponent α = 5
    Set to α=5 for all runs to achieve scale separation; affects the dissipative range and therefore the small-scale conversion statistics.
  • B0/Brms ratios = 0, 1.2, 12.7
    Chosen by hand as 0, 1.2 and 12.7 to span zero/weak/strong regimes; the strong value is large enough that the run remains non-stationary.
  • forcing wavenumber band = [2.5,5.0]
    Ornstein–Uhlenbeck forcing restricted to k∈[2.5,5.0]; controls the injection scale relative to the box.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Gaussian filter yields an exact diffusion equation for filtered fields and an exact integral representation of SGS stresses (Eqs. 2.18–2.20).
    Standard property of the heat kernel; used throughout §2.1 to obtain the single- and multi-scale subfluxes.
  • domain assumption Incompressible MHD equations with constant density and unit magnetic Prandtl number.
    Governing equations (2.1)–(2.4); standard for the homogeneous turbulence regime studied.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-stationary intervals of the non-stationary strong-B0 run adequately represent the asymptotic anisotropic cascade.
    Explicitly adopted in §3 and Fig. 4; all strong-field statistics rest on this sampling choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27017 in / 2792 out tokens · 27533 ms · 2026-07-12T09:16:47.876616+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In homogeneous magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence without a background magnetic field driven by mechanical forces, an exact decomposition of the energy fluxes (D. Capocci et al., Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(1), E11 (2025)) has shown that current-sheet thinning is the dominant physical mechanism responsible for transferring energy from large to small scales. In contrast, mechanisms that are characteristic of hydrodynamic turbulence, such as vortex stretching and strain self-amplification, are strongly suppressed. Here, we extend this analysis to MHD turbulence in the presence of weak and strong imposed magnetic field, as previously driven by mechanical forces, and confirm that current-sheet thinning remains the leading process driving the energy cascade toward smaller scales in these more realistic configurations, and find enhanced scale invariance in the subfluxes. In addition to that, a decomposition of the contributions from the fluctuating and the background magnetic field to the conversion between kinetic and magnetic energies shows that the background-field-dependent contribution results in a nonlinear dynamo, that is an effective kinetic-to-magnetic conversion at large and intermediate scales. However, at small scales, it has the opposite effect, resulting in a net conversion of magnetic to kinetic energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06572 by Damiano Capocci, Moritz Linkmann, Sean Oughton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional sketch of current-sheet thinning. A current sheet, J, is stretched by the large-scale strain-rate tensor S (left), producing a thinner magnetic shear layer b (right, red arrows). This process stretches the magnetic flux tubes within the sheet and, by conservation of magnetic flux, increases the magnetic-field strength at the newly generated smaller scales. Magnetic energy is therefore trans… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sketch of current-filament stretching. A current filament, J, relative to the magnetic field b, is stretched by the large-scale strain-rate tensor S, which has one extensional and two compressional directions. The initially compact filament (a) is thereby elongated and thinned along the extensional direction (b). This deformation stretches the magnetic flux tubes within the filament and, by conservation of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 3D visualisation of fields. Each horizontal panel is formed by three visualisation cubes showing ux and the magnitude of j = ∇ × b as a function of the position (x, y, z). Top panel B0 = 0, middle panel B0 = 1.2 Brms and bottom panel B0 = 12.7 Brms. Visuaisations of the same field share the colour bar range. The arrays indicate the direction of the BMF B0 = B0 eˆz. can be found in the power-law scaling whe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of mean kinetic normalised by the mean total energy corresponding to the last quasi-stationary time interval. The markers correspond to the sampled snapshots belonging to the three different sampling intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-averaged omnidirectional spectra of velocity, panel (a), and magnetic field fluctuations, panel (b), corresponding to datasets A3, C1 and C10. The grey region indicates the wavenumber band k ∈ [2.5, 5.0] in which the velocity field is forced. The forcing scale Lf is defined via the midpoint of the forcing band. a power-law close to k −5/3 . This appears to be in agreement with spacecraft measurement o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Terms contributing to the MHD filtered energy flux across scale ℓ as function of the adimensional parameter kηα = πηα/ℓ for three different configurations: panel (a) B0/Brms = 0, panel (b) B0/Brms = 1.2 and panel (c) B0/Brms = 12.7 which refers to the late-stage sampling interval. In all the configurations the Gaussian filter has been used. The error bars indicate one standard error. First, the subfluxes b… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contributions to the Inertial energy flux for (a) the dataset A2 relative to B0 = 0, (b) the dataset C1 with B0 = 1 and (c) the dataset C10 with B0 = 10. Errorbars are for one standard error. that appear quantitatively similar. In fact the leading term Π M,ℓ m,SJΣ is slightly smaller in panels (b) and (c) while its single scale counterpart Π M,ℓ s,SJΣ remains the same. In consequence, unlike the B0 = 0 cas… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contributions to the Maxwell energy flux for (a) the dataset A2 relative to B0 = 0, (b) the dataset C1 with B0 = 1 and (c) the dataset C10 with B0 = 10. Errorbars are for one standard error. With respect to figure 7, the y-axis range has been contracted in order to avoid a further compression of the curves. scale terms Π A,ℓ s,ΣJS and Π A,ℓ s,JΣS, even in the configurations with non-zero BMF. This differen… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contributions to the Advection energy flux for (a) the dataset A2 relative to B0 = 0, (b) the dataset C1 with B0 = 1 and (c) the dataset C10 with B0 = 10. The errorbars, even though not fully visible, are for one standard error. 5. Scale-resolved energy conversion In this section we quantify the resolved-scale conversion term introduced in sec. 2. First, we assess how the anisotropy induced by the backgrou… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean energy conversion normalised by εb as function of the filtering wave number k = π/ℓ normalised by the hyperdiffusive Kolmogorov scale ηα . Left: total energy conversion term ⟨Wℓ ⟩. Right: anisotropic part of the energy conversion term/energy conversion mediated by the background magnetic field. The shaded regions indicate one standard error. In both the panels, the three curves belonging to B0/Brms =… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalised scale-resolved energy conversion term − ℓ 2 π ηα εb ∂⟨Wℓ ⟩ ∂ℓ , with total and anisotropic contributions shown in the left and right panels, respectively. In both the panels, the three curves belonging to B0/Brms = 12.7 refer to the three quasi-stationary intervals indicated in fig. 4 with the same colour palette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Standardised PDFs of the RSC terms at kηα = 0.195, left Wℓ , right Wℓ anis. for the B0 = 0 case. The standardised PDFs of the anisotropic contribution, ⟨Wℓ anis⟩ shown in the bottom panel of fig. 12 are qualitatively indistinguishable. This suggests that, once rescaled by their own variance, the anisotropic contribution to the RSC among datasets C1–C10 presents the same level of fluctuations, even though … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the total Wℓ as function of k ηα = π ηα/ℓ. dynamo stages belonging to dataset C10 are displayed individually. Note that the small￾scale statistics will be affected by the use of the hyperviscosity and hyperdissipation in the equations of motion, namely eqs. (2.1)-(2.2). More in general, the profile of the standard deviation, on fig. 13 top panel, pres… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 158 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Saddoughi, S. G. , TITLE =. 1993 , JOURNAL =

    1993

  2. [2]

    Saddoughi, S. G. and Veeravalli, S. V. , TITLE =. 1994 , Volume =. doi:10.1017/S0022112094001370 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112094001370 1994

  3. [3]

    and Aluie, H

    Sadek, M. and Aluie, H. , TITLE =. 2018 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.3.124610 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.3.124610 2018

  4. [4]

    and Samuel, R

    Sadhukhan, S. and Samuel, R. and Plunian, F. and Stepanov, R. and Samtaney, R. and Verma, M. K. , TITLE =. 2019 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.084607 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.4.084607 2019

  5. [5]

    Saffman, P. G. , TITLE =. 1967 , Volume =

    1967

  6. [6]

    Saffman, P. G. , TITLE =. 1971 , Volume =

    1971

  7. [7]

    Saffman, P. G. , TITLE =. 1992 , Publisher = cup, Address =

    1992

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.025004 , KEYWORDS =

    Ion Kinetic Scale in the Solar Wind Observed , JOURNAL = prl, YEAR =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.025004 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.025004

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/107 , KEYWORDS =

    Solar Wind Density Spectra around the Ion Spectral Break , JOURNAL = apj, YEAR =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/107 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/107

  10. [10]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/121 , KEYWORDS =

    Power Spectral Density of Fluctuations of Bulk and Thermal Speeds in the Solar Wind , JOURNAL = apj, YEAR =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/121 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/121

  11. [11]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c9 , KEYWORDS =

    Anisotropy of Magnetic Field and Velocity Fluctuations in the Solar Wind , JOURNAL = apj, YEAR = 2021, Volume =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c9 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c9 2021

  12. [12]

    2023 , Volume =

    Evolution of Magnetic Field Fluctuations and Their Spectral Properties within the Heliosphere:. 2023 , Volume =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc531 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc531 2023

  13. [13]

    Sagdeev, R. Z. and Galeev, A. A. , TITLE =. 1969 , Publisher=

    1969

  14. [14]

    Sahoo and P

    G. Sahoo and P. Perlekar and R. Pandit , TITLE =. 2011 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/1/013036 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/1/013036 2011

  15. [15]

    and Bonaccorso, F

    Sahoo, G. and Bonaccorso, F. and Biferale, L. , TITLE =. 2015 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.92.051002 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1103/physreve.92.051002 2015

  16. [16]

    Sahoo, G. and. Helicity statistics in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence and turbulence models , JOURNAL = prF, YEAR =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.024601 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.2.024601

  17. [17]

    and Alexakis, A

    Sahoo, G. and Alexakis, A. and Biferale, L. , TITLE =. 2017 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.164501 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.164501 2017

  18. [18]

    Sahraoui and G

    F. Sahraoui and G. Belmont and L. Rezeau , TITLE =. 2003 , JOURNAL = pop, Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.1564086 , Pages =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1564086 2003

  19. [19]

    Sahraoui and G

    F. Sahraoui and G. Belmont and L. Rezeau and N. Cornilleau-. Anisotropic Turbulent Spectra in the Terrestrial Magnetosheath as Seen by the Cluster Spacecraft , YEAR =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.075002 , EID =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.075002

  20. [20]

    Sahraoui , TITLE =

    F. Sahraoui , TITLE =. 2008 , JOURNAL = pre, Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.78.026402 , EID =

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.78.026402 2008

  21. [21]

    Sahraoui and M

    F. Sahraoui and M. L. Goldstein and P. Robert and Yu. V. Khotyaintsev , TITLE =. 2009 , JOURNAL = prl, Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.231102 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.231102 2009

  22. [22]

    and Belmont, G

    Sahraoui, F. and Belmont, G. and Goldstein, M. L. and Rezeau, L. , TITLE =. 2010 , Volume =. doi:10.1029/2009JA014724 , EID =

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014724 2010

  23. [23]

    and Goldstein, M

    Sahraoui, F. and Goldstein, M. L. and Belmont, G. and Canu, P. and Rezeau, L. , TITLE =. 2010 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.131101 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.131101 2010

  24. [24]

    and Belmont, G

    Sahraoui, F. and Belmont, G. and Goldstein, M. L. , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/100 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/100 2012

  25. [25]

    and Robert, P

    Sahraoui, F. and Robert, P. and Goldstein, M. L. and Khotyaintsev, Yu. V. , TITLE =. 2013 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.149002 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.149002 2013

  26. [26]

    and Hadid, L

    Sahraoui, F. and Hadid, L. and Huang, S. , TITLE =. 2020 , Volume =. doi:10.1007/s41614-020-0040-2 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1007/s41614-020-0040-2 2020

  27. [27]

    2023 , Volume =

    Fouad Sahraoui and Shiyong Huang , TITLE =. 2023 , Volume =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf45b , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf45b 2023

  28. [28]

    and Gary, S

    Saito, S. and Gary, S. P. and Li, H. and Narita, Y. , TITLE =. 2008 , Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.2997339 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2997339 2008

  29. [29]

    Sakaue and K

    T. Sakaue and K. Shibata , TITLE =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ababa0 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ababa0

  30. [30]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd3a9 , KEYWORDS =

    Takahito Sakaue and Kazunari Shibata , TITLE =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd3a9 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd3a9 2041

  31. [31]

    and Bandyopadhyay, R

    Sakshee, S. and Bandyopadhyay, R. and Banerjee, Supratik , TITLE =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1449 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1449

  32. [32]

    Computer Physics Reports , YEAR =

    Sakurai, T , TITLE =. Computer Physics Reports , YEAR =

  33. [33]

    and Ishihara, Takashi , TITLE =

    Sakurai, Y. and Ishihara, Takashi , TITLE =. 2023 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.8.084606 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.8.084606 2023

  34. [34]

    Salem and A

    C. Salem and A. Mangeney and S. D. Bale and P. Veltri and R. Bruno , TITLE =. Turbulence and nonlinear processes in astrophysical plasmas. 6th Annual International Astrophysics Conference , EDITOR =. 2007 , Publisher=. doi:10.1063/1.2778948 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2778948 2007

  35. [35]

    and Mangeney, A

    Salem, C. and Mangeney, A. and Bale, S. D. and Veltri, P. , TITLE =. 2009 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/537 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/537 2009

  36. [36]

    Salem, C. S. and Howes, G. G. and Sundkvist, D. and Bale, S. D. and Chaston, C. C. and Chen, C. H. K. and Mozer, F. S. , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/L9 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/l9 2012

  37. [37]

    and Gibson, J

    Salewski, M. and Gibson, J. F. and Schneider, T. M. , TITLE =. 2019 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.100.031102 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.100.031102 2019

  38. [38]

    , TITLE =

    Salmon, R. , TITLE =. 1983 , Volume =

    1983

  39. [39]

    , TITLE =

    Salmon, R. , TITLE =. 1988 , Volume =

    1988

  40. [40]

    and Knorr, G

    Salu, Y. and Knorr, G. , TITLE =. 1975 , Volume =. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(75)90063-7 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(75)90063-7 1975

  41. [41]

    Salu, Y. and D. C. Montgomery , TITLE =. 1977 , Volume =

    1977

  42. [42]

    and Beckwith, K

    Salvesen, G. and Beckwith, K. and Simon, J. B. and. Quantifying energetics and dissipation in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence , JOURNAL = mnras, YEAR =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2281 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2281

  43. [43]

    and Tian, H

    Samanta, T. and Tian, H. and Nakariakov, V. M. , TITLE =. 2019 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.035102 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.035102 2019

  44. [44]

    San and A

    O. San and A. E. Staples , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.04.006 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.04.006 2012

  45. [45]

    R. S. Probabilistic transport models for plasma transport in the presence of critical thresholds:. 2005 , Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.1869499 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1869499 2005

  46. [46]

    The very slow solar wind:

    Sanchez-. The very slow solar wind:. 2016 , DOI =

    2016

  47. [47]

    C. R. Sangeetha and S. P. Rajaguru , TITLE =. 2016 , Volume =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/120 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/120 2016

  48. [48]

    Singular value decomposition methods for wave propagation analysis , JOURNAL =

    Santol. Singular value decomposition methods for wave propagation analysis , JOURNAL =. 2003 , Volume =. doi:10.1029/2000RS002523 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1029/2000rs002523 2003

  49. [49]

    and L\'opez, R

    Sarfraz, M. and L\'opez, R. A. and Ahmed, S. and Yoon, P. H. , TITLE =. 2021 , Volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3291 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3291 2021

  50. [50]

    Sari, J. W. and Valley, G. C. , TITLE =. 1976 , Volume =. doi:10.1029/JA081i031p05489 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1029/ja081i031p05489 1976

  51. [51]

    Saric, W. S. , TITLE =. 1994 , Volume =

    1994

  52. [52]

    and Bhattacharjee, A

    Sarkar, A. and Bhattacharjee, A. and Ebrahimi, F. , TITLE =. 2014 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/65 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/65 2014

  53. [53]

    Thermodynamic Entropy as a

    Sasa, S.-. Thermodynamic Entropy as a. 2016 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.140601 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.140601 2016

  54. [54]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33 , KEYWORDS =

    Dissipation Scale Lengths of Solar Wind Turbulence , JOURNAL = apj, YEAR =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33

  55. [55]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcd1 , KEYWORDS =

    Turbulent Proton Heating Rate in the Solar Wind from 5--45\,. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcd1 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcd1

  56. [56]

    Sato and T

    T. Sato and T. Hayashi , TITLE =. 1979 , Volume =

    1979

  57. [57]

    and Escande, D

    Sattin, F. and Escande, D. F. , TITLE =. 2014 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.095003 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.095003 2014

  58. [58]

    and Bieber, J

    Saur, J. and Bieber, J. W. , TITLE =. 1999 , Volume =

    1999

  59. [59]

    and Politano, H

    Saur, J. and Politano, H. and Pouquet, A. and Matthaeus, W. H. , TITLE =. 2002 , Volume =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020305 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020305 2002

  60. [60]

    V. L. Saveliev and M. A. Gorokhovski , TITLE =. 2005 , JOURNAL = pre, Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.72.016302 , EID =

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.72.016302 2005

  61. [61]

    Schaefer and M

    P. Schaefer and M. Gampert and N. Peters , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.3701380 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3701380 2012

  62. [62]

    Schaffner, D. A. and Wan, A. and Brown, M. R. , TITLE =. 2014 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.165001 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.165001 2014

  63. [63]

    D. A. Schaffner and M. R. Brown and V. S. Lukin , TITLE =. 2014 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/126 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/126 2014

  64. [64]

    2012 , Volume =

    Hans Schamel , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.3682047 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3682047 2012

  65. [65]

    Schecter, D. A. and Dubin, D. H. E. and Fine, K. S. and Driscoll, C. F. , TITLE =. 1999 , Volume =

    1999

  66. [66]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Cowley, S. C. and Hammett, G. W. and Maron, J. L. and Mc. A model of nonlinear evolution and saturation of the turbulent. 2002 , Volume =

    2002

  67. [67]

    A. A. Schekochihin and N. E. L. Haugen and A. Brandenburg and S. C. Cowley and J. L. Maron and J. C. Mc. The Onset of a Small-Scale Turbulent Dynamo at Low Magnetic. 2005 , Volume =

    2005

  68. [68]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Cowley, S. C. and Dorland, W. , TITLE =. 2007 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/5A/S16 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/5a/s16 2007

  69. [69]

    A. A. Schekochihin and S. C. Cowley and T. A. Yousef , TITLE =. Computational Physics and New Perspectives in Turbulence , EDITOR =. 2008 , DOI =

    2008

  70. [70]

    A. A. Schekochihin and S. C. Cowley , TITLE =. Magnetohydrodynamics:. 2007 , DOI =

    2007

  71. [71]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Cowley, S. C. and Dorland, W. and Hammett, G. W. and Howes, G. G. and Plunk, G. G. and Quataert, E. and Tatsuno, T. , TITLE =. 2008 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/50/12/124024 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/50/12/124024 2008

  72. [72]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Cowley, S. C. and Dorland, W. and Hammett, G. W. and Howes, G. G. and Quataert, E. and Tatsuno, T. , TITLE =. 2009 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/310 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/310 2009

  73. [73]

    A. A. Schekochihin and S. C. Cowley and F. Rincon and M. S. Rosin , TITLE =. 2010 , Volume =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16493.x , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16493.x 2010

  74. [74]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Nazarenko, S. V. and Yousef, T. A. , TITLE =. 2012 , Volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.85.036406 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1103/physreve.85.036406 2012

  75. [75]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Parker, J. T. and Highcock, E. G. and Dellar, P. J. and Dorland, W. and Hammett, G. W. , TITLE =. 2016 , Volume =. doi:10.1017/S0022377816000374 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1017/s0022377816000374 2016

  76. [76]

    Schekochihin, A. A. and Kawazura, Y. and Barnes, M. A. , TITLE =. 2019 , Volume =. doi:10.1017/S0022377819000345 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1017/s0022377819000345 2019

  77. [77]

    Schekochihin, A. A. , TITLE =. 2022 , Volume =. doi:10.1017/S0022377822000721 , KEYWORDS =

    doi:10.1017/s0022377822000721 2022

  78. [78]

    Schep, T. J. and Pegoraro, F. and Kuvshinov, B. N. , TITLE =. 1994 , Volume =. doi:10.1063/1.870523 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.870523 1994

  79. [79]

    R. A. Scheper and A. B. Hassam , TITLE =. 1999 , Volume =. doi:10.1086/306702 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1086/306702 1999

  80. [80]

    and Fichtner, H

    Scherer, K. and Fichtner, H. , TITLE =. 2014 , Volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/25 , KEYWORDS =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/25 2014

Showing first 80 references.