Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Evidence for an Inverse Cascade of Magnetic Helicity in the Inner Heliosphere

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using more than 500 radial samples from Parker Solar Probe, this paper reports the first direct observational evidence that magnetic helicity in the inner heliosphere undergoes an inverse cascade, with helical structures growing from ~10…

desk verdict New PSP spectral trend—helicity peaks drifting logarithmically with distance—but the single-pass space–time mixture makes the 'confirmed inverse cascade' claim premature. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13213 v1 pith:NPQVDPZL submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Masatomi Iizawa , Yasuhito Narita , Tommaso Alberti , Stuart D. Bale , Axel Brandenburg , Abraham C.-L. Chian , Horia Comişel , Shuichi Matsukiyo
show 1 more author
Nobumitsu Yokoi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords magnetichelicityinversecascadesolarwindturbulenceParkerProbedensityspectruminnerheliosphereeddysnowballeffection-cyclotronwaves
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

Using Parker Solar Probe magnetic field measurements at more than 500 heliocentric distances between 0.1 and 0.78 AU, this paper reports the first direct observational evidence for an inverse cascade of magnetic helicity in the inner heliosphere. At 0.1 AU the normalized magnetic helicity spectrum shows a negative peak near 10 Hz and a positive peak near 20 Hz; as the probe moves outward, both peaks drift to lower frequencies following $f = f_0 e^{-9r}$ out to about 0.4 AU. The authors call this the 'eddy snowball effect' and argue that the logarithmic frequency shift cannot be explained by solar wind expansion, which would predict $f \propto 1/r$. If the interpretation holds, it overturns the conventional view that magnetic helicity in the inner heliosphere is randomly distributed, and it connects turbulence cascade direction to ion-cyclotron and whistler wave physics in a new way.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized magnetic helicity density spectrum $\sigma_m$, computed from the transverse magnetic field components in the RTN coordinate system via Welch's method; the sign convention takes positive helicity as right-handed with respect to the radial outward direction. The frequency-space position of the positive and negative peaks is the observable, and the Taylor frozen-flow hypothesis converts those frequencies into wavenumbers. The mechanism that carries the argument is the 'eddy snowball effect,' the observed logarithmic decline of peak frequency with distance, summarized by the empirical law $f = f_0 e^{-9r}$ with $\lambda \approx 9\,\mathrm{AU}^{-1}$. This law is what separates a genuine nonlinear inverse cascade from the milder $f \propto 1/r$ frequency shift that adiabatic solar wind expansion would mimic.

What would settle it

Track the same plasma parcel with two spacecraft, or with Parker Solar Probe on consecutive orbits: if a helicity peak seen near 10 Hz at 0.1 AU appears at a lower frequency when the same parcel is measured farther out, the inverse-cascade interpretation is directly supported; if instead the peak frequency is set by the solar source and differs from one parcel to the next, the radial trend would disappear when parcels are sorted by their source properties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 0.1–0.4 AU, the magnetic helicity density spectrum in the solar wind is not featureless noise: it consists of a negative-helicity peak and a positive-helicity peak whose frequencies decrease logarithmically with heliocentric distance. The authors interpret the monotonic drift as a nonlinear inverse cascade of magnetic helicity, in which small-scale helical fluctuations coalesce into larger-scale ones while the solar wind advects them outward. They rule out the main alternative, simple expansion of the solar wind, on the grounds that the observed exponential scaling $f = f_0 e^{-9r}$ differs from the $1/r$ scaling that expansion alone would produce under the frozen-flow hypothesis and Parker's solar wind model. They also argue that parametric decay cannot produce the clean sign separation of the two helicity peaks, and suggest proton temperature anisotropy instabilities (ion-cyclotron and whistler) as the source of the two opposite-helicity populations. Beyond about 0.5 AU the organized structure disappears, which the authors tentatively link to crossing of the heliospheric current sheet.

Load-bearing premise

The one-hour spectra at successive heliocentric distances are treated as snapshots of the same evolving solar wind, but they were not taken concurrently; if different distances sample unrelated plasma parcels or separate solar events, the frequency-distance trend need not reflect a cascade inside a single parcel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inner heliosphere retains an organized sign structure of magnetic helicity out to about 0.4 AU, contrary to the view that it is randomly distributed beyond 0.5 AU.
  • The empirical frequency law $f = f_0 e^{-9r}$ gives a quantitative target that any theory of helicity cascade in stratified, expanding MHD turbulence must reproduce.
  • Expansion alone cannot account for the shift, so models of solar wind turbulence must include a nonlinear helicity cascade to explain the observed growth of large-scale eddies.
  • The high-frequency band near 10–100 Hz, usually associated with ion-cyclotron and whistler waves, is where the helicity cascade signal lives; heating models built on those waves need to account for an inverse transfer of helicity.
  • The disappearance of the helicity structure beyond roughly 0.5 AU, tentatively linked to the heliospheric current sheet, implies the cascade is disrupted or masked in that region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the inverse cascade is generic, helicity from kinetic scales may accumulate near the ion-cyclotron scale and act as a reservoir feeding the 'helicity barrier' proposed for solar wind heating, but the paper does not test that link.
  • Beyond the paper: a multi-spacecraft campaign sampling the same solar wind parcel at two distances would separate radial evolution from source variability and could turn the current single-sweep evidence into a direct measurement of the cascade rate.
  • Beyond the paper: the exponential decay constant of about $9\,\mathrm{AU}^{-1}$ may reflect a balance between cascade rate and expansion rate; comparing it across solar wind types or solar cycle phases would test whether it is universal or specific to the 2021 encounter.
  • Beyond the paper: applying the same spectral analysis to higher-cadence data inside 0.1 AU would show whether the helicity peaks continue to drift upward in frequency toward the Sun or saturate, constraining where the inverse cascade begins.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes magnetic helicity density spectra computed from Parker Solar Probe FIELDS fluxgate magnetometer data collected during a single radial pass between 0.100 and 0.782 AU (September 29 to November 22, 2021). Using hourly spectra at 0.002 AU radial increments, the authors report a negative helicity peak near 10 Hz and a positive peak near 20 Hz at 0.1 AU, with both peak frequencies decreasing with heliocentric distance. They fit the decrease as f = f0 exp(-λ r) with λ ≈ 9 AU^-1, call this the 'eddy snowball effect,' and interpret it as the first direct observational evidence of an inverse cascade of magnetic helicity in the inner heliosphere. They argue against solar wind expansion as an explanation because their observed exponential scaling differs from the f ∝ 1/r dependence derived from Parker's model, and they propose that proton temperature anisotropy instabilities generate the two helicity signs.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the result would be a significant observational milestone: a persistent magnetic-helicity inverse cascade operating from near the Sun out to ~0.4 AU, with implications for solar wind turbulence, heating, and the helicity barrier. The paper makes a clear and falsifiable prediction (a logarithmic decrease of the helicity-peak frequency with distance) and provides 95% confidence intervals that suggest the peaks are statistically significant. However, the central inference depends on identifying a radial evolution from a single non-concurrent spacecraft pass, and the manuscript's own caveats about temporal solar events are dismissed rather than resolved. The claimed 'first observational evidence' is therefore conditional on a reproducibility check that is not yet performed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Analytical method and result; Discussion and conclusion] The central claim that the observed frequency shift is a radial inverse cascade rests on interpreting the distance-frequency trend in Fig. 3 as evolution of the same underlying plasma population. However, the data come from one PSP pass (Sep 29–Nov 22, 2021) in which each 0.002 AU bin is sampled at a different time; the trend is thus a space-time mixture. The authors explicitly acknowledge that 'it is also conceivable that our observations captured solar events spanning several weeks or more,' but they assert that such possibilities 'would not affect the subsequent discussions' without providing an argument or evidence. This is load-bearing: temporal source variability (CMEs, stream interaction regions, coronal hole evolution over several solar rotations) could produce a monotonic frequency drift with distance that mimics an inverse cascade. Please quantify the source-variability contamination, for example by comparing with concurrent observations at another spacecraft (e.g., Wind, STEREO, BepiColombo) or by repeating the analysis on a second PSP encounter covering a similar radial range. Without such a check, the claim of a 'persistent inverse cascade' is not established.
  2. [Discussion and conclusion] The discrimination between an inverse cascade and solar wind expansion is based on comparing the empirical exponential fit f = f0 exp(-λ r) with the f ∝ 1/r dependence derived from Parker's model and the frozen-flow hypothesis. The exponential fit involves two free parameters (f0, λ) and is not the output of any cascade model; no theoretical derivation is given for why a helicity inverse cascade in an expanding wind should produce exp(-λ r) rather than some other functional form. Over the fitted range 0.1–0.4 AU, a 1/r curve and an exponential curve both decrease by a large factor, and it is not demonstrated that the data can statistically distinguish the two forms given the uncertainties in peak frequencies and the few independent radial bins. Please provide a theoretical scaling prediction for the inverse-cascade scenario (including expansion and the advection term invoked in the discussion) or perform a formal model comparison (e.g., AIC or F-test) between exp(-λ r) and 1/r using the confidence intervals for the fitted peak frequencies.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Analytical method and result] The text and figure legend are ambiguous about what quantity is fitted by the yellow line f = 2×10 exp(-9r). At 0.1 AU the negative-helicity peak is reported at 10 Hz and the positive-helicity peak at 20 Hz, yet the line appears to pass through 20 Hz at r ≈ 0.1 AU while the text says it represents 'the frequency of the peak of negative helicity density.' The abstract also emphasizes a 'radial sign change of the spectral magnetic helicity density at a frequency whose value decreases logarithmically with distance,' which is a different quantity from a peak frequency. Please clarify whether the fit is to the negative peak, the positive peak, or a zero-crossing frequency, and define the plotted quantity unambiguously. As written, the reader cannot tell which observable is the subject of the central claim.
  4. [Analytical method and result] The identification of 'sharp, narrow peaks' as instrumental artifacts is essential for excluding a trivial origin of the 10 Hz and 20 Hz peaks, but no objective criterion is given. If peaks that do not follow the trend are discarded as artifacts while those that follow it are retained, the central claim becomes difficult to falsify. Please state the quantitative rule used to classify a peak as an instrumental artifact (for example, spectral width, amplitude, stability across adjacent distance bins, correlation with known spacecraft or FIELDS noise modes, or aliasing), and show that the retained peaks at 10 Hz and 20 Hz satisfy the same rule.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Analytical method and result] Typographical errors: 'definiton' should be 'definition', and 'existance' should be 'existence'.
  2. [References] Reference [12] lists 'L´ eoorat' but the correct spelling is 'L´ eorat' (Pouquet, Frisch, and L´ eorat).
  3. [Analytical method and result] The sentence 'the dissipation range remains unobserved, implying that the Kolmogorov scale exceeds 2×10^2 Hz' confuses a length scale with a frequency. Rephrase as 'the dissipation range is not reached up to 2×10^2 Hz' or state the implied frequency cutoff for the start of the dissipation range.
  4. [Analytical method and result] The term 'eddy snowball effect' is introduced without a formal definition. Please define it explicitly (e.g., the logarithmic decrease of the helicity-peak frequency with heliocentric distance) and explain the physical analogy, since the name suggests a growth process that is not directly observed.
  5. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2] The Welch segment lengths are stated as 2^13 and 2^11, but the number of overlapping segments and the effective degrees of freedom for the 95% confidence intervals are not given. Please provide these values so the statistical significance of the peak heights can be independently assessed.
  6. [Analytical method and result] When introducing Eq. (1), the notation ⟨|b_T|^2⟩ and ⟨|b_N|^2⟩ uses angle brackets, but the text does not specify whether these are ensemble averages or frequency-band averages; please define the averaging procedure used in the Welch estimation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the frequency-shift observation is empirical and the inverse-cascade attribution is interpretive, not built into the definition of the measured helicity spectra.

full rationale

The analysis pipeline is direct: normalized magnetic helicity density spectra are computed from PSP/FIELDS data via Eq. (1), Welch's method, and the Taylor hypothesis. No step defines the measured helicity in terms of the claimed cascade direction or vice versa. The observed peak shift is summarized by the empirical fit f = 2×10 exp(-9r) in Fig. 3, and this same fitted trend is then interpreted as evidence for an inverse cascade; that interpretation is an inference, not an equation equivalent to the input. The rule-out of expansion uses a separately derived f ∝ 1/r scaling (Eq. 2) and is not circular. Self-citations (refs. 39, 40, 45, 46, 51) are contextual or used to argue against alternative explanations, and none supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The manuscript does contain an explicit limitation: 'It is also conceivable that our observations captured solar events spanning several weeks or more. Nevertheless, these possibilities would not affect the subsequent discussions.' This is a validity concern about temporal confounding of non-concurrent radial sampling, not circularity; the unsupported dismissal is a correctness risk, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard spectral estimation and on domain assumptions about how single-spacecraft observations map to radial evolution. The fitted exponential parameters lambda and f0 are not derived from theory; they characterize the data. The main unverified premises are Taylor frozen flow with an average velocity and the identification of one PSP pass as a radial evolution sequence.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda = approx 9 AU^-1
    Exponent in f = f0 exp(-lambda r), fitted to the observed peak frequencies; used as evidence for the 'eddy snowball effect' and to distinguish from the 1/r expansion scaling.
  • f0 = not reported
    Amplitude parameter of the exponential fit to helicity peak frequencies; the physical value is not stated in the paper.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Taylor frozen-flow hypothesis holds with an average proton bulk velocity.
    The authors convert frequency to wavenumber using an average bulk velocity because many velocity measurements are missing. If the flow is not frozen or the velocity error is large, the wavenumber mapping and the 1/r comparison change. Section: Analytical method and result.
  • domain assumption Successive PSP measurements at different heliocentric distances represent radial evolution of the same plasma type.
    The radial trend is inferred from one PSP pass over 54 days; PSP samples different times and locations. The authors acknowledge measurements are not concurrent and solar events could be involved. Discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper Sharp narrow peaks and green zones in Fig. 2 are correctly classified as instrumental artifacts.
    The paper dismisses sharp narrow peaks as instrumental artifacts without a quantitative criterion; the contamination regions are identified post hoc. This affects which peaks are counted as real helicity signals. Section: Fig. 2 and accompanying text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for an Inverse Cascade of Magnetic Helicity in the Inner Heliosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NPQVDPZL

@misc{pith2026250713213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for an Inverse Cascade of Magnetic Helicity in the Inner Heliosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NPQVDPZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13213}
}
read the original abstract

To elucidate the cascade direction of the solar wind turbulence, we analyzed magnetic helicity density spectra from the Parker Solar Probe data across more than 500 heliocentric distances. For the first time, we confirmed a persistent inverse cascade extending from the Sun to Mercury's orbital vicinity. This finding challenges the conventional hypothesis that the magnetic helicity density within the inner heliosphere is random. Furthermore, our analysis revealed a radial sign change of the spectral magnetic helicity density at a frequency whose value decreases logarithmically with distance. These results provide new insights into the evolution of solar wind turbulence in the inner heliosphere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. [Upper figure] Distance dependence of the absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Normalized magnetic helicity density spectra. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Normalized magnetic helicity density spectra versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, Proc. USSR Acad. Sci.30, 301 (1941)

    work page 1941

  2. [2]

    S. R. Cranmer and A. R. Winebarger, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.57, 157 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Squire, R

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

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Pouquet and N

    A. Pouquet and N. Yokoi, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A380, 20210087 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    R. H. Kraichnan, Phys. Fluids10, 1417 (1967)

    work page 1967

  6. [6]

    Boffetta and R

    G. Boffetta and R. E. Ecke, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.44, 5 427 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Kellay and W

    H. Kellay and W. I. Goldburg, Rep. Prog. Phys.65, 845 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    S. D. Danilov and D. Gurarie, Phys.-Uspekhi170, 921 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    H. K. Moffatt, J. Fluid Mech.35, 117 (1969)

    1969

  2. [10]

    R. H. Kraichnan, J. Fluid Mech.59, 745 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    Frisch, A

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

    1975

  4. [12]

    Pouquet, U

    A. Pouquet, U. Frisch, and J. L´ eoorat, J. Fluid Mech. 77, 321 (1976)

    1976

  5. [13]

    Meneguzzi, U

    M. Meneguzzi, U. Frisch, and A. Pouquet, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1060 (1981)

    1981

  6. [14]

    Brandenburg, Astrophys

    A. Brandenburg, Astrophys. J.550, 824 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    P. D. Mininni, D. O. Gomez, and S. M. Mahajan, Astro- phys. J.587, 472 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Waleffe, Phys

    F. Waleffe, Phys. Fluids A4, 350 (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    Biferale, S

    L. Biferale, S. Musacchio, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 164501 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    S lomka and J

    J. S lomka and J. Dunkel, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.114, 2119 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    W. H. Matthaeus, M. L. Goldstein, and C. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1256 (1982)

    1982

  12. [20]

    R. J. Leamon, C. W. Smith, N. F. Ness, W. H. Matthaeus, and H. K. Wong, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.103, 4775 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    C. W. Smith, Adv. Space Res.32, 1971 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Re- cent missions, such as the Parker Solar Probe (PSP), have increased the availability of magnetic field data within 1 AU

    pointed out a peak in the high-frequency band above the inertial range at 1 AU using STEREO-A data. Re- cent missions, such as the Parker Solar Probe (PSP), have increased the availability of magnetic field data within 1 AU. This enables detailed studies of tempo- ral variatio...

    2021

  15. [23]

    J. J. Podesta, Sol. Phys.286, 529 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Telloni, R

    D. Telloni, R. Bruno, and L. Trenchi, Astrophys. J.805, 46 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Alberti, Y

    T. Alberti, Y. Narita, L. Z. Hadid, D. Heyner, A. Milillo, C. Plainaki, H.-U. Auster, and I. Richter, Astron. Astro- phys.664, L8 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    D. Duan, J. He, T. A. Bowen, L. D. Woodham, T. Wang, C. H. K. Chen, A. Mallet, and S. D. Bale, Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L8 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bruno and M

    R. Bruno and M. Dobrowolny, Ann. Geophys. Ser. A4, 17 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    W. H. Matthaeus and M. L. Goldstein, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.87, 6011 (1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Narita, G

    Y. Narita, G. Kleindienst, and K.-H. Glassmeier, Ann. Geophys.27, 3967 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    S. D. Bale, K. Goetz, P. R. Harvey, P. Turin, J. W. Bon- nell, T. Dudok de Wit, R. E. Ergun, R. J. MacDowall, M. Pulupa, M. Andre, M. Bolton, J.-L. Bougeret, T. A. Bowen, D. Burgess, C. A. Cattell, B. D. G. Chandran, C. C. Chaston, C. H. K. Chen, M. K. Choi, J. E. Conner- ney,...

    2016

  23. [31]

    N. J. Fox, M. C. Velli, S. D. Bale, R. Decker, A. Dries- man, R. A. Howard, J. C. Kasper, J. Kinnison, M. Kus- terer, D. Lario, M. K. Lockwood, D. J. McComas, N. E. Raouafi, and A. Szabo, Space Sci. Rev.204, 7 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Narita, Helicities in geophysics, astrophysics and be- yond (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2023) Chap

    Y. Narita, Helicities in geophysics, astrophysics and be- yond (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2023) Chap. 7, pp. 105–116

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ram ´ ırez, I

    D. Ram ´ ırez, I. Santamar ´ ıa, and L. Scharf,Coherence: In Signal Processing and Machine Learning(Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    J. J. Podesta and S. P. Gary, Astrophys. J.734, 15 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Welch, IEEE Trans

    P. Welch, IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoustics15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  28. [36]

    J. C. Kasper, R. Abiad, G. Austin, M. Balat-Pichelin, S. D. Bale, J. W. Belcher, P. Berg, H. Bergner, M. Berthomier, J. Bookbinder, E. Brodu, D. Caldwell, A. W. Case, B. D. G. Chandran, P. Cheimets, J. W. Cirtain, S. R. Cranmer, D. W. Curtis, P. Daigneau, G. Dalton, B. Dasgupt...

    2016

  29. [37]

    R. Livi, D. E. Larson, J. C. Kasper, R. Abiad, A. W. Case, K. G. Klein, D. W. Curtis, G. Dalton, M. Stevens, K. E. Korreck, G. Ho, M. Robinson, C. Tiu, P. L. Whit- tlesey, J. L. Verniero, J. Halekas, J. McFadden, M. Mar- ckwordt, A. Slagle, M. Abatcha, A. Rahmati, and M. D. Mc...

    2022

  30. [38]

    G. I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. A164, 476 (1938)

    1938

  31. [39]

    C. H. K. Chen, S. D. Bale, J. W. Bonnell, D. Borovikov, T. A. Bowen, D. Burgess, A. W. Case, B. D. G. Chan- dran, T. D. de Wit, K. Goetz, P. R. Harvey, J. C. Kasper, K. G. Klein, K. E. Korreck, D. Larson, R. Livi, R. J. Mac- Dowall, D. M. Malaspina, A. Mallet, M. D. McManus, M...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Alberti, M

    T. Alberti, M. Laurenza, G. Consolini, A. Milillo, M. F. Marcucci, V. Carbone, and S. D. Bale, Astrophys. J.902, 84 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Alberti, S

    T. Alberti, S. Benella, G. Consolini, M. Stumpo, and R. Benzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.940, L13 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Del Zanna, M

    L. Del Zanna, M. Velli, and P. Londrillo, Astron. Astro- phys.367, 705 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Tenerani and M

    A. Tenerani and M. Velli, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118, 7507 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Bruno and V

    R. Bruno and V. Carbone, Living Rev. Sol. Phys.10, 2 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    T. A. Bowen, S. Badman, P. Hellinger, and S. D. Bale, Astrophys. J. Lett.854, L33 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    E. G. Blackman and A. Brandenburg, Astrophys. J.584, L99 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Brandenburg, K

    A. Brandenburg, K. Subramanian, A. Balogh, and M. L. 6 Goldstein, Astrophys. J.734, 9 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    C. Y. Tu and E. Marsch, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 98, 1257 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Marsch and C

    E. Marsch and C. Y. Tu, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 98, 21045 (1993)

    1993

  42. [50]

    Grappin and M

    R. Grappin and M. Velli, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 101, 425 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    M. L. Goldstein and D. A. Roberts, Phys. Plasmas6, 4154 (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    Yokoi and F

    N. Yokoi and F. Hamba, Phys. Plasmas14, 112904 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Wang and O

    Y. Wang and O. Chkhetiani, Phys. D454, 133835 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Sorriso-Valvo, R

    L. Sorriso-Valvo, R. Marino, V. Carbone, A. Noullez, F. Lepreti, P. Veltri, R. Bruno, B. Bavassano, and E. Pietropaolo, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 115001 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Sorriso-Valvo, R

    L. Sorriso-Valvo, R. Marino, R. Foldes, E. L´ evˆ eque, R. D’Amicis, R. Bruno, D. Telloni, and E. Yordanova, Astron. Astrophys.672, A13 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    H. Wu, C. Tu, J. He, X. Wang, and L. Yang, Astrophys. J.927, 113 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    H. Wu, C. Tu, J. He, X. Wang, and L. Yang, Phys. Plas- mas30, 020501 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Consolini, T

    G. Consolini, T. Alberti, and V. Carbone, Entropy22, 1419 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    J. M. Wilcox and N. F. Ness, J. Geophys. Res.70, 5793 (1965)

    1965

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.