Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 96 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A turbulence-born chain of waves and vortices can create electron-scale magnetic holes.

desk verdict A plausible new turbulence-driven pathway to electron-scale magnetic holes, but the asserted whistler-to-Bernstein conversion needs a frequency-wavenumber check before the central claim is granted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09651 v2 pith:O6XEQX7J submitted 2025-01-16 physics.space-ph

Joaquín Espinoza-Troni , Giuseppe Arrò , Felipe A Asenjo , Pablo S Moya This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords magneticholeselectron-scaleplasmaturbulencewhistlerwavesBernsteinmodesmodeconversionfullykineticsimulationmagnetosheath
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 reports a fully kinetic simulation of decaying plasma turbulence with magnetosheath-like parameters in which electron-scale magnetic holes form spontaneously. The authors identify a five-step pathway: large-scale velocity shears build localized electron temperature anisotropy; the anisotropy excites oblique whistler waves; the whistlers acquire an electrostatic component and are interpreted as converting into Bernstein-like modes; electrostatic fluctuations drive E×B current filaments that merge into an electron current vortex; and that vortex carves out a magnetic-field dip about 5 electron inertial lengths wide, with an electron velocity distribution shaped like a mushroom. If correct, the mechanism explains a class of small magnetic holes seen in spacecraft data without invoking pre-existing electron-scale seeds, and it ties hole formation to the turbulence cascade itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the whistler-to-Bernstein-like mode conversion: as the whistler propagates into regions where the background field tilts out of the plane, its propagation becomes quasi-perpendicular and a longitudinal electrostatic component with harmonic structure at multiples of kde = 0.81 appears. The authors interpret this through a nonlinear forced-wave expansion of the kinetic equations, in which the whistler acts as an antenna that drives higher harmonics whose character changes as the background plasma varies. The resulting Bernstein-like electrostatic field, combined with the ambient magnetic field through the E×B drift, sets up the space-alternating current filaments that merge into the vortex sustaining the magnetic hole.

What would settle it

Compute the dispersion relation of the longitudinal electrostatic fluctuations seen at t = 225–275 Ωe⁻¹ and check whether the frequency–wavenumber pairs, with k⊥ resolved, lie on the Bernstein dispersion branches at multiples of the electron cyclotron frequency. If the measured harmonics do not fall on a Bernstein branch, or if a control run with a uniform background field (no tilt past 45 degrees) still produces the same harmonic chain and current filaments, then the observed 'conversion' would be a nonlinear property of the whistler itself rather than a true change of mode identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that turbulence alone, without any electron-scale initial perturbation, can produce electron-scale magnetic holes. In the simulation the holes emerge from a chain beginning with turbulent velocity shear, which through the pressure tensor raises Te⊥/Te∥ locally; the resulting oblique whistler-cyclotron instability radiates waves at kde ~ 0.81; as those waves travel through the inhomogeneous field, the angle between propagation and B rises past roughly 45 degrees, longitudinal electric field fluctuations appear with harmonics at kde = 0.81, 1.62, 2.43, and near-linear polarization; these are identified as quasi-electrostatic Bernstein-like modes; the longitudinal electric field creates alternating E×B drift current filaments; two filaments merge into a larger electron ring-current vortex; and the vortex's diamagnetic current lowers |B| by about 30 percent over about 5de. The resulting structure hosts trapped high-pitch-angle electrons, higher Te⊥/Te∥, increased density, and a 'mushroom' electron velocity distribution, matching reported features of sub-ion-scale magnetic holes.

Load-bearing premise

The chain's pivotal step is the claim that the whistler actually converts into a Bernstein-like mode; the evidence is harmonic peaks in the longitudinal electric field and linear polarization, but the paper does not quantitatively rule out that the same harmonics could arise from nonlinear steepening of the whistler or from wave-particle effects, so the mode-conversion reading is the premise on which the title's causal chain rests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electron-scale magnetic holes in turbulent magnetosheath-like plasmas can be produced by the cascade itself, so their presence does not require pre-existing electron-scale seeds.
  • The holes form as the final product of whistler waves, meaning wave-driven hole formation can complement the previously proposed electron Kelvin-Helmholtz route; the two mechanisms produce holes at different scales (about 5de versus about di).
  • The same mechanism generates short-lived magnetic hump vortices that are later destroyed by turbulence, offering a possible counterpart to electron-scale magnetic peaks in observations.
  • The mushroom-shaped electron velocity distribution inside the hole is a kinetic signature that could be sought in spacecraft particle data to identify turbulence-born holes.
  • Because the simulation starts from large-scale fluctuations only, the mechanism demonstrates a concrete energy path from MHD scales to electron scales through wave conversion and vortex merging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conversion interpretation holds, the mechanism implies that the rate of electron-scale magnetic hole production in the magnetosheath should track the local whistler activity and the presence of large-scale velocity shears; a statistical test with spacecraft data correlating hole counts with whistler wave power and shear amplitude could verify this.
  • The 2D geometry may exaggerate the vortex-merging stage; in 3D, out-of-plane wave propagation could change the mode conversion and the stability of the merged vortex, so the specific size scaling (about twice the driving wavelength) is a prediction that should be tested in 3D simulations.
  • The same chain might operate in other turbulent space environments with similar electron beta and anisotropy conditions, such as the solar wind; the simulation's parameters are magnetosheath-like, so the solar-wind case is an open extrapolation.
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 uses a 2D fully kinetic PIC simulation of freely decaying plasma turbulence (ECsim, 64 d_i box, magnetosheath-like parameters) to document one electron-scale magnetic hole at t = 500 Ω_e^{-1}. It proposes a five-step causal chain: large-scale turbulent velocity shears locally enhance electron temperature anisotropy; the plasma becomes unstable to the oblique whistler-cyclotron instability; the resulting whistlers convert into quasi-electrostatic Bernstein-like modes as they propagate through the inhomogeneous background; the electrostatic fluctuations drive filamentary E×B currents; and merging of the resulting electron vortices forms the magnetic hole. The fully developed hole is characterized through magnetic-field, density, temperature, current, pitch-angle, and electron velocity-distribution diagnostics, and the whistler step is checked against the DIS-K linear solver using parameters measured from the simulation.

Significance. If the proposed chain is correct, the paper provides a new, self-consistent turbulence-driven pathway for forming electron-scale magnetic holes, a process whose origin is currently debated, and it explicitly links whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion to coherent-structure formation. Strengths include the use of a fully kinetic simulation with injection scales far above electron scales, an external linear-stability check with DIS-K using measured plasma parameters, step-by-step time tracing of the structure, and quantitative current-correlation statistics. The central weakness is that the key mode-conversion step rests on qualitative signatures; this is the main load-bearing point that needs to be hardened.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.3, Figure 6] The evidence for whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion is not yet sufficient. The longitudinal electric field shows spatial harmonics at integer multiples of k d_e = 0.81, 1.62, 2.43, and the hodograms show near-linear polarization, but these signatures are also produced by nonlinear steepening of a whistler or by wave-particle trapping without any change of wave identity. The paper invokes the nonlinear expansion of Yu et al. (2021b) in the text but does not perform that expansion or any equivalent quantitative test, and it does not measure the frequencies of the harmonics. A direct frequency-wavenumber analysis (for example, temporal FFT along the same cuts) comparing the harmonic dispersion with the whistler and Bernstein branches would distinguish true mode conversion from harmonic generation; without this, the central claim in the title and abstract is not established.
  2. [3.4, Figure 8] The correlation between the observed normal electron current and the E×B drift current is moderate rather than strong: Pearson coefficients are 0.81, 0.58, and 0.70 at t = 225, 250, and 275 Ω_e^{-1}, with fitted slopes 1.37, 1.24, and 1.23, meaning that the drift explains at most R^2 ≈ 0.66 of the variance and underestimates the current amplitude by 23–37%. Moreover, the authors state that the correlation is absent in the merged-vortex region. Because the vortex chain is attributed to these drift currents, the paper should quantify the remaining current contributions (pressure-gradient drift, polarization current, inertial effects) and demonstrate that the mechanism still operates where vortex merging actually occurs.
  3. [3.2, Table 1] The DIS-K check is a useful external consistency test, but the linear-solver inputs are single-time, single-cut spatial averages taken in a strongly inhomogeneous turbulent background. The observed wavenumber and propagation angle could be selected by the background gradients rather than by the local linear instability. A sensitivity analysis varying A_e, β_∥e, and ω_pe/Ω_e within the measured ranges, together with a comparison of the predicted fastest-growing mode with the observed peak, would make the whistler-generation claim more robust.
  4. [3.1 and Conclusions] The full causal chain is demonstrated for a single magnetic hole in a single 2D simulation. The authors acknowledge the 2D limitation, but the broader claim that turbulence generates electron-scale MHs through this mechanism would be substantially strengthened by showing that the same sequence occurs for at least one additional independent structure in the same run, or by providing event statistics. As it stands, the paper is a detailed case study rather than a statistical demonstration of the mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The notation for the local coordinate system alternates between 'LNz' and 'LNZ'; please use a single convention consistently.
  2. [1, Introduction] The phrase 'Kelvin-Helhomtz' should be corrected to 'Kelvin-Helmholtz'.
  3. [3.3, Figure 6 caption] The caption describes the white lines as 'harmonics of the frequency i.e. kde = 0.81, 1.62, 2.43', but these are wavenumbers rather than frequencies; please clarify the distinction.
  4. [2, Simulation Setup] The Gaussian-filter scale of 0.75 d_i is stated but not tested. Because all high-pass/low-pass quantities depend on this scale, a short robustness check (for instance, 0.5 or 1.0 d_i) would help show that the identified wave and vortex features are not filter artifacts.
  5. [3.3] The term 'quasi-electrostatic' is used without a quantitative definition. Reporting, for example, the ratio of longitudinal electric to magnetic fluctuation energy or δE·B/|δE||B| would make the electrostatic character of the Bernstein-like mode testable.
  6. [References] There appear to be duplicate or inconsistent entries for Arrò et al. 2024; please verify the reference list and unify the citation format.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's causal chain is assembled from independent diagnostics and external linear-theory checks, not from fitting or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The paper's five-step mechanism is supported by separate diagnostics, none of which is defined in terms of the conclusion. The whistler-wave identification uses the DIS-K linear solver (cited as López et al. 2021) with plasma parameters averaged from the simulation (Ae = 2.1, β∥e = 0.3, etc.), not fitted to the observed wave frequency, growth rate, or polarization; the predicted quantities are compared with simulation output as an external consistency check. The wavenumber kde = 0.81 is measured from the simulation's FFT, not imposed by the solver. The Bernstein-like stage is identified by harmonics at integer multiples of that measured wavenumber and by nearly linear polarization; although this identification is qualitative and alternative explanations (nonlinear steepening, wave-particle effects) are not quantitatively excluded, that is an evidentiary weakness rather than circularity. The vortex-formation step compares the simulated δJeN with the E×B drift current computed from the same measured fields; this is a diagnostic decomposition, not a fitted prediction. Self-citations (Arrò et al. 2023 for the simulation run; López et al. 2021 for DIS-K) are used as data and software provenance and do not carry the load-bearing argument; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper explicitly acknowledges the 2D-geometry limitation and states it does not claim this is the only possible generation mechanism. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the kinetic simulation, the representativeness of the chosen plasma parameters, and the interpretation of spectral and polarization diagnostics as evidence for mode conversion. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the filter scale, which is a data-analysis choice rather than a fitted model parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian filter scale = 0.75 d_i
    Spatial scale used to high/low-pass filter fields throughout the analysis. Chosen by hand to exclude large-scale fluctuations; the identification of the wave and vortices depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vlasov-Maxwell system solved by ECsim is a faithful model of collisionless magnetosheath plasma dynamics
    The simulation uses reduced mass ratio mi/me=100 and 2D geometry; 3D effects are not captured, as the authors state in the conclusions.
  • domain assumption The initial conditions (beta_i=8, beta_e=2, delta B/B0=0.9, delta u/cA=3.6) are representative of typical magnetosheath conditions
    Chosen based on MMS observations cited in the paper; the generality of the mechanism across parameter space is untested.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear interaction described by Yu et al. (2021b) applies to the inhomogeneous turbulent background in the simulation
    The paper invokes this reference as a theoretical argument for mode conversion but does not derive the conversion quantitatively.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian filter scale 0.75 d_i separates large-scale turbulence from electron-scale fluctuations without distorting the wave dynamics
    The choice is justified pragmatically; results could depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron scale magnetic holes generation driven by Whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion in fully kinetic plasma turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O6XEQX7J

@misc{pith2026250109651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron scale magnetic holes generation driven by Whistler-to-Bernstein mode conversion in fully kinetic plasma turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O6XEQX7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09651}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic holes (MHs) are coherent structures characterized by a strong and localized magnetic field amplitude dip, commonly observed in the solar wind and planetary magnetosheaths. These structures come in different sizes, from magnetohydrodynamic to kinetic scales. Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) observations have revealed electron scale MHs to be ubiquitous in the turbulent Earth's magnetosheath, potentially playing an important role in the energy cascade and dissipation. Despite abundant observations, the origin of electron scale MHs is still unclear and debated. In this work, we use fully kinetic simulations to investigate the role of plasma turbulence in generating electron scale MHs. We perform a fully kinetic simulation of freely decaying plasma turbulence, initialized with typical Earth's magnetosheath parameters. We find that electron scale MHs can be generated by turbulence via the following mechanism: first, large-scale turbulent velocity shears produce regions with high electron temperature anisotropy; these localized regions become unstable, generating oblique electron scale whistler waves; as they propagate over the inhomogeneous turbulent background, whistler fluctuations develop an electrostatic component, turning into Bernstein-like modes; the strong electrostatic fluctuations produce current filaments that merge into an electron scale current vortex; the resulting electron vortex locally reduces the magnetic field amplitude, finally evolving into an electron scale MH. We show that MHs generated by this mechanism have properties consistent with MMS observations and nontrivial kinetic features. We provide numerical evidence of a new electron scale MH generation mechanism, driven by turbulence. Our results have potential implications for understanding the formation and occurrence of electron scale MHs in turbulent environments, such as the Earth's magnetosheath.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panels (a)-(b): shaded isocontours of the magnetic field magnitude over a certain region (x/di ∈ [23, 47] and y/di ∈ [23, 47]) of the simulation box at t = 500Ω−1 e , with a zoom showing an electron scale MH. Panel (c): 3D isosurfaces of the EVDF taken in the region marked by the black square in panel (b), with the black arrow indicating the direction of the mean local magnetic field. Panels (d)-(f): 2D projections … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels (a)-(c): shaded isocontours of the high pass filter of the out-of-plane component of the magnetic field δBz with the black streamlines representing the in-plane magnetic field. Panels (d)-(f): shaded isocontours of the electron anisotropy Ae with the black streamlines representing the in-plane electron fluid velocity. Panels (g)-(i): shaded isocontours of the angle θ between the low-pass filtered magnetic fie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panels (a)-(e): components of the total magnetic field, components of the high pass filtered magnetic field in the orthogonal system of coordinates aligned with the low pass filtered magnetic field, with xˆ1⊥ = zˆ × ⟨B⟩/ p ⟨Bx⟩ 2 + ⟨By⟩ 2 and xˆ2⊥ = ⟨B⟩ × xˆ1⊥/  |⟨B⟩|p ⟨Bx⟩ 2 + ⟨By⟩ 2  , electron and ion density, electron and ion components of the fluid velocity in LNZ coordinates over a 1D cut crossing marked by … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the coordinate systems defined in this work. The unit vectors xˆ and yˆ correspond to the in-plane directions while zˆ is directed perpendicular to the plane. The orthogonal system of coordinates aligned with the low pass filtered magnetic field is give…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panels (a)-(d): shaded isocontours of the angle θ between the low pass filtered magnetic field and the plane with the black streamlines representing the in-plane low-pass filtered total current density ⟨J⟩ = ⟨Ji⟩ + ⟨Je⟩. Panels (e)-(h): shaded isocontours of the high p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Panels (a)-(d): each panel shows the components of the high pass electric field δEL in LNZ coordinates, the total magnetic field components and the longitudinal electric field and total magnetic field spectrogram for times t = 125Ω−1 e , t = 225Ω−1 e , t = 275Ω−1 e and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a)-(d): shaded isocontours of the normal component of the high-pass filtered electron current density δJeN . Panels (e)-(h): shaded isocontours of the longitudinal component of the high-pass filtered electron current density δJeL. Panels (i)-(l): shaded isocont…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation between the normal components of the high pass filtered electron current density δJeN and the drift electron current density δJvE eN for the 1D cut crossings delimited by black points on figure 7 for times t = 225Ω−1 e ,t = 250Ω−1 e and t = 275Ω−1 e . The b…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the mechanism presented in this work for the formation of the chain of electron scale vor￾tices observed in the simulation. The longitudinal electric field fluctuations of the Bernstein-like modes, when interact￾ing with the background magnetic field vi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 122121

    Ahmadi, N., Germaschewski, K., & Raeder, J. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 122121

    2017

  4. [4]

    D., Ergun, R

    Ahmadi, N., Wilder, F. D., Ergun, R. E., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 6383

    2018

  5. [5]

    Arr \`o , G., Li, H., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19927

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L6

    Arrò, G., Califano, F., Pucci, F., Karlsson, T., & Li, H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L6

    2024

  7. [7]

    E., & Lapenta, G

    Arrò, G., Pucci, F., Califano, F., Innocenti, M. E., & Lapenta, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 11

    2023

  8. [8]

    , Califano, F

    Arró, G. , Califano, F. , & Lapenta, G. 2022, A&A, 668, A33

    2022

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Phys

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Chasapis, A., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 225101

    2020

  2. [10]

    & Coppi, B

    Basu, B. & Coppi, B. 1982, Phys. Rev. Lett., 48, 799

    1982

  3. [11]

    2003, Geophysical Research Letters, 30

    Baumgärtel, K., Sauer, K., & Dubinin, E. 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, 30

    2003

  4. [12]

    L., Moore, T

    Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., & Giles, B. L. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 199, 5–21

    2015

  5. [13]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    Califano, F., Hellinger, P., Kuznetsov, E., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    2008

  6. [14]

    & Williamson, C

    Cerreteli, C. & Williamson, C. H. K. 2003, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 475, 41–77

    2003

  7. [15]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9

    Chen, Y., Wu, M., Xiao, S., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9

    2022

  8. [16]

    T., & Janaki, M

    Dasgupta, B., Tsurutani, B. T., & Janaki, M. S. 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, 30

    2003

  9. [17]

    & Pegoraro, F

    Del Sarto, D. & Pegoraro, F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 181

    2017

  10. [18]

    2016, Phys

    Del Sarto, D., Pegoraro, F., & Califano, F. 2016, Phys. Rev. E, 93, 053203

    2016

  11. [19]

    & Kostadinova, E

    Dharodi, V. & Kostadinova, E. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 053702

    2024

  12. [20]

    & Moya, P

    Gallo-Méndez, I. & Moya, P. S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 30

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gary, S. P. 1993, Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities, Cambridge Atmospheric and Space Science Series (Cambridge University Press)

    1993

  14. [22]

    Gary, S. P. & Karimabadi, H. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 111

    2006

  15. [23]

    P., Lavraud, B., Thomsen, M

    Gary, S. P., Lavraud, B., Thomsen, M. F., Lefebvre, B., & Schwartz, S. J. 2005, Geophysical Research Letters, 32

    2005

  16. [24]

    Gary, S. P. & Wang, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 10749

    1996

  17. [25]

    B., Burch, J

    Giagkiozis, S., Wilson, L. B., Burch, J. L., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 5435

    2018

  18. [26]

    A., Bonnell, J

    Goodrich, K. A., Bonnell, J. W., Curry, S., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL090329, e2020GL090329 2020GL090329

    2021

  19. [27]

    T., Burgess, D., Camporeale, E., & Sundberg, T

    Haynes, C. T., Burgess, D., Camporeale, E., & Sundberg, T. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 012309

    2015

  20. [28]

    & Stverák, S

    Hellinger, P. & Stverák, S. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840402

    2018

  21. [29]

    Y., Du, J

    Huang, S. Y., Du, J. W., Sahraoui, F., et al. 2017 a , Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 8577

    2017

  22. [30]

    Y., Sahraoui, F., Deng, X

    Huang, S. Y., Sahraoui, F., Deng, X. H., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 789, L28

    2014

  23. [31]

    Y., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z

    Huang, S. Y., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z. G., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 29

    2018

  24. [32]

    Y., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z

    Huang, S. Y., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z. G., et al. 2017 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 836, L27

    2017

  25. [33]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 4281

    Ji, X.-F., Wang, X.-G., Sun, W.-J., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 4281

    2014

  26. [34]

    Johnson, J. R. & Cheng, C. Z. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 102, 7179

    1997

  27. [35]

    2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20

    Karimabadi, H., Roytershteyn, V., Wan, M., et al. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20

    2013

  28. [36]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028961, e2020JA028961 2020JA028961

    Karlsson, T., Heyner, D., Volwerk, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028961, e2020JA028961 2020JA028961

    2021

  29. [37]

    Kivelson, M. G. & Southwood, D. J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 17365

    1996

  30. [38]

    Krall, N. A. & Trivelpiece, A. W. 1986, Principles of plasma physics (San Francisco Press)

    1986

  31. [39]

    A., Passot, T., & Sulem, P

    Kuznetsov, E. A., Passot, T., & Sulem, P. L. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 235003

    2007

  32. [40]

    2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 334, 349

    Lapenta, G. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 334, 349

    2017

  33. [41]

    2023, Physics, 5, 72

    Lapenta, G. 2023, Physics, 5, 72

    2023

  34. [42]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3277

    Lee, S.-Y., Lee, E., Seough, J., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3277

    2018

  35. [43]

    Leweke, T., Le Dizès, S., & Williamson, C. H. 2016, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 48, 507

    2016

  36. [44]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11

    Li, J.-H., Yang, F., Zhou, X.-Z., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11

    2020

  37. [45]

    & Zhang, M

    Li, Z. & Zhang, M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 2075

    2023

  38. [46]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 4180

    Li, Z.-Y., Sun, W.-J., Wang, X.-G., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 4180

    2016

  39. [47]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 47

    Lion, S., Alexandrova, O., & Zaslavsky, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 47

    2016

  40. [48]

    M., Fu, H

    Liu, C. M., Fu, H. S., Liu, Y. Y., & Xu, Y. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093174, e2021GL093174 2021GL093174

    2021

  41. [49]

    2019, Nature Communications, 10

    Liu, H., Zong, Q.-G., Zhang, H., et al. 2019, Nature Communications, 10

    2019

  42. [50]

    A., Moya, P

    L \'o pez, R. A., Moya, P. S., Shaaban, S. M., et al. 2021, Advanced Numerical Tools for Studying Waves and Instabilities in Kappa Distributed Plasmas, ed. M. Lazar & H. Fichtner (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 163--184

    2021

  43. [51]

    2013, Phys

    Lyutikov, M. 2013, Phys. Rev. E, 88, 053103

    2013

  44. [52]

    2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 905870310

    López, R., Shaaban, S., & Lazar, M. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 905870310

    2021

  45. [53]

    A., Nezlina, Y

    Marchenko, V. A., Nezlina, Y. M., & Pokhotelov, O. A. 1988, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 30, 957

    1988

  46. [54]

    & Lapenta, G

    Markidis, S. & Lapenta, G. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 7037

    2011

  47. [55]

    V., Zabusky, N

    Melander, M. V., Zabusky, N. J., & Mcwilliams, J. C. 1988, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 195, 303–340

    1988

  48. [56]

    2005, Comptes Rendus Physique, 6, 431, aircraft trailing vortices

    Meunier, P., Le Dizès , S., & Leweke, T. 2005, Comptes Rendus Physique, 6, 431, aircraft trailing vortices

    2005

  49. [57]

    1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4, 2871

    Miura, A. 1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4, 2871

    1997

  50. [58]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827, L8

    Narita, Y., Nakamura, R., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827, L8

    2016

  51. [59]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 196

    Perrone, D., Alexandrova, O., Mangeney, A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 196

    2016

  52. [60]

    D., Eastwood, J

    Phan, T. D., Eastwood, J. P., Shay, M. A., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 202–206

    2018

  53. [61]

    A., Onishchenko, O

    Pokhotelov, O. A., Onishchenko, O. G., & Stenflo, L. 2013, Physica Scripta, 87, 065303

    2013

  54. [62]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L18

    Pucci, F., Viviani, M., Valentini, F., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L18

    2021

  55. [63]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7

    Rakhmanova, L., Riazantseva, M., & Zastenker, G. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7

    2021

  56. [64]

    2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140151

    Roytershteyn, V., Karimabadi, H., & Roberts, A. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140151

    2015

  57. [65]

    T., Riedler, W., Schwingenschuh, K., & Yeroshenko, Y

    Russell, C. T., Riedler, W., Schwingenschuh, K., & Yeroshenko, Y. 1987, Geophysical Research Letters, 14, 644

    1987

  58. [66]

    2020, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 4

    Sahraoui, F., Hadid, L., & Huang, S. 2020, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 4

    2020

  59. [67]

    2012, Physical review letters, 108, 045001

    Servidio, S., Valentini, F., Califano, F., & Veltri, P. 2012, Physical review letters, 108, 045001

    2012

  60. [68]

    F., Artemyev, A

    Shahid, M., Bashir, M. F., Artemyev, A. V., et al. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 072103

    2024

  61. [69]

    2024, Science China Earth Sciences, 67, 2739–2771

    Shi, Q., Yao, S., Hamrin, M., & Liu, J. 2024, Science China Earth Sciences, 67, 2739–2771

    2024

  62. [70]

    Q., Pu, Z

    Shi, Q. Q., Pu, Z. Y., Soucek, J., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  63. [71]

    2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117

    Shoji, M., Omura, Y., & Lee, L.-C. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117

    2012

  64. [72]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    Soucek, J., Lucek, E., & Dandouras, I. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    2008

  65. [73]

    M., Baumg\"artel, K., & Ness, N

    Sperveslage, K., Neubauer, F. M., Baumg\"artel, K., & Ness, N. F. 2000, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 7, 191

    2000

  66. [74]

    E., Eastwood, J

    Stawarz, J. E., Eastwood, J. P., Phan, T. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 877, L37

    2019

  67. [75]

    Stevens, M. L. & Kasper, J. C. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112

    2007

  68. [76]

    V., & André, M

    Svenningsson, I., Yordanova, E., Cozzani, G., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., & André, M. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL099065, e2022GL099065 2022GL099065

    2022

  69. [77]

    V., et al

    Svenningsson, I., Yordanova, E., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2024JA032661, e2024JA032661 2024JA032661

    2024

  70. [78]

    2010, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53, 015003

    Tenerani, A., Faganello, M., Califano, F., & Pegoraro, F. 2010, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53, 015003

    2010

  71. [79]

    T., Dasgupta, B., Galvan, C., et al

    Tsurutani, B. T., Dasgupta, B., Galvan, C., et al. 2002, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 86

    2002

  72. [80]

    T., Lakhina, G

    Tsurutani, B. T., Lakhina, G. S., Pickett, J. S., et al. 2005, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 12, 321

    2005

  73. [81]

    & Yanovsky, V

    Tur, A. & Yanovsky, V. 2017, Coherent vortex structures in fluids and plasmas (Springer)

    2017

  74. [82]

    M., Burlaga, L

    Turner, J. M., Burlaga, L. F., Ness, N. F., & Lemaire, J. F. 1977, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 82, 1921

    1977

  75. [83]

    L., Delva, M., et al

    Volwerk, M., Zhang, T. L., Delva, M., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 113

    2008

  76. [84]

    2024 a , Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 326

    Wang, G., Xiao, S., Wu, M., Chen, Y., & Zhang, T. 2024 a , Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 326

    2024

  77. [85]

    Q., Volwerk, M., Wu, M

    Wang, G. Q., Volwerk, M., Wu, M. Y., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 110

    2021

  78. [86]

    2024 b , Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2023GL107968, e2023GL107968 2023GL107968

    Wang, S., Wang, R., Lu, Q., Lu, S., & Huang, K. 2024 b , Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2023GL107968, e2023GL107968 2023GL107968

    2024

  79. [87]

    J., Neugebauer, M., Goldstein, B

    Winterhalter, D., Smith, E. J., Neugebauer, M., Goldstein, B. E., & Tsurutani, B. T. 2000, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 1615

    2000

  80. [88]

    B., Huang, S

    Xu, S. B., Huang, S. Y., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129

    2024

  81. [89]

    2023, Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 66, 871

    YangJun, C., MingYu, W., SuDong, X., et al. 2023, Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 66, 871

    2023

  82. [90]

    2021, Earth and Planetary Physics, 5, 63

    Yao, S., Yue, Z., Shi, Q., et al. 2021, Earth and Planetary Physics, 5, 63

    2021

  83. [91]

    T., Li, J

    Yao, S. T., Li, J. H., Zhou, X.-Z., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2023JA031749, e2023JA031749 2023JA031749

    2023

  84. [92]

    T., Shi, Q

    Yao, S. T., Shi, Q. Q., Yao, Z. H., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 523

    2019

  85. [93]

    T., Wang, X

    Yao, S. T., Wang, X. G., Shi, Q. Q., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 1990

    2017

  86. [94]

    Y., Yuan, Z

    Yu, L., Huang, S. Y., Yuan, Z. G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 56

    2021

  87. [95]

    L., Russell, C

    Zhang, T. L., Russell, C. T., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35

    2008

  88. [96]

    H., Zhou, M., Huang, S

    Zhong, Z. H., Zhou, M., Huang, S. Y., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 6248

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.