Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Quasi-parallel anti-sunward propagating whistler waves associated to the electron-deficit in the near-Sun solar wind: Particle-in-Cell simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper claims that the electron deficit—a missing population of sunward-moving electrons in the near-Sun solar wind—drives anti-sunward whistler waves that resonantly erase the deficit and reduce heat flux.

desk verdict First PIC evidence for deficit-associated anti-sunward whistlers, but the causal role of the deficit itself is not yet secured without a control run or linear theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01331 v1 pith:QDL7XTEZ submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Alfredo Micera , Daniel Verscharen , Jesse T. Coburn , Maria Elena Innocenti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindelectronvelocitydistributionfunctiondeficitwhistlerwavesstrahlelectronsparticle-in-cellsimulationheatfluxregulationkineticinstability
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

Radially streaming electrons near the Sun are often missing from the sunward side of the velocity distribution, a feature called the electron deficit. This paper claims that the deficit itself is an instability driver: using a fully kinetic particle-in-cell simulation, the authors show that a distribution with a core, a strahl, a nascent halo, and a conical sunward depletion generates quasi-parallel, right-hand circularly polarized whistler waves propagating away from the Sun. The waves grow at frequencies below the electron cyclotron frequency and resonantly scatter electrons from adjacent phase space into the empty sunward region, gradually erasing the deficit and isotropizing the distribution. If this is right, the deficit is not merely a passive imprint of the Sun's ambipolar potential: it is a free-energy source that produces the anti-sunward whistlers spacecraft frequently see and a non-collisional pathway for reducing the electron heat flux. The simulation also explains why those waves are rarely seen very close to the Sun: without pre-scattered sunward electrons, the deficit configuration damps rather than amplifies whistlers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electron deficit, a depletion in the sunward part of the electron velocity distribution, modelled here as a drifting Maxwellian with a conical cut: electrons with $v_\parallel < -p\sqrt{v_{\perp1}^2+v_{\perp2}^2}$ are removed, with $p=1$, carving out pitch angles roughly between $144^\circ$ and $216^\circ$. The mechanism that carries the argument is cyclotron resonance with parallel-propagating whistler waves, $\omega_r-\Omega_e=k_\parallel v_\parallel$; since whistlers have $\omega_r<\Omega_e$, resonance requires $k_\parallel v_\parallel<0$, so anti-sunward waves scatter only sunward-moving electrons into the empty region. Whistler waves here are right-hand circularly polarized electromagnetic waves at frequencies below the electron cyclotron frequency. The simulation also supplies the necessary second ingredient: a pre-existing population of scattered suprathermal electrons with $v_\parallel<0$, which the paper argues must be present for the waves to grow rather than damp.

What would settle it

Observe a solar wind interval with a clear sunward electron deficit but no detectable suprathermal electrons at $v_\parallel<0$; if anti-sunward quasi-parallel whistler waves are still present, the deficit-driven instability is not required. Alternatively, compute the linear Vlasov-Maxwell dispersion relation for a measured deficit VDF with that scattered population artificially removed: the model predicts damping, not growth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an electron velocity distribution function shaped like those observed near the Sun—a dense isotropic core, an escaping strahl, an incomplete halo, and a sunward deficit cut out by the condition $v_\parallel < -p\sqrt{v_{\perp1}^2+v_{\perp2}^2}$ with $p=1$—is kinetically unstable even when it is stable against the whistler heat flux instability. The instability produces right-hand circularly polarized waves propagating within about $20^\circ$ of the magnetic field, predominantly anti-sunward, with parallel wavenumbers $20$ to $26\,d_p^{-1}$ and frequencies $0.06$ to $0.3\,\Omega_e$. Because the cyclotron resonance condition for parallel whistlers, $\omega_r-\Omega_e=k_\parallel v_\parallel$, requires $k_\parallel v_\parallel<0$, anti-sunward waves resonantly interact only with sunward-moving electrons; those electrons are scattered into the previously empty deficit, filling it and reducing the heat flux carried by the distribution. The authors therefore conclude that the deficit, in the presence of scattered suprathermal electrons with $v_\parallel<0$, is a source of the quasi-parallel anti-sunward whistler waves observed in the inner heliosphere and a non-collisional heat-flux regulation mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the initial velocity distribution—a drifting Maxwellian with a conical sunward deficit cut ($p=1$) plus already-scattered sunward electrons—faithfully represents the transient strahl-halo-deficit state the spacecraft actually encounter near the Sun.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The electron deficit is a source of free energy: it can drive an electromagnetic instability on its own, even when the distribution is stable to the whistler heat flux instability.
  • Anti-sunward quasi-parallel whistler waves in the inner heliosphere can be read as signatures of deficit-driven instability rather than of strahl-driven heat-flux instability.
  • The same instability gradually erases the deficit and isotropizes the electron distribution, providing a non-collisional route to reduce the electron heat flux.
  • The radial picture is self-consistent: very close to the Sun, where no scattered sunward electrons exist yet, whistlers are damped; farther out, strahl scattering creates the seed population and anti-sunward whistlers grow, matching the observed onset around a few tens of solar radii.
  • The study completes a multistep scenario linking oblique sunward whistlers, strahl-to-halo scattering, deficit-driven anti-sunward whistlers, and deficit erasure into one chain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would compare, interval by interval, the presence of a sunward deficit and of scattered electrons at negative parallel velocities with the occurrence of anti-sunward quasi-parallel whistlers; the model predicts they should coincide.
  • The growth rate and frequency band should depend on the deficit's depth and angular width; varying the conical cut parameter p would produce a predicted spectrum that spacecraft observations could confirm or rule out.
  • If this mechanism dominates deficit erasure, the heliocentric distance where deficits disappear should track where anti-sunward whistler occurrence rises, a correlation that can be checked with combined particle and wave data from the same crossings.
  • The mechanism offers a local wave-driven closure for solar wind heat flux: instead of invoking anomalous collisions, models could couple deficit shape to resonant whistler scattering rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 2D fully kinetic Particle-in-Cell simulation of a near-Sun solar-wind electron velocity distribution function (VDF) that contains a sunward electron deficit, a strahl, and a nascent halo. The authors observe the growth of quasi-parallel, right-hand circularly polarized magnetic fluctuations with frequencies below the electron cyclotron frequency that propagate anti-sunward, and they identify these as whistler waves. They show that the deficit is gradually filled by resonant scattering and argue that this mechanism explains PSP/Solar Orbiter observations of anti-sunward quasi-parallel whistler waves and contributes to non-collisional heat-flux regulation.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it would provide a concrete kinetic scenario linking the electron deficit, strahl-to-halo scattering, and the generation of anti-sunward quasi-parallel whistler waves in the inner heliosphere, with implications for heat-flux regulation. The simulation uses a realistic proton-to-electron mass ratio, a large particle number, and demonstrates good energy conservation (Fig. 2). The wave identification is internally consistent: frequencies ω_r ≈ 0.06–0.3 Ω_e, quasi-parallel propagation, right-hand polarization, and anti-sunward direction are all mutually compatible with the whistler interpretation. The qualitative comparison with recent observations (Berčič et al. 2021b; Choi et al. 2024; Coburn et al. 2024) is appropriate for a mechanism paper. The main weakness is that the causal attribution of the instability to the deficit itself is not fully established, as the initial condition already contains scattered electrons with v_parallel < 0 and no control run or linear dispersion analysis is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (Eqs. 1–2) and Section 4 (final paragraphs)] The initial condition (Eq. 1 with the conical cut of Eq. 2, p=1) already contains a population of scattered electrons with v_parallel < 0, because the cut only removes the deep sunward cone and leaves the adjacent region −√(v_⊥1^2+v_⊥2^2) < v_parallel < 0 populated. Section 4 states that 'only in the presence of scattered electrons with v_parallel < 0 can whistler waves grow and become detectable.' Without a control run that removes or reshapes this scattered population, the observed growth cannot be uniquely attributed to the deficit itself; the free energy of the suprathermal v_parallel < 0 population could be the actual driver, with the deficit acting as a passive phase-space hole subsequently filled by scattering. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the instability is 'triggered by the depletion itself' (abstract and Section 4). I recommend adding a control simulation without the scattered v_parallel < 0 component, or a scan over the cut parameter p, to demonstrate that the deficit shape controls the instability.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4 (ALPS discussion)] The linear Vlasov-Maxwell dispersion analysis is deferred to future work, leaving the causal interpretation of the simulated growth unverified. A single PIC run from one initial condition cannot distinguish whether the growth rate and real frequency are controlled by the deficit depth p, by the pre-existing scattered-electron plateau, or by an interplay of both. Linear theory applied to the exact non-Maxwellian VDF (e.g., with ALPS, as the authors suggest) would provide that information and would also support the identification of this as a new instability. Given that the manuscript explicitly recognizes the limitations of classical dispersion solvers and proposes ALPS as a follow-up, I consider a dispersion calculation or at least a parameter study over p necessary to secure the causal claim.
  3. [Section 4, first full paragraph (heat-flux claim)] The paper claims that 'a decrease in the electron heat flux (defined as the third moment of the VDF) occurs' as a result of the instability, and this heat-flux regulation is highlighted in the abstract and conclusions. However, no measurement, plot, or numerical value of the third moment is presented in Section 3. The authors should show the time evolution of the parallel heat flux (or its normalized form) to substantiate this claim; otherwise, the statement should be reformulated as a prediction rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'supratheraml' (Section 2), 'proprieties' (Section 4), 'collisioness' (Introduction), 'microscope' (last paragraph, should be 'microscopic'), and the phrase 'both the at the same time' in Section 3.1.
  2. [Figure 6(a) caption] The caption for the spacetime Fourier power spectrum does not specify the color scale, normalization, or whether the spectrum is integrated over the perpendicular wavenumbers; please clarify so that the reader can interpret the plotted quantity.
  3. [Section 2, after Eq. (2)] The angle definition for the deficit cut is unclear: the expression 'α = 90° + arctan(√(v_⊥1^2+v_⊥2^2)/v_parallel)' appears dimensionally inconsistent for negative v_parallel; please derive the boundary angles directly from v_parallel = −p√(v_⊥1^2+v_⊥2^2) and define the angles with respect to the positive v_parallel axis.
  4. [Section 2 and acknowledgments] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement. Given that the simulation uses a specific code (iPic3D) and a detailed set of parameters, a statement about availability of the code and/or simulation outputs would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation reduces to its inputs; the PIC instability is a genuine simulation result, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation motivating the initial scattered-electron population.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the PSP/SO observations it compares against, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the simulation inputs. Equations (1)-(2) define an assumed observational VDF state (core plus strahl/halo with a conical deficit); the growth of quasi-parallel right-hand whistler waves and the gradual filling of the deficit emerge from the PIC evolution rather than being imposed by the initial condition. The main self-citation is the statement that scattered electrons with v_parallel<0 arise from earlier strahl scattering (Micera et al. 2020b, 2021). That prior work is cited as motivation for the initial condition, not as a mathematical constraint on this simulation, and the present run is not a restatement of it. The paper's own Section 4 explicitly concedes that without pre-existing scattered electrons the whistlers would be damped, so the claimed mechanism is conditional; this conditional nature is a scientific limitation (no control run, deferred linear analysis) rather than circularity. The comparison to observations is qualitative and post-hoc. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central mechanism rests on an idealized initial electron VDF whose deficit shape is controlled by a hand-chosen parameter p, and on the assumed presence of scattered suprathermal electrons at negative parallel velocity. These are modeling assumptions, not derived from first principles, and no linear stability analysis is provided to establish that the deficit alone is unstable. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • p (deficit cut parameter) = 1
    Section 2, Eq. (2): sets the deficit cone to pitch angles between 144 and 216 degrees. No observational or theoretical derivation is given; the instability may depend on this angle, and no parameter scan is shown.
  • ue (initial electron drift) = -0.004 c
    Imposed to satisfy zero net current after the deficit cut; a modeling choice that affects the parallel electron drift and the free-energy budget.
  • Initial plasma betas = beta_e_parallel = 1.5, beta_p = 1.7
    Chosen to resemble PSP near-Sun conditions; reasonable inputs, but the sensitivity of the instability to these values is not tested.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collisionless plasma dynamics apply on the simulated scales.
    Solar wind is weakly collisional; PIC simulation ignores collisions, which is standard for kinetic scales.
  • domain assumption The initial VDF with a conical deficit is representative of observed near-Sun electron distributions.
    Section 2; motivated by Halekas et al. (2021a) and Berčič et al. (2021a,b), but the specific cut shape is chosen by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper Scattered electrons with v_parallel less than zero are present at initialization.
    Section 2: the initial condition assumes a transient state where the strahl has already been scattered by oblique whistlers, citing Micera et al. (2020b, 2021). This population is required for the instability, as stated in Section 4.
  • standard math Cyclotron resonance condition omega_r - Omega_e = k_parallel v_parallel governs the wave-particle interaction.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (8); standard linear resonance condition for parallel whistlers.
  • domain assumption The semi-implicit PIC discretization conserves energy to within numerical cooling smaller than the physical signal.
    Section 3 and Figure 2; numerical cooling is about 0.015 percent while the instability converts about 0.05 percent, so the signal is resolvable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-parallel anti-sunward propagating whistler waves associated to the electron-deficit in the near-Sun solar wind: Particle-in-Cell simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDL7XTEZ

@misc{pith2026250101331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-parallel anti-sunward propagating whistler waves associated to the electron-deficit in the near-Sun solar wind: Particle-in-Cell simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDL7XTEZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01331}
}
read the original abstract

In-situ observations of the solar wind have shown that the electron velocity distribution function (VDF) consists of a quasi-Maxwellian core, comprising most of the electron population, and two sparser components: the halo, which are suprathermal and quasi-isotropic electrons, and an escaping beam population, the strahl. Recent Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter (SO) observations have added one more ingredient to the known non-thermal features, the deficit-a depletion in the sunward region of the VDF, already predicted by exospheric models but never so extensively observed. By employing Particle-in-Cell simulations, we study electron VDFs that reproduce those typically observed in the inner heliosphere and investigate whether the electron deficit may contribute to the onset of kinetic instabilities. Previous studies and in-situ observations show that strahl electrons drive oblique whistler waves unstable, which in turn scatter them. As a result, suprathermal electrons can occupy regions of phase space where they fulfil resonance conditions with the parallel-propagating whistler wave. The suprathermal electrons lose kinetic energy, resulting in the generation of unstable waves. The sunward side of the VDF, initially depleted of electrons, is gradually filled, as this wave-particle interaction process, triggered by the depletion itself, takes place. Our findings are compared and validated against current PSP and SO observations: among others, our study provides a mechanism explaining the presence in the heliosphere of regularly observed parallel anti-sunward whistler waves; suggests why these waves are frequently observed in concomitant with distributions presenting an electron deficit; describes a non-collisional heat flux regulating process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic example of the electron distribution function used to initialize the simulation (a). The orange area denotes the region of the phase space that can be oc￾cupied by trapped and ballistic electrons, while the blue area by escaping and scattered electrons. Electron VDF fe = f(v∥, v⊥1 ) at t0 = 0 (b). The phase space is inte￾grated over v⊥2 . the proton number density, mp the proton mass and e the elementary c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the normalised variation of magnetic energy (blue), kinetic energy (red) and total energy (black). waves results in the filling of the electron deficit and to an electron distribution that is quasi-isotropic during the saturation phase of the instability. Animated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electron VDF fe = f(v∥, v⊥1, v⊥2) at t0 = 0 (a) and t = 100 ω −1 p (b). This figure is complemented by Ani￾mated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Out-of-plane magnetic field fluctuations during the instability growing phase (δBz(t = 60 ω −1 p )) (a) and its FFT (b). This figure is complemented by Animated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spacetime Fourier power spectrum k∥−ωr of pre￾dominately anti-sunward whistler waves propagating along the background magnetic field direction (a). Hodogram of right-hand polarised whistler waves (b). Bx is directed out of the page. tion. Various observational studies …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b7a Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Maksimovi´ c, M., Halekas, J

    Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Larson, D., Whittlesey, P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b7a Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Maksimovi´ c, M., Halekas, J. S., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 921, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f1c Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Verscharen, D., Owen, C. J., et al. 2021b, A&A, 656, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140970

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b7a 2020

  2. [2]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 9232

    Boldyrev, S., Forest, C., & Egedal, J. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 9232

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A07107, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013043

    Camporeale, E., & Burgess, D. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A07107, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013043

    doi:10.1029/2008ja013043 2008

  4. [4]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 911, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abefdd —

    Cattell, C., Breneman, A., Dombeck, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 911, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abefdd —. 2022, ApJL, 924, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4015

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abefdd 2021

  5. [5]

    Whistler waves in the young solar wind: statistics of amplitude and propagation direction from Parker Solar Probe Encounters 1-11

    Choi, K.-E., Agapitov, O., Colomban, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00736, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00736

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00736 2024

  6. [6]

    T., Verscharen, D., Owen, C

    Coburn, J. T., Verscharen, D., Owen, C. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1329

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1329 2024

  7. [7]

    2024, A&A, 684, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    Colomban, L., Kretzschmar, M., Krasnoselkikh, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347489 2024

  8. [8]

    C., Asbridge, J

    Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., Montgomery, M. D., & Gary, S. P. 1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4181, doi: 10.1029/JA080i031p04181

    doi:10.1029/ja080i031p04181 1975

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Sci Rev, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al

    Froment, C., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245140

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D

    Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journals, 246, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4cec

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Whittlesey, P., et al

    Halekas, J. S., Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Whittlesey, P., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 916, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac096e

    doi

  5. [13]

    S., Whittlesey, P

    Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., et al. 2021b, Astronomy & Astrophysics (A & A), 650, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039256

    doi

  6. [14]

    W., & Eastwood, J

    Hockney, R. W., & Eastwood, J. W. 1988, Computer simulation using particles

    1988

  7. [15]

    E., Boella, E., Tenerani, A., & Velli, M

    Innocenti, M. E., Boella, E., Tenerani, A., & Velli, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba591

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Johnson, A., Markidis, S., et al

    Innocenti, M. E., Johnson, A., Markidis, S., et al. 2017, Advances in Engineering Software, 111, 3

    2017

  9. [17]

    E., Tenerani, A., Boella, E., & Velli, M

    Innocenti, M. E., Tenerani, A., Boella, E., & Velli, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e40

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al

    Jagarlamudi, V. K., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039808

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    T., & Fazakerley, A

    Jeong, S.-Y., Verscharen, D., Wicks, R. T., & Fazakerley, A. N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb099

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    1970, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol

    Jockers, K. 1970, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 6, p. 219 (1970), 6, 219

    1970

  13. [21]

    2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840305, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000399

    Spitkovsky, A. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840305, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000399

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Kretzschmar, M., Chust, T., Graham, D., et al. 2021, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2021, SH21A–12

    2021

  15. [23]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/5

    Lacombe, C., Alexandrova, O., Matteini, L., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/5

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 769

    Landi, S., & Pantellini, F. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 769

    2003

  17. [25]

    2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 334, 349, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.01.002

    Lapenta, G. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 334, 349, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.01.002

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    U., & Ricci, P

    Lapenta, G., Brackbill, J. U., & Ricci, P. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 055904, doi: 10.1063/1.2173623

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    Lemaire, J., & Scherer, M. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 7479, doi: 10.1029/JA076i031p07479 —. 1973, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 11, 427, doi: 10.1029/RG011i002p00427 Lie-Svendsen, Ø., Hansteen, V. H., & Leer, E. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,...

    1971 doi

  20. [28]

    Moya, P. S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 900, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abaf56 L´ opez, R. A., Micera, A., Lazar, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66e4

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2001, Astrophysics and Space Science, 277, 181

    Maksimovic, M., Pierrard, V., & Lemaire, J. 2001, Astrophysics and Space Science, 277, 181

    2001

  22. [30]

    Maksimovic, M., Pierrard, V., & Lemaire, J. F. 1997, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 324, 725

    1997

  23. [31]

    Y., et al

    Maksimovic, M., Zouganelis, I., Chaufray, J. Y., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, A09104, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011119 PIC simulation of The Electron-deficit Whistler Instability in the Solar Wind 11

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    2010, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80, 1509, doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2009.08.038

    Markidis, S., Lapenta, G., & Rizwan-uddin. 2010, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80, 1509, doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2009.08.038

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Z., & Tu, C

    Marsch, E., Ao, X. Z., & Tu, C. Y. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A04102, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010330

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    2007, Basics of the solar wind (Cambridge University Press)

    Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the solar wind (Cambridge University Press)

    2007

  27. [35]

    1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 29705

    Meyer-Vernet, N., & Issautier, K. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 29705

    1998

  28. [36]

    N., et al

    Micera, A., Boella, E., Zhukov, A. N., et al. 2020a, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7faa

    doi

  29. [37]

    N., L´ opez, R

    Micera, A., Zhukov, A. N., L´ opez, R. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1067 —. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 903, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc0e8 M¨ uller, D., Marsden, R. G., St. Cyr, O. C., & Gilbert, H. R. 2013, S...

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Pierrard, V., & Lemaire, J. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7923, doi: 10.1029/95JA03802

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    1999, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 17021

    Pierrard, V., Maksimovic, M., & Lemaire, J. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 17021

    1999

  32. [40]

    G., Miggenrieder, H., Montgomery, M

    Pilipp, W. G., Miggenrieder, H., Montgomery, M. D., et al. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 1075, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA02p01075

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5114

    Swisdak, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5114

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    1977, Journal of Geophysics Zeitschrift Geophysik, 42, 561

    Rosenbauer, H., Schwenn, R., Marsch, E., et al. 1977, Journal of Geophysics Zeitschrift Geophysik, 42, 561

    1977

  35. [43]

    E., Bame, S

    Scime, E. E., Bame, S. J., Feldman, W. C., et al. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 23401, doi: 10.1029/94JA02068

    1994 doi

  36. [44]

    Scudder, J. D. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 13461

    1996

  37. [45]

    S., Chen, C

    Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., Chen, C. H. K., & Matteini, L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L16 Stver´ ak, v., Maksimovic, M., Tr´ avn ´ ıˇ cek, P. M., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A05104, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013883

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    P., & Kolobov, V

    Tang, B., Zank, G. P., & Kolobov, V. I. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 95

    2020

  39. [47]

    Y., Pulupa, M., et al

    Tong, Y., Vasko, I. Y., Pulupa, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf734

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al

    Vasko, I. Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 871, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01bd

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Verscharen, D., Chandran, B. D. G., Jeong, S.-Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c30

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    G., Chandran, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., Chandran, B. D. G., et al. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840403, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000739

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    P., & Mann, G

    Vocks, C., Salem, C., Lin, R. P., & Mann, G. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 627, 540, doi: 10.1086/430119

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, L117

    Zouganelis, I., Meyer-Vernet, N., Landi, S., Maksimovic, M., & Pantellini, F. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, L117

    2005

Pith tools

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