Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 74 references

Magnetic flux transport via reconnection diffusion in different sonic regimes of interstellar MHD turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 This paper reports that magnetic flux diffusion in sub-Alfvénic turbulence matches the Reconnection Diffusion scaling $D \propto M_A^3$ in the incompressible limit, and that the exponent softens to roughly $3/(1+M_S)$ as the sonic Mach…

desk verdict The incompressible D ∝ M_A³ confirmation is robust and citable, but the new α(M_S) ≈ 3/(1+M_S) formula rests on an unverified tracer-field correspondence in the supersonic regime—a weakness the authors openly acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21832 v1 pith:QXYDRCF4 submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

C. N. Koshikumo , R. Santos-Lima , M.V. del Valle , E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino , G. Guerrero , A. Lazarian This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords reconnectiondiffusionMHDturbulencemagneticfluxtransportsub-AlfvénicsupersonictracerparticlesTest-Fieldmethodstarformation
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 uses three-dimensional simulations of forced MHD turbulence, spanning incompressible to supersonic flow with a strong mean magnetic field, to measure how fast magnetic flux diffuses across the field. In the incompressible sub-Alfvénic limit the measured perpendicular diffusion coefficient follows the Reconnection Diffusion prediction $D \propto M_A^3$, and compressibility systematically weakens the magnetic suppression. The full set of runs is summarized by $D \propto \ell v_{\rm rms} M_A^{\alpha(M_S)}$ with $\alpha(M_S) \approx 3/(1+M_S)$, meaning transonic and supersonic turbulence transports magnetic flux more efficiently than the incompressible theory suggests. The authors also introduce two tracer-particle estimators and validate them against the Test-Field method, confirming the Reconnection Diffusion assumption that particles and field lines diffuse at the same rate in the regimes where it was tested. These numbers give star-formation models a concrete flux-transport rate for turbulent molecular clouds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Reconnection Diffusion coefficient $\eta_{\rm rd} \sim L U \min(1, M_A^3)$, derived from weak Alfvénic turbulence, which the simulations target by using sub-Alfvénic forcing in an elongated periodic domain. The measurements are carried by ensembles of $10^4$ Lagrangian tracer particles restricted to the plane perpendicular to the mean magnetic field, analyzed with two estimators: the time integral of the perpendicular velocity autocorrelation and the growth of the mean square perpendicular displacement. A third, independent measurement via the Test-Field method on passive vector fields anchors the particle-based estimators in the weakly compressible runs. The compressibility dependence is captured by the empirical fit $\alpha(M_S) = \alpha_0/(1 + b M_S)$, with values near $\alpha_0 \approx 3.1$, $b \approx 1.2$ in the lower-resolution runs.

What would settle it

Run a transonic or supersonic simulation ($M_S \approx 1$–$3$) at $M_A \approx 0.25$ and measure the magnetic field diffusion coefficient with the Test-Field method; if it disagrees with the tracer-particle $D$ from the same run, the reported supersonic values are particle diffusion, not field diffusion. A second check is to replace the delta-correlated forcing with a time-correlated forcing: if $\alpha(M_S)$ changes, the empirical law is a property of the forcing scheme rather than of the turbulence regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the magnetic flux transport coefficient in sub-Alfvénic MHD turbulence is set by $D \propto M_A^3$ in the incompressible limit, and that increasing the sonic Mach number raises the effective transport at fixed $M_A$. Concretely, the simulations are consistent with $D \propto \ell v_{\rm rms} M_A^{\alpha}$, where the exponent depends on the sonic Mach number as $\alpha(M_S) \approx 3/(1+M_S)$. The authors treat the low-$M_A$ runs in which diffusion is dominated by two-dimensional ($k_\parallel = 0$) velocity modes as contaminated by the periodic numerical domain and exclude them from the fit. The work also establishes, in the weakly compressible regime, that the magnetic field diffusion coefficient extracted with the Test-Field method agrees with two new tracer-particle measurements, which is the paper's evidence for the RD assumption linking field-line and fluid-particle diffusion.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's reported diffusion coefficients are magnetic flux transport rates only if tracer particles and magnetic field lines diffuse at the same rate in supersonic turbulence; that correspondence is verified directly only at low compressibility, then assumed to carry over to the transonic and supersonic runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In molecular clouds with $M_S \sim 1$–$3$, turbulent magnetic flux transport is several times faster than the incompressible Reconnection Diffusion estimate, easing the magnetic flux problem in star and disk formation.
  • The two tracer-particle estimators can be used in any MHD code to measure magnetic flux diffusion, without implementing the Test-Field method.
  • The confirmed particle–field correspondence implies that the same diffusion coefficient applies to temperature, chemical composition, and similar scalar fields advected by the turbulence.
  • In the supersonic limit the exponent $\alpha(M_S)$ approaches zero, so the transport tends toward the unsuppressed hydrodynamic mixing rate at fixed large-scale velocity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the empirical law $\alpha(M_S) \approx 3/(1+M_S)$ extrapolates to $M_S \gg 1$, flux freezing effectively fails for large-scale fields in highly supersonic star-forming gas, leaving turbulence as the dominant flux transport channel; this extrapolation is an editorial inference, not tested in the paper.
  • The paper attributes the 2D-mode diffusion to periodic boundaries; testing with a non-periodic or shearing-sheet boundary would determine whether such modes actually survive in molecular clouds, where field lines connect to the surrounding medium.
  • Because the forcing is delta-correlated in time, the measured decorrelation time $\tau_{\rm dec} \propto \ell/V_A$ may reflect the forcing rather than the cascade; replacing the forcing with a sustained one is a direct test of how universal the fitted $D(M_A, M_S)$ actually is.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports numerical measurements of the effective perpendicular diffusion coefficient of large-scale magnetic fields (reconnection diffusion, RD) in sub-Alfvénic MHD turbulence across different sonic regimes. Using tracer particles that move only perpendicular to the mean magnetic field, the authors extract diffusion coefficients with two new methods (velocity autocorrelation, D_corr, and mean squared displacement, D_yz), and validate these against the Test-Field method in weakly compressible Pencil Code runs. The incompressible and weakly compressible simulations yield D ∝ M_A^3, consistent with the RD prediction. For compressible Pluto runs at M_S = 0.1, 1, and 3, the suppression with decreasing M_A weakens, and the authors propose an empirical scaling α(M_S) ≈ 3/(1 + M_S) for D ∝ M_A^α. The paper also tests several RD assumptions, finding that the velocity decorrelation is better described by a Gaussian than an exponential function in the subsonic/transonic regimes, and that the measured decorrelation time does not match the inferred energy-transfer time.

Significance. If the results hold, the proposed α(M_S) scaling is a new quantitative characterization of reconnection diffusion in compressible turbulence, with direct implications for magnetic flux transport in molecular clouds and star formation. The work is commendable for combining three independent estimators (D_corr, D_yz, Test-Field), for cross-code consistency checks at M_S = 0.1, and for explicitly flagging its own limitations in Section 5.2. The incompressible M_A^3 result is well supported by the Test-Field validation and by agreement between two codes. However, the headline new result—the sonic-Mach dependence—currently rests on transferring the tracer/field-line correspondence from the weakly compressible regime to the supersonic regime, and on a small number of simulation points. The central claim is therefore plausible but should be regarded as conditional until the supersonic correspondence is verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.3, §5.2] The correspondence between tracer-particle perpendicular diffusion and magnetic-field diffusion is demonstrated only for the M_S = 0.1 Pencil runs (Figure 3). The same tracer diagnostics are then applied to the M_S = 1 and M_S = 3 Pluto runs (Figure 6) and form the basis of the α(M_S) fit in Figures 9 and 10. The authors explicitly acknowledge in Section 5.2 that this correspondence is not verified in the supersonic regime. This is a load-bearing gap: if the identification fails at high M_S, the reported D values are particle diffusivities, not magnetic-field diffusivities, and the supersonic reduction of α is unsupported. The revision should provide a direct check for at least one supersonic case—for example, a Test-Field implementation in the Pluto code or an independent measurement of magnetic field-line spreading—and quantify how the resulting uncertainty propagates into the M_S = 3 points.
  2. [§4.4, Figure 10] The empirical relation α(M_S) = α0/(1 + b M_S) is constrained by only four sonic Mach numbers (M_S = 0, 0.1, 1, 3), with the M_S = 0 point coming from a different code (Snoopy) and with low-M_A runs excluded on the basis of a threshold inferred from the 2D-mode contribution (Section 4.2). The two resolutions give α0 = 3.11 ± 0.04 and 2.73 ± 0.47; the very small quoted uncertainty on the low-resolution fit is not credible given the systematic influence of threshold choice and resolution. The paper should show the sensitivity of α0 and b to the exclusion criterion and to the removal of any single M_S point, and preferably add one or two intermediate sonic Mach numbers (e.g., M_S ≈ 0.3 and 2) to stabilize the fit.
  3. [§4.5, §2 (Eqs. 5 and 6)] The RD derivation used in the paper relies on the assumption that the velocity decorrelation time equals the energy-transfer time at the injection scale (Section 2), but Figure 11 shows τ_dec roughly following the linear wave-crossing time ℓ/V_A, whereas τ_ener follows a different M_A dependence. The paper records this as a failed assumption yet still obtains D ∝ M_A^3. The logical connection is missing: if Eq. (5) is evaluated with the measured τ_dec(M_A), does it reproduce the measured D? A quantitative reconciliation—or an explicit statement that the M_A^3 result is not attributable to the assumed τ_dec—would remove an internal tension and strengthen the claim of confirming RD theory.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the results confirm the RD assumption of correspondence between magnetic-field diffusion and Lagrangian-particle diffusion, but this correspondence is validated only in the weakly compressible regime (M_S = 0.1) through the Test-Field method; please add this qualification.
  2. [Table 1 and §3.4] The resolutions written as "1024 × 642" and "2048 × 1282" should read "1024 × 64^2" and "2048 × 128^2"; the current notation is ambiguous.
  3. [§3.4] The phrase "10 4 tracer particles" should read "10^4 tracer particles".
  4. [§5.1] The sentence "our results for the compressible simulations show an that the suppression ins mitigated" contains typos; it should read "show that the suppression is mitigated".
  5. [Figure 9 caption] The caption says "fits to the each curve"; this should be "fits to each curve".
  6. [Figures 3, 4, 6, 9] The vertical line marking the "theoretical limit of M_A below which finite domain size effects can affect the turbulence regime" is not defined in the captions; please add a cross-reference to the text where this limit is derived.
  7. [§4.2, Appendix A] The claim that the Gaussian decorrelation is a better description than the exponential one is said to be "visually evident"; please add a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure (e.g., reduced χ²) for the fits shown in Figures A1 and A2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the RD scaling is an external theory tested against independent simulations, and the compressible α(M_S) fit is explicitly empirical.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 2 states the RD prediction η_rd ∼ L U M_A^3 (Eq. 1) as a pre-existing theoretical result from Lazarian (2006) and lists the assumptions (Lagrangian-particle correspondence, exponential decorrelation, weak-turbulence cascade time). The numerical test in Section 4.1 compares the Test-Field magnetic-field diffusion coefficient η_tf with the tracer-based coefficients D_corr and D_yz for the weakly compressible Pencil runs; this is an external benchmark, and the agreement validates the particle-based diagnostics in that regime. The incompressible runs (Section 4.2, Figure 4) then measure D_yz and D_corr directly from particle statistics and compare their M_A scaling against the theoretical M_A^3 curve; the exponent α is fitted from the simulation points, not imported from the theory, so the agreement is not forced. The compressible result is explicitly treated as an empirical extension: Eq. (32), α(M_S)=α0/(1+bM_S), is introduced as 'We propose an empirical dependence,' and α0 and b are fitted to the measured α values in Figure 10, with no claim that this formula derives from RD theory. The only load-bearing extrapolation is the use of tracer diffusion as a proxy for magnetic-field diffusion in the transonic and supersonic Pluto runs, where the Test-Field check was not performed; the authors flag this in Section 5.2 ('Another point of caution is the validity of the correspondence between particle perpendicular diffusion and magnetic field diffusion in the supersonic regime.') and call for verification in future studies. That is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular reduction: the supersonic D values are labeled as particle diffusivities unless one accepts the correspondence, and the paper does not redefine the measured quantity to match the theory. The same-group citations (Lazarian 2005, Santos-Lima et al. 2021, Lazarian et al. 2025) supply the theory being tested and a physical argument for excluding 2D-mode transport; they are not used to assert that the measured numbers must equal the prediction, so they do not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on the RD particle-field correspondence (validated only at M_S=0.1), the numerical-artifact interpretation of 2D modes, and a simulation setup choice (forcing, domain geometry). The α(M_S) formula introduces two fitted parameters and depends on a manually chosen exclusion threshold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • α0 (amplitude of α(M_S) fit) = 3.11±0.04 (lo res), 2.73±0.47 (hi res)
    Eq. 32 fits α(M_S)=α0/(1+bM_S) to the measured exponents for four sonic Mach numbers.
  • b (denominator slope in α(M_S)) = 1.17±0.04 (lo), 0.95±0.29 (hi)
    Same fit as α0; controls how quickly the exponent decreases with M_S.
  • 2D-mode exclusion threshold in M_A = approximately 0.2-0.3
    Runs below this M_A are excluded from the α fits because 2D solenoidal modes dominate diffusion; the threshold is set by visual inspection of Figs. 4 and 6 (see §4.2 and Fig. 9 caption).
  • Autocorrelation fit parameters A0, ω, γ = per simulation
    Eq. 27 fits the particle velocity autocorrelation to compute Dcorr-fit; affects only the consistency check, not the main Dyz measurements.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magnetic flux diffusion occurs at the same rate as perpendicular Lagrangian particle diffusion (RD assumption 1)
    Stated in §2 and tested only in weakly compressible simulations via Test-Field method; assumed to hold in transonic and supersonic runs, explicitly flagged as a caution in §5.2.
  • ad hoc to paper 2D velocity modes (k∥=0) that grow in elongated periodic domains are numerical artifacts and would not transport magnetic flux in real astrophysical systems
    Assumed in §5.2 to justify excluding runs where these modes dominate; this assumption directly determines which data points enter the α(M_S) fit.
  • domain assumption Isothermal MHD equations with periodic boundary conditions and delta-correlated random forcing adequately represent interstellar turbulence regimes
    Simulation setup in §3; authors note in §5.2 that results may depend on forcing properties, so the derived scaling may not be universal.
  • domain assumption The weak Alfvénic turbulence regime applies for sub-Alfvénic injection at the scales studied
    This is a core assumption of the RD theory derivation in §2; the paper tests it through spectra and transfer times but cannot prove it from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic flux transport via reconnection diffusion in different sonic regimes of interstellar MHD turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXYDRCF4

@misc{pith2026250721832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic flux transport via reconnection diffusion in different sonic regimes of interstellar MHD turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXYDRCF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21832}
}
abstract

Turbulence and magnetic fields are components of the interstellar medium and are interconnected through plasma processes. In particular, the magnetic flux transport in the presence of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence is an essential factor for understanding star formation. The theory of Reconnection Diffusion (RD), based on statistics of Alfv\'enic turbulence, predicts a dependence of the diffusion coefficient of the magnetic field on the Alfv\'enic Mach number $M_A$. However, this theory does not consider the effects of compressibility which are important in the regime of supersonic MHD turbulence. In this work, we measure the diffusion coefficient of magnetic fields in sub-Alfv\'enic MHD turbulence, with different sonic Mach numbers $M_S$. We perform numerical simulations of forced turbulence in periodic domains from the incompressible limit to the supersonic regime. We introduce two methods to extract the diffusion coefficient, based on the analysis of tracer particles. Our results confirm the RD assumption regarding the correspondence between the diffusion of magnetic field and that of fluid Lagrangian particles. The measured diffusion rate provided by incompressible turbulence agrees with the suppression predicted by the RD theory in the presence of strong magnetic fields: $D \propto M_A^3$. Our simulations also indicate an increase in RD efficiency when the turbulence is compressible. The dependency on $M_A$ and $M_S$ from the simulations can be described by the relation $D \propto M_A^\alpha$, where $\alpha(M_S) \approx 3/(1 + M_S)$. This quantitative characterization of $D$ is critical for modeling star formation in turbulent molecular clouds and evaluating the efficiency of this transport compared to other mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Velocity amplitude distribution in the central xy-plane of the domain at the final time of the simulations. The sonic Mach number MS ≡ v0/cs and the Alfv´enic Mach number MA ≡ v0/vA,0 are contained in the name of the run, shown at the top of each map. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional energy spectrum E2D(kk, k⊥) for simulations with different sonic Mach numbers: incompressible (leftmost and central panel) and MS = 3 (rightmost panel). Each incompressible case corresponds to a different nominal Alfv´enic Mach number MA ≡ v0/vA,0: MA = 0.5 (leftmost panel), and MA = 0.25 (central panel). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic diffusion coefficient measured by the Test￾Field ηtf and the perpendicular diffusion coefficient of the tracer particles D⊥ as a function of the Alfv´enic Mach number MA = vrms/hvAi for the set of simulations ms0.1 ma(...) lo pe, per￾formed with the Pencil Code (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized diffusion coefficient of the tracer particles D⊥ (left and right panels), and the rms value of the 2D component of the solenoidal velocity hv2D,soli normalized by the total rms velocity vrms (right only), as a function of the Alfv´enic Mach number MA = vrms/…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The energy spectrum E1D(k⊥) (top panel), the en￾ergy transfer spectrum T1D(k⊥) (middle panel), and the energy spectrum for the 2D velocity modes (k⊥ = 0) Eu2D sol (k⊥) (bottom panel), for the incompressible simulations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized diffusion coefficient of the tracer particles D⊥ (left and right columns), and the rms value of the 2D component of the solenoidal velocity hv2D,soli normalized by the total rms velocity vrms (right only), as a function of the Alfv´enic Mach number MA = vrms…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The energy spectrum E1D(k⊥) (left column) and the energy transfer spectrum T1D(k⊥) (right column), for the compressible simulations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The energy spectrum for the 2D velocity modes (k⊥ = 0) Eu2D sol (k⊥), for the compressible simulations from Ta￾ble 1. Top row: sonic Mach number MS = 0.1. Middle row: sonic Mach number MS = 1. Bottom row: sonic Mach number MS = 3. Simulations with different resolutions…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized diffusion coefficient for the tracer particles D⊥ measured by the evolution of the particles displacements (Dyz) as a function of the Alfv´enic Mach number MA = vrms/hvAi. Each curve connects points representing simulations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter α as a function of MS, where α is the power law in the dependence of the diffusion coefficient on MA (D⊥ ∝ Mα A). Each curve connects the values of α extracted from simulations with the same resolution: 2048 × 1282 (continuous lines) and 1024 × 642 (dashed l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energy transfer time at the injection scale τener ≡ Eturb/Tturb (left) and the velocity decorrelation time τdec (right) as a function of the Alfv´enic Mach number MA = vrms/hvAi. Each curve connects points representing simulations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexakis A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.056330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvE..84e6330A 84, 056330

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.84.056330 2011

  2. [2]

    Alexakis A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.084502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110h4502A 110, 084502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.084502 2013

  3. [3]

    H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    Allen A., Li Z.-Y., Shu F. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    doi:10.1086/379243 2003

  4. [4]

    G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J

    Andersson B. G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..501A 53, 501

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  5. [5]

    Angarita Y., Versteeg M. J. F., Haverkorn M., Rodrigues C. V., Magalh \ a es A. M., Santos-Lima R., Kawabata K. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acdc1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...34A 166, 34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdc1e 2023

  6. [6]

    Angarita Y., Versteeg M. J. F., Haverkorn M., Marchal A., Rodrigues C. V., Magalh \ a es A. M., Santos-Lima R., Kawabata K. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.07347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240507347A p. arXiv:2405.07347

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.07347 2024

  7. [7]

    Armstrong J., Rickett B., Spangler S., 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 443, 209

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    S., Kim J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602.1079B 602, 1079

    Balsara D. S., Kim J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602.1079B 602, 1079

    doi:10.1086/381051 2004

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Bigot B., Galtier S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.026405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvE..83b6405B 83, 026405

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Brandenburg A., Dobler W., 2002, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00334-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002CoPhC.147..471B 147, 471

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    Brandenburg A., Subramanian K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhR...417....1B 417, 1

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Brandenburg A., R \"a dler K.-H., Rheinhardt M., Subramanian K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/593146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687L..49B 687, L49

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Rheinhardt M., 2010, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2010/T142/014028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhST..142a4028B 142, 014028

    Brandenburg A., Chatterjee P., Del Sordo F., Hubbard A., K \"a pyl \"a P. J., Rheinhardt M., 2010, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2010/T142/014028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhST..142a4028B 142, 014028

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Brandenburg A., Schober J., Rogachevskii I., 2017, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201713384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AN....338..790B 338, 790

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Brandenburg A., Elstner D., Masada Y., Pipin V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-023-00999-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SSRv..219...55B 219, 55

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Chepurnov A., 1999, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 17, 281

    1999

  9. [17]

    Chepurnov A., Lazarian A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710..853C 710, 853

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    M., 2005, in Cesaroni R., Felli M., Churchwell E., Walmsley M., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Crutcher R. M., 2005, in Cesaroni R., Felli M., Churchwell E., Walmsley M., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 227, Massive Star Birth: A Crossroads of Astrophysics. pp 98--107, @doi 10.1017/S1743921305004412

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Hakobian N., Troland T

    Crutcher R. M., Hakobian N., Troland T. H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..844C 692, 844

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    Doi Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0fe2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...13D 961, 13

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Scalo J., 2004, Annu

    Elmegreen B. G., Scalo J., 2004, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 211

    2004

  14. [22]

    L., Lazarian A., Vishniac E

    Eyink G. L., Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 51

    2011

  15. [23]

    Eyink G., et al., 2013, Nature, 497, 466

    2013

  16. [24]

    H., Allen A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..374G 647, 374

    Galli D., Lizano S., Shu F. H., Allen A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..374G 647, 374

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Pouquet A., 2000, Journal of plasma physics, 63, 447

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

    2000

  18. [26]

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

    1995

  19. [27]

    F., Lazarian A., Santos-Lima R., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 96

    Gonz \'a lez-Casanova D. F., Lazarian A., Santos-Lima R., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 96

    2016

  20. [28]

    Haverkorn M., Brown J., Gaensler B., McClure-Griffiths N., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 362

    2008

  21. [29]

    Hennebelle P., Fromang S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...477....9H 477, 9

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Hennebelle P., Inutsuka S.-i., 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5

    2019

  23. [31]

    L., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 842, L9

    Hull C. L., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 842, L9

    2017

  24. [32]

    Joos M., Hennebelle P., Ciardi A., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 543, A128

    2012

  25. [33]

    Joos M., Hennebelle P., Ciardi A., Fromang S., 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 554, A17

    2013

  26. [34]

    a pyl \"a P. J., K \

    Karak B. B., Rheinhardt M., Brandenburg A., K \"a pyl \"a P. J., K \"a pyl \"a M. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...16K 795, 16

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Krasnopolsky R., Li Z.-Y., Shang H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716.1541K 716, 1541

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Krasnopolsky R., Li Z.-Y., Shang H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733...54K 733, 54

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Li Z.-Y., Chen C.-Y., Tomida K., Zhao B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5326L 489, 5326

    Lam K. H., Li Z.-Y., Chen C.-Y., Tomida K., Zhao B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5326L 489, 5326

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Larson R., 1981, Monthly Notices, 194, 809

    1981

  31. [39]

    M., Lugones G., Lazarian A., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Lazarian A., 2005, in de Gouveia dal Pino E. M., Lugones G., Lazarian A., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 784, Magnetic Fields in the Universe: From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures.. AIP, pp 42--53 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0505574 ), @do...

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lazarian A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645L..25L 645, L25

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Lazarian A., Pogosyan D., 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 720

    2000

  34. [42]

    T., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 700

    Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 700

    1999

  35. [43]

    Lazarian A., Vlahos L., Kowal G., Yan H., Beresnyak A., de Gouveia Dal Pino E., 2012a, Space science reviews, 173, 557

  36. [44]

    Lazarian A., Esquivel A., Crutcher R., 2012b, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 154

  37. [45]

    W., Yuen K

    Lazarian A., Ho K. W., Yuen K. H., Vishniac E., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978...88L 978, 88

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Le \ a o M., Dal Pino E. d. G., Santos-Lima R., Lazarian A., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 46

    2013

  39. [47]

    Y., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444...25L 444, 25

    Lesur G., Longaretti P. Y., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444...25L 444, 25

    2005 doi

  40. [49]

    Li Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky R., Shang H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738..180L 738, 180

    2011 doi

  41. [50]

    S., 2004, Reviews of modern physics, 76, 125

    Mac Low M.-M., Klessen R. S., 2004, Reviews of modern physics, 76, 125

    2004

  42. [51]

    N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1198M 670, 1198

    Machida M. N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1198M 670, 1198

    2007 doi

  43. [52]

    N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..10M 704, L10

    Machida M. N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..10M 704, L10

    2009 doi

  44. [53]

    M., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.949223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...9.9223M 9, 949223

    Maury A., Hennebelle P., Girart J. M., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.949223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...9.9223M 9, 949223

    2022

  45. [54]

    F., Ostriker E

    McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 45, 565

    2007

  46. [55]

    R., Li Z.-Y., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1356M 681, 1356

    Mellon R. R., Li Z.-Y., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1356M 681, 1356

    2008 doi

  47. [56]

    H., Galtier S., 2015, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/jfm.2015.141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JFM...770R...1M 770, R1

    Meyrand R., Kiyani K. H., Galtier S., 2015, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/jfm.2015.141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JFM...770R...1M 770, R1

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    Mignone A., Bodo G., Massaglia S., Matsakos T., Tesileanu O., Zanni C., Ferrari A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..170..228M 170, 228

    2007 doi

  49. [58]

    Mocz P., Pakmor R., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Marinacci F., Hernquist L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..477M 463, 477

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    Nazarenko S., 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 307

    2007

  51. [60]

    L., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, L153

    Padoan P., Juvela M., Kritsuk A., Norman M. L., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, L153

    2009

  52. [61]

    Pencil Code Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.2807P 6, 2807

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    C., Boldyrev S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/526342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672L..61P 672, L61

    Perez J. C., Boldyrev S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/526342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672L..61P 672, L61

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Bate M

    Price D. J., Bate M. R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11621.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377...77P 377, 77

    2007

  55. [64]

    Santos-Lima R., Lazarian A., Dal Pino E. d. G., Cho J., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 442

    2010

  56. [65]

    Santos-Lima R., Dal Pino E. d. G., Lazarian A., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 21

    2012

  57. [66]

    Santos-Lima R., de Gouveia Dal Pino E., Lazarian A., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3371

    2013

  58. [67]

    Santos-Lima R., Guerrero G., de Gouveia Dal Pino E., Lazarian A., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 1290

    2021

  59. [68]

    R., 2007, @doi [Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics] 10.1080/03091920701345707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GApFD.101...81S 101, 81

    Schrinner M., R \"a dler K.-H., Schmitt D., Rheinhardt M., Christensen U. R., 2007, @doi [Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics] 10.1080/03091920701345707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GApFD.101...81S 101, 81

    2007 doi

  60. [69]

    H., Galli D., Lizano S., Cai M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..382S 647, 382

    Shu F. H., Galli D., Lizano S., Cai M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..382S 647, 382

    2006 doi

  61. [70]

    Sur S., Brandenburg A., Subramanian K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00423.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385L..15S 385, L15

    2008

  62. [71]

    H., Crutcher R

    Troland T. H., Crutcher R. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..457T 680, 457

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    Versteeg M. J. F., Magalh \ a es A. M., Haverkorn M., Angarita Y., Rodrigues C. V., Santos-Lima R., Kawabata K. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca8fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...87V 165, 87

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    Versteeg M. J. F., Angarita Y., Magalh \ a es A. M., Haverkorn M., Rodrigues C. V., Santos-Lima R., Kawabata K. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2e08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..177V 167, 177

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    H., Hu Y., Lazarian A., Pogosyan D., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03173

    Yuen K. H., Hu Y., Lazarian A., Pogosyan D., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03173

    2019 arXiv

  66. [75]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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