Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Relativistically Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in Pair Plasma: I. Solitons, Chaos, and Thermalization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetized shock thermalization can arise purely from chaotic orbital dynamics, with no collective plasma instabilities required.

desk verdict Serious, internally consistent reduced model for strongly magnetized pair shocks, but the abstract overclaims that collective instabilities are subdominant when the model excludes them by construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16484 v2 pith:RBSJFM73 submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE nlin.CDphysics.plasm-ph

Arno Vanthieghem , Amir Levinson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEnlin.CDphysics.plasm-ph
keywords collisionlessshockspairplasmarelativisticmagnetizationfastmagnetosonicsolitonschaoticorbitsLyapunovexponentsthermalizationRankine-Hugoniotconditions
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

The paper argues that in strongly magnetized, relativistic collisionless shocks the leading dissipation channel is not any collective plasma instability but the exponential divergence of particle orbits inside a standing train of solitons. It models the kinetic transition as a stationary system of many cold beams that interact only through the magnetic field, and shows this reduced system reproduces the shock compression, downstream heating, and flow deceleration given by the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. The authors identify a transition to chaos at Alfvénic Mach number $M_A \simeq 2$, estimate the entropy production rate from the Lyapunov spectrum, and find the downstream velocity distribution converges to a two-dimensional Jüttner-Synge form. If correct, this gives a deterministic, ODE-level description of shock dissipation that bypasses plasma kinetic instabilities entirely.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a multi-fluid dynamical system: $N$ neutral cold beams (one electron and one positron beam per fluid) coupled to the magnetic field through Ampère's law, $\partial_{\tilde x} \tilde B_z = -M_A \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \tilde u^i_y / \tilde u^i_x$ (Eq. 9). The same equations reduce in the cold single-fluid limit to the periodic soliton-chain solution. Chaos is diagnosed through the spectrum of Lyapunov exponents $\Lambda_i$ of the $(2N+1)$-dimensional tangent-space dynamics, with two integrals of motion and a reversibility involution forcing three zero exponents; the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is the sum of the positive $\Lambda_i$. The soliton-train wavelength scales logarithmically with $M_A$ in the super-fast regime, a result obtained by linearizing around the trough of the wave.

What would settle it

Run a fully kinetic particle-in-cell simulation of a pair-plasma shock with $\sigma \gg 1$ and $M_A$ below about 2, where this model predicts the Lyapunov exponents vanish and chaotic dissipation ceases; if the shock still shows rapid thermalization and entropy production, the claim that orbital chaos is the leading dissipation channel fails. Alternatively, measure the entropy production rate across the shock in a kinetic simulation and compare it with the rate predicted from the positive Lyapunov exponents; a substantial excess would indicate that omitted instabilities are not subdominant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a relativistically magnetized pair-plasma shock (with magnetization $\sigma$ and shock four-velocity $u_{\rm sh}$ satisfying $\sqrt{\sigma} < u_{\rm sh} \ll \sigma$) can be described as a stationary, quasiperiodic chain of fast magnetosonic solitons, and that dissipation across this chain is caused by the onset of chaos in the orbital dynamics. The chaotic state is quantified by the Lyapunov spectrum of the $N$-beam flow; the positive exponents yield a Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate, and the model produces the correct magnetic-field compression and downstream temperature when the temperature-dependent adiabatic index is used. The authors further find that the chaotic state disappears below $M_A \simeq 2$, implying a qualitative change in shock structure at low Alfvénic Mach numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the shock transition is stationary and that all collective plasma instabilities can be omitted from the dissipation budget; the paper asserts, but does not demonstrate, that chaotic orbital dynamics dominates over those instabilities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A kinetic-scale shock can be integrated as a set of ODEs rather than a full kinetic equation, so parameter surveys of magnetized shock structure become far cheaper.
  • Emission models for precursor waves (such as fast radio bursts from magnetar flares) must be revisited: if instabilities are subdominant for dissipation, the maser emission seen in PIC simulations may be a byproduct of chaotic thermalization rather than the dissipation channel itself.
  • The downstream state is fixed by upstream magnetization and temperature through the jump conditions, which gives a route to infer upstream plasma conditions from observed shock compression and temperature.
  • The disappearance of chaos below $M_A \simeq 2$ predicts a distinct, long-lived soliton-train regime in weakly super-fast magnetized shocks, which would have different radiative signatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Lyapunov-based entropy rate is the true dissipation rate, then the thermalization length of the downstream plasma should scale as the inverse of the maximum Lyapunov exponent; this is a quantitative prediction that could be checked in existing PIC datasets without new simulations.
  • The paper's neglect of plasma instabilities is self-imposed, so its success implies that in the regime $\sigma \gg 1$ the synchrotron-maser instability, widely invoked in FRB models, operates on a subdominant energy budget; a direct comparison of the energy lost to maser emission versus entropy increase in simulations would settle this ordering.
  • The model suggests a clean dynamical-systems test: initialize a cold beam distribution in the periodic soliton chain and measure the coarse-grained entropy growth; observing the exponential growth rate predicted by $\sum \Lambda_i$ would confirm the mechanism without invoking kinetic effects.
  • Because the multi-fluid limit is exact for any kinetic distribution in the continuum limit, this framework might be extended to proton-electron plasmas by relaxing the symmetric-beam assumption, though the authors restrict this paper to pair plasmas.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reduced, stationary multi-fluid model of relativistically magnetized collisionless shocks in pair plasma. Starting from a single-fluid periodic chain of fast-magnetosonic solitons, the authors analyze test-particle stability via Floquet exponents, then formulate an N-fluid system (Eq. 9) in which cold beams are coupled only through the coherent magnetic field. They report that for sufficiently nonlinear parameters the beam dynamics become chaotic, as measured by Lyapunov spectra; that downstream moments match the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions (Figs. 4 and 6); that entropy production follows from the Kolmogorov-Sinai formula; and that the velocity distribution approaches a 2D Jüttner-Synge form. The abstract's central claim is that the leading dissipation channel is chaotic orbital dynamics rather than collective plasma interactions.

Significance. If the central claim could be established, this would be a qualitatively new picture of magnetized shock dissipation, with implications for precursor emission and shock modeling. The reduced ODE system is transparent, the deterministic computations are reproducible in principle, and the Floquet, Lyapunov, and phase-space diagnostics are appropriate tools for the internal dynamics. The Rankine-Hugoniot agreement is a useful consistency check. However, the headline claim is not yet supported outside the model: the reduced system excludes collective plasma instabilities by construction, and no quantitative comparison with kinetic simulations or instability growth rates is provided. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether this omission can be justified, which is the main open point.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B; Sec. III B; Abstract] The central claim that 'the leading energy dissipation channel does not involve collective plasma interactions' is not supported by the evidence presented. The reduced system, Eq. (9), couples the beams only through the coherent magnetic field; all collective plasma modes (precursor waves, Weibel/filamentation modes, synchrotron-maser modes) are excluded by construction. The paper asserts in Sec. II B that these instabilities 'are subdominant' and later in Sec. III B admits that 'other downstream modes, arising from plasma instabilities which are not accounted for in our analysis, will also likely contribute.' The Rankine-Hugoniot agreement does not resolve this issue, since Eqs. (15)-(16) enforce the relevant flux conservation by construction and therefore make the jump conditions a consistency check rather than an independent validation. To support the abstract claim, the authors need a quantitative estimate of the energy dissipated through the omitted collective channels in the same shock configuration, or a direct PIC comparison that isolates the chaotic phase-mixing contribution.
  2. [Sec. II B, first paragraph; Fig. 1(d.1-3)] The statement that 'the degree of nonlinearity and the characteristic wavelength are controlled solely by the Alfvén Mach number MA' is contradicted by the figure itself, which shows different wavelengths for δux(0)=0.005 and δux(0)=0.3 at fixed MA. Moreover, the analytic estimate in Eq. (6) is independent of δux(0), so it does not explain the numerical dependence. Since δux(0) is an ad hoc initial velocity perturbation rather than a parameter fixed by upstream shock conditions, the soliton spacing is not a closed prediction of the model. The authors should specify how δux(0) is chosen (for example, from the upstream temperature) or quantify the resulting uncertainty.
  3. [Sec. III A; Sec. III B; Conclusion] The model is constructed as a stationary solution of a boundary-value problem, and the paper does not show that the time-dependent shock initial-value problem relaxes to this solution. The stationarity assumption removes by construction the time-dependent collective dynamics that could compete with chaotic phase mixing. The Conclusion's statement that soliton-driven instabilities 'may affect the shock dynamics' is an important caveat that should be reflected in the Abstract and in the statement of the paper's scope; as written, the Abstract's categorical claim overstates what the model can decide. A demonstration that the stationary multi-beam state is an attractor of a kinetic or PIC simulation would address this concern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II A, below Eq. (4)] The normalization definition '˜uy = ux/u0' should read '˜uy = uy/u0'.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states 'MA=40' for u0=40 and σ=100, but the text correctly gives MA=4; the caption should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The notation 'δ ˜ux(0) = 0 .005' and '0 .3' contains stray spaces; this is a formatting issue only.
  4. [Sec. III B] The phrase 'This indicates a phase transition' is too strong for a finite-N truncation; the text should say 'a transition in the reduced model' unless a scaling or kinetic confirmation is provided.
  5. [Sec. III A] The phrase 'synthetic shock profiles' is vague; 'model shock profiles' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the chaos-driven dissipation and thermalization are emergent outputs of the multi-fluid ODE system, not fitted or imported conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The multi-fluid model (Eq. 9) is an N-beam truncation of the Vlasov-Maxwell system in which only the coherent magnetic field couples the beams; the Lyapunov spectra (Fig. 7), the entropy-production estimate, and the thermalization toward a 2D Jüttner-Synge distribution (Fig. 8) are computed outputs, not imposed or fitted. The Rankine-Hugoniot comparison in Sec. III A is a consistency check, not a circular prediction: Eqs. (15)-(16) are integrals of the same conservation laws from which the jump conditions are derived, so agreement is a necessary validation rather than an independent test of the dissipation mechanism. The self-citations ([23], [31], [36]) are not load-bearing: [31] supplies a standard Floquet-analysis method and [36] supplies the standard temperature-dependent adiabatic index formula; neither injects the central conclusion. The abstract's claim that collective plasma interactions are subdominant is an assumption of the reduced model, explicitly deferred in the text ('plasma instabilities, which are subdominant'; 'other downstream modes, arising from plasma instabilities which are not accounted for in our analysis, will also likely contribute'), and the conclusion concedes that soliton-driven instabilities 'may affect the shock dynamics.' This is a scope or evidence limitation, not a circular reduction, because the model does not define the conclusion as true; chaotic dissipation emerges from the orbital dynamics of the beams. The circularity score is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters: the single-fluid soliton chain is seeded by a hand-chosen velocity perturbation; the multi-fluid model replaces it with thermal noise, so this parameter does not enter the central shock calculation. The number of beams N is a numerical truncation parameter, with convergence tested. Axioms: the model assumes a stationary, periodic, perpendicular, pair-symmetric shock transition, represents the plasma as many cold beams, and, crucially, neglects collective plasma instabilities. Standard mathematical tools (Floquet theory, Lyapunov spectra, KS entropy, 2D adiabatic index) are imported from the literature. No new particles, forces, or fields are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial velocity perturbation delta u_x(0) / u0 = 0.005 to 0.3 (varied)
    Hand-chosen amplitude that seeds the single-fluid soliton chain in Sec. II A; it sets nonlinearity and wavelength but is replaced by thermal spread in the multi-fluid model, so it is not load-bearing for the central shock result.
  • Number of fluid beams N = 2 to 10^4
    Numerical truncation parameter for the multi-fluid representation in Sec. III A. The paper checks convergence of the Lyapunov spectrum for N up to 20 and uses N=10^4 for profiles. It is a discretization choice, not a physical constant.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The kinetic-scale shock transition is stationary and can be represented as a periodic chain of fast magnetosonic solitons.
    Used in Sec. II A to construct the soliton train and in Sec. III to model the whole transition as a stationary system. If the real shock structure is not quasi-stationary, the reduction to a stationary multi-fluid ODE system fails.
  • domain assumption Pair symmetry and perpendicular geometry allow a single effective fluid per beam, with u_y^e = -u_y^p.
    Invoked in Sec. II A ('By symmetry of electron and positron trajectories') and used in the current density in Eq. (9). Restricts the theory to symmetric pair plasma with perpendicular B.
  • domain assumption A finite set of cold beams approximates the kinetic distribution of the plasma.
    Sec. III A states thermal effects are captured in the limit of a large number of coupled cold fluids, following Dawson (1960). The convergence with N is checked numerically but not rigorously proven.
  • domain assumption Collective plasma instabilities are negligible for the dissipation budget.
    The model equations (1)-(3), (9) contain only the coherent magnetic-field coupling between beams. The abstract's claim that collective interactions are not the leading channel presupposes that omitted instabilities are subdominant, which the paper does not demonstrate.
  • standard math Floquet theory and Lyapunov and Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy formalism are applicable to the linearized and tangent-space dynamics.
    Sec. II B uses Floquet exponents for test-particle stability; Sec. III B uses Benettin et al. (1980) Gram-Schmidt and Eckmann-Ruelle (1985) for Lyapunov spectra and entropy.
  • standard math The adiabatic index of a 2D Maxwell-Juttner distribution (Eqs. 12-13) describes the downstream plasma for the Rankine-Hugoniot comparison.
    Sec. III A uses Eq. (12) from Ref. [36] instead of the fixed 3/2 value. This is a thermodynamic identity, not fitted to the simulation outputs.
  • domain assumption The flow is valid in the regime sqrt(sigma) < u0 << sigma with perpendicular upstream magnetic field.
    Stated in Sec. II A and the conclusion; restricts the applicability of the model and its conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistically Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in Pair Plasma: I. Solitons, Chaos, and Thermalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBSJFM73

@misc{pith2026241116484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistically Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in Pair Plasma: I. Solitons, Chaos, and Thermalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBSJFM73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16484}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, the first in a series, we present a new theoretical model for the global structure and dissipation of relativistically magnetized collisionless shock waves. Quite remarkably, we find that in contrast to unmagnetized shocks, the leading energy dissipation channel does not involve collective plasma interactions. Rather, it is a consequence of nonlinear particle dynamics. We demonstrate that the kinetic-scale shock transition can be modeled as a stationary system consisting of a large set of cold beams coupled through the magnetic field. The fundamental mechanism governing shock dissipation relies on the onset of chaos in orbital dynamics within quasiperiodic solitonic structures. We discuss the impact of upstream temperature and magnetization on the shock profile, recovering the magnetic field compression, downstream velocities, and heating expected from the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions. We deduce a rate of entropy generation from the spectrum of Lyapunov exponents and discuss the thermalization of the beam distribution. Our model provides a general framework to study magnetized collisionless shock structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Solution to the periodic system of fast magnetosonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Unperturbed structure of a single soliton in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Orbits of 100 test-particles with initial spread drawn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Synthetic shock profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison with the Rankine-Hugoniot jump con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Phase-space profile of the beam velocity distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Particle dynamics in nonlinear electromagnetic waves: chaos onset, diffusive heating, and wave surfing

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Particle motion in magnetized X-modes becomes chaotic for δ=Bw/B0 ≳ 0.25 via Chirikov overlap, with incomplete high-δ re-laminarization producing both stochastic heating and intermittent wave surfing, and only mild EM...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Thompson and R

    C. Thompson and R. C. Duncan, The soft gamma re- peaters as very strongly magnetized neutron stars - I. Radiative mechanism for outbursts, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 275, 255 (1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Parfrey, A

    K. Parfrey, A. M. Beloborodov, and L. Hui, Dynamics of Strongly Twisted Relativistic Magnetospheres, Astroph. J. 774, 92 (2013), arXiv:1306.4335 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    A. Y. Chen, Y. Yuan, X. Li, and J. F. Mahlmann, Propagation of a Strong Fast Magnetosonic Wave in the Magnetosphere of a Neutron Star, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2210.13506 (2022), arXiv:2210.13506 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Y. Yuan, A. M. Beloborodov, A. Y. Chen, Y. Levin, E. R. Most, and A. A. Philippov, Magnetar Bursts Due to Alfv´ en Wave Nonlinear Breakout, Astroph. J. 933, 174 (2022), arXiv:2204.08513 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    J. F. Mahlmann, A. A. Philippov, V. Mewes, B. Rip- perda, E. R. Most, and L. Sironi, Three-dimensional Dy- namics of Strongly Twisted Magnetar Magnetospheres: Kinking Flux Tubes and Global Eruptions, Astroph. J. Lett. 947, L34 (2023), arXiv:2302.07273 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    E. R. Most, A. M. Beloborodov, and B. Ripperda, Mon- ster shocks, gamma-ray bursts and black hole quasi- normal modes from neutron-star collapse, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.01456 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    B. M. S. Hansen and M. Lyutikov, Radio and X-ray sig- natures of merging neutron stars, Month. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 322, 695 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    E. R. Most and A. A. Philippov, Electromagnetic Pre- cursors to Gravitational-wave Events: Numerical Sim- ulations of Flaring in Pre-merger Binary Neutron Star Magnetospheres, Astroph. J. Lett. 893, L6 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Beloborodov, Emission of Magnetar Bursts and Precursors of Neutron Star Mergers, Astroph. J. 921, 92 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Hoshino, J

    M. Hoshino, J. Arons, Y. A. Gallant, and A. B. Langdon, Relativistic magnetosonic shock waves in synchrotron sources - Shock structure and nonthermal acceleration of positrons, Astrophys. J. 390, 454 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    Arons and M

    J. Arons and M. Tavani, High-Energy Emission from the Eclipsing Millisecond Pulsar PSR 1957+20, Astrophys. J. 403, 249 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    Y. A. Gallant and J. Arons, Structure of Relativistic Shocks in Pulsar Winds: A Model of the Wisps in the Crab Nebula, Astrophys. J. 435, 230 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, A Bright Millisecond Radio Burst of Extragalactic Origin, Science 318, 777 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Lyubarsky, A model for fast extragalactic radio bursts., Mon

    Y. Lyubarsky, A model for fast extragalactic radio bursts., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, L9 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Waxman, On the Origin of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs), Astroph

    E. Waxman, On the Origin of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs), Astroph. J. 842, 34 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Iwamoto, T

    M. Iwamoto, T. Amano, M. Hoshino, Y. Matsumoto, J. Niemiec, A. Ligorini, O. Kobzar, and M. Pohl, Pre- cursor Wave Amplification by Ion - Electron Coupling through Wakefield in Relativistic Shocks, Astrop. J. Lett. 883, L35 (2019), arXiv:1909.03337 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. D. Metzger, B. Margalit, and L. Sironi, Fast radio bursts as synchrotron maser emission from decelerating relativistic blast waves, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 4091 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Plotnikov and L

    I. Plotnikov and L. Sironi, The synchrotron maser emis- sion from relativistic shocks in Fast Radio Bursts: 1D PIC simulations of cold pair plasmas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 3816 (2019), arXiv:1901.01029 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sironi, I

    L. Sironi, I. Plotnikov, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. M. Be- loborodov, Coherent Electromagnetic Emission from Rel- 11 ativistic Magnetized Shocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 035101 (2021), arXiv:2107.01211 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lyubarsky, Emission Mechanisms of Fast Radio Bursts, Universe 7, 56 (2021)

    Y. Lyubarsky, Emission Mechanisms of Fast Radio Bursts, Universe 7, 56 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Babul and L

    A.-N. Babul and L. Sironi, The synchrotron maser emis- sion from relativistic magnetized shocks: dependence on the pre-shock temperature, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 2884 (2020), arXiv:2006.03081 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. M. Beloborodov, Monster Radiative Shocks in the Perturbed Magnetospheres of Neutron Stars, Astroph. J. 959, 34 (2023), arXiv:2210.13509 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Vanthieghem and A

    A. Vanthieghem and A. Levinson, Fast radio bursts as precursor radio emission from monster shocks, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.15076 (2024), arXiv:2407.15076 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Khangulyan, M

    D. Khangulyan, M. V. Barkov, and S. B. Popov, Fast Ra- dio Bursts by High-frequency Synchrotron Maser Emis- sion Generated at the Reverse Shock of a Powerful Mag- netar Flare, Astr. Phys. J. 927, 2 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    A. B. Langdon, J. Arons, and C. E. Max, Structure of rel- ativistic magnetosonic shocks in electron-positron plas- mas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 779 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    Y. A. Gallant, M. Hoshino, A. B. Langdon, J. Arons, and C. E. Max, Relativistic, perpendicular shocks in electron- positron plasmas, Astrophys. J. 391, 73 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    C. F. Kennel and R. Pellat, Relativistic nonlinear plasma waves in a magnetic field, Journal of Plasma Physics 15, 335 (1976)

    1976

  20. [28]

    Alsop and J

    D. Alsop and J. Arons, Relativistic magnetosonic soli- tons with reflected particles in electron-positron plasmas, Phys. Fl. 31, 839 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Hoshino and J

    M. Hoshino and J. Arons, Preferential positron heat- ing and acceleration by synchrotron maser instabilities in relativistic positron-electron-proton plasmas, Physics of Fluids B 3, 818 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    Plotnikov, A

    I. Plotnikov, A. Grassi, and M. Grech, Perpendicular rel- ativistic shocks in magnetized pair plasma, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477, 10.1093/mnras/sty979 (2018)

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Vanthieghem, M

    A. Vanthieghem, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Stabil- ity analysis of a periodic system of relativistic current filaments, Phys. Plasmas 25, 072115 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Vay, Simulation of beams or plasmas crossing at relativistic velocity, Phys

    J.-L. Vay, Simulation of beams or plasmas crossing at relativistic velocity, Phys. Plasmas 15, 056701 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    We refer to marginal stability here, as stability is ensured for only very small initial perturbations around equilib- rium

  26. [34]

    J. M. Dawson, Plasma oscillations of a large number of electron beams, Phys. Rev. 118, 381 (1960)

    1960

  27. [35]

    C. F. Kennel and F. V. Coroniti, Magnetohydrodynamic model of Crab nebula radiation., Astrophys. J. 283, 710 (1984)

    1984

  28. [36]

    Vanthieghem, Theoretical and numerical studies of rel- ativistic collisionless shock waves , Ph.D

    A. Vanthieghem, Theoretical and numerical studies of rel- ativistic collisionless shock waves , Ph.D. thesis (2019), th` ese de doctorat dirig´ ee par Lemoine, Martin et Gremil- let, Laurent, Sorbonne Universit´ e, ´Ecole doctorale As- tronomie et Astrophysique d’ˆIle-de-France, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Benettin, L

    G. Benettin, L. Galgani, A. Giorgilli, and J. M. Strelcyn, Lyapunov characteristic exponents for smooth dynami- cal systems and for Hamiltonian systems - A method for computing all of them. I - Theory. II - Numerical appli- cation, Meccanica 15, 9 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    J. P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle, Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 617 (1985)

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.