Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Maximum Energy of Particles in Plasmas

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 Particles in many plasma environments reach the energy predicted by the Hillas limit, so the limit works as a practical ceiling rather than only a theoretical necessary condition.

desk verdict A useful, honest compilation extending the authors' earlier Hillas-limit claims; the qualitative scaling holds up, but the regression needs a censored treatment before the quantitative claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00564 v1 pith:SCOR5JHQ submitted 2024-11-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Mitsuo Oka , Kazuo Makishima , Toshio Terasawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords SpaceplasmasPlasmaastrophysicsSolarflaresCosmicraysHeliospherePlanetarymagnetospheresHillaslimitParticleacceleration
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 tests the Hillas limit, the standard estimate of the maximum energy a particle can reach in a plasma environment, $\varepsilon_H = qVBL$, set by the flow speed $V$, the magnetic field $B$, and the size $L$ of the acceleration region. Comparing the highest observed particle energies across space, solar, astrophysical, and laboratory plasmas, the authors find that protons and often electrons do reach the predicted energy, over ranges of $V$, $B$, and $L$ spanning many orders of magnitude. A multivariate fit returns exponents close to unity on all three parameters, matching the Hillas scaling empirically rather than by construction. The genuine exceptions are electrons in solar flares and in the hot spots of the radio galaxy Cygnus A, which fall far short, and protons in Earth's and Saturn's radiation belts, which exceed the limit because they are fed from outside by cosmic-ray albedo neutron decay. If the scaling holds, the Hillas limit becomes a working tool for predicting maximum particle energies across disciplines, and solar flare electrons near 100 GeV should be detectable with better in-situ instruments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the identity $\varepsilon_H = qVBL$, the Hillas limit, where $q$ is the particle charge, $V$ is a characteristic flow speed, $B$ the magnetic field strength, and $L$ the half-size of the acceleration region. The paper makes this limit testable by giving $V$, $B$, and $L$ consistent definitions across three environment types—bulk-flow-driven shocks, magnetically driven reconnection sites, and rotating magnetized bodies—and by deriving two companion bounds that bracket the observations: the diffusive-acceleration energy $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{diff}} = (3/\eta)\, qVBL$ with scattering parameter $\eta$, and the trapping limit $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{trap}} = qcBL = (c/V)\varepsilon_H$. The empirical test is a log-log regression $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{obs}} = D\, V^a B^b L^c$ across the compiled environments; exponents near unity for both protons and electrons are what carry the argument that the scaling is real rather than coincidental.

What would settle it

Take a set of environments in which the true maximum particle energy is directly measured as a spectral cutoff rather than an instrument limit, estimate $V$, $B$, and $L$ from independent observations, and check whether those cutoff energies still scale as $qVBL$; if the true cutoffs scatter far from the prediction while the instrument-limited detections hug the line, the claimed scaling would be an artifact of detector ceilings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the highest observed energy of particles, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{obs}}$, often reaches the Hillas limit $\varepsilon_H = qVBL$ across a wide range of plasma environments, so the limit is not only a necessary condition but frequently the attained maximum. This is demonstrated by comparing $\varepsilon_H$ with compiled $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{obs}}$ values for protons and electrons in more than a dozen plasma environments spanning from Earth's magnetotail to the hot spots of Cygnus A, with agreement within about an order of magnitude in most cases and a multivariate regression yielding exponents consistent with unity. The paper also identifies genuine exceptions: electrons in solar flares and in the jet-terminal lobes of radio galaxies fall orders of magnitude below the prediction, while protons in Earth's and Saturn's radiation belts exceed it. The former are attributed to radiative losses and weak scattering, the latter to externally supplied cosmic-ray albedo neutron decay (CRAND) protons. The paper concludes that the Hillas limit can be used as a practical estimate of maximum particle energy and argues that solar flare electrons up to roughly 100 GeV may be detectable with better instruments.

Load-bearing premise

The representative values of $V$, $B$, and $L$ chosen for each environment, and the use of the highest detected particle energy as a proxy for the true maximum (even where it is only an instrument-limited detection), are what make the data points land on the Hillas line; if the parameters misrepresent the actual acceleration region or the detected ceilings are detector artifacts, the apparent scaling could be a selection effect rather than a physical law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hillas limit can serve as a working predictor of the maximum particle energy in a plasma environment once $V$, $B$, and $L$ are measured consistently.
  • In-situ detectors with wider energy coverage may find solar flare electrons at roughly 100 GeV or more, unless synchrotron cooling and weak scattering cap them near about 150 MeV.
  • The nine-orders-of-magnitude gap for Cygnus A electrons indicates that jet-terminal hot spots of FR-II radio galaxies are poor electron accelerators, likely because reconnection-induced turbulence is absent there.
  • Proton energies in Earth's and Saturn's radiation belts exceed the Hillas limit only because cosmic-ray albedo neutron decay supplies them from outside; their energies still respect the harder trapping condition $r_g \le L$.
  • The empirical scaling exponents for protons and electrons both come out close to unity, so the observed maximum energy depends nearly linearly on $V$, $B$, and $L$ as the Hillas limit predicts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling is as robust as the paper claims, then the environments where particles fall far short of the line—solar flare electrons and radio-galaxy hot spots—become a diagnostic toolkit: the size of the gap measures how much reconnection-driven turbulence and radiative loss subtract from the ideal ceiling.
  • The paper's choice to use the magnetotail half-width rather than the observed flow-channel width for Earth's magnetotail raises the predicted energy by up to a factor of a few; re-running the comparison with the narrower channel width would show how much of the overall agreement depends on that definitional choice.
  • A direct simulation test would isolate the physics from observational selection: in particle-in-cell models of reconnection or shock acceleration, the maximum particle energy should scale as $qVBL$ when $V$, $B$, and $L$ are taken from the upstream parameters, or the mechanism behind the observed scaling is something else.
  • If future instruments resolve true spectral cutoffs in solar flare electrons, the predicted roughly-100 GeV population is a concrete, falsifiable target that distinguishes the paper's optimistic case from the synchrotron-loss-limited case.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript tests the Hillas limit εH = qVBL against the highest observed particle energies across space, solar, astrophysical, and laboratory plasma environments. It compiles values of V, B, and L for each environment from the literature, computes εH, and compares it with observed maximum proton and electron energies in Figures 2 and 3. The authors report that the observed maxima often agree with εH within an order of magnitude, find a few exceptions (radiation-belt protons, solar-flare electrons, Cygnus A electrons, Crab Pulsar electrons), and support the scaling with multivariate regressions in Eqs. (7)-(8) whose fitted exponents are near unity. They further argue that synchrotron losses may limit solar-flare electrons but that energies above ~100 GeV may still be detectable, and that CRAND explains radiation-belt protons exceeding the Hillas limit.

Significance. If the claimed scaling is robust, the paper would provide a useful interdisciplinary benchmark for particle acceleration across vastly different scales, from laser plasmas to radio-galaxy lobes. Its strengths are the systematic compilation of parameters with explicit caveats, the separate treatment of protons and electrons, the inclusion of laboratory experiments, and a falsifiable prediction about ~100 GeV solar-flare electrons. The comparison is not circular in its inputs: V, B, and L come from independent observations rather than from εobs. However, the validation is weakened by the treatment of instrument-limited lower limits as exact values, the post-hoc removal of outliers before fitting, the very broad parameter ranges in Table 1, and at least one inconsistency in the synchrotron-loss estimate. These issues affect the central claim that the Hillas limit is often attained, so the paper needs a substantial statistical and modeling revision before the claim can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (7)-(8), and Figs. 2-3] The regression treats all εobs values as exact, even though Section 2's first caveat and the upward arrows in Figures 2 and 3 identify many of them as instrument-limited lower limits. Because the response variable is censored in this way, ordinary least squares can bias the estimated exponents, and the statement that 'the indices are close to unity' is not robust. The paper should use a censored regression appropriate for lower-bound responses, or at minimum perform a sensitivity analysis that excludes or reweights the lower-limit points, and should report goodness-of-fit for the regressions.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The multivariate fit is performed after removing 'obvious outliers' — Earth and Saturn radiation belts for protons and solar flares, the Crab Pulsar, and Cygnus A for electrons. These exclusions are exactly the cases that determine whether the Hillas limit is attained or violated, and no a priori outlier criterion is given. The near-unity exponents are therefore a property of the retained sample, not an independent test of Eq. (2). The paper should report fits with and without each excluded environment and justify the exclusions before seeing the fit.
  3. [§3.1 and Table 1] For Earth's radiation belt, the text acknowledges that B varies by orders of magnitude and that local acceleration in the belt is distinct from magnetotail processes, yet it adopts the magnetotail values (V = 300-1000 km/s, B = 15-25 nT, L = 9.6-16×10^7 m) as the Hillas parameters. This is an ad hoc choice: the resulting εH = 0.4-4 MeV is then compared with 800 MeV protons that the paper itself attributes to CRAND. Because radiation-belt protons are used both as a validation point and as an outlier, the choice of magnetotail parameters for this environment needs a physical justification or a separate model with belt-specific parameters.
  4. [§3 and Table 1] The stated parameter ranges are so broad that εH brackets εobs in many rows, making 'agreement within an order of magnitude' a weak test. For example, solar flares give εH = 0.05-5 TeV versus εobs = 45 MeV for electrons, and CMEs give εH = 1-420 GeV versus 30 GeV for protons. The paper should define a point estimate or a likelihood that uses the full ranges and their correlations, rather than comparing range endpoints to a single observed value.
  5. [§5.3, Eq. (12)] The text's pessimistic case (B ~ 500 G, V ~ 1000 km/s, η ~ 10^4) is said to limit electrons to ~150 MeV, but substituting those values into Eq. (12) gives ~1.5 TeV if η = 10^4 and ~150 MeV only if the exponent of η in Eq. (12) is −1/2 instead of +1/2. Since η is defined as D/DB and the paper states that η ≥ 1 in the strong-scattering limit, the η = 10^-4 interpretation is not available. This inconsistency affects the prediction of ≳100 GeV flare electrons and should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Figure captions] The phrase 'identify line' should be 'identity line' in the captions of Figures 2 and 3.
  2. [§3.1 and §3.3.3] There are several typographical errors: 'magneotail' should be 'magnetotail', 'protons my be' should be 'protons may be', and 'the the plasma' should be 'the plasma'.
  3. [§3.4 and Table 1] For the laser reconnection experiment, the observed value is a range (40-70 keV) and Table 1 lists a range, but Figure 3 appears to plot a single point; the plotting and regression treatment of range-valued observations should be clarified.
  4. [§4, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The fitted prefactors D are given without units; a dimensionless normalization, for example by the elementary charge, would make the comparison with Eq. (2) more transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Most of the Hillas-limit compilation is an independent test, but the Crab Nebula electron point is self-consistent by construction because the same inferred magnetic field sets both the predicted and 'observed' energies.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3.3 (Crab Nebula), used in Table 1 and Figures 2-3]
    "The magnetic field B in the post-shock region can be estimated from the spectral break that appears in the synchrotron spectrum at ν ∼ 10^13 Hz. ... we can obtain B ∼30 nT ... Combining the parameters, we obtain the Hillas limit of εH ∼ 2 − 6 PeV. ... Using the magnetic field 30 nT obtained above and the formula for the synchrotron critical frequency, we find that this photon energy corresponds to an electron energy of εobs,e ∼ 2 PeV."

    The same post-shock field B ≈ 30 nT, itself inferred from the synchrotron cooling break, is used on both sides of the comparison. It is divided by the compression ratio 7 to set the upstream B that enters εH = qVBL, and it is then used directly in the synchrotron critical-frequency formula to convert the observed photon cutoff into εobs,e. With V = c and the same L ≈ 4.3 × 10^15 m, the two energies are tied by the same input B, so the resulting agreement at the PeV scale is a consequence of the shared magnetic-field estimate rather than an independent observational confirmation. This makes the Crab Nebula electron point partially circular, although most other environments in the compilation use direct in-situ or otherwise independent measurements.

full rationale

The central method — compiling independent V, B, L values to compute εH and comparing with observed εobs — is not circular for the majority of the data. Many points use in-situ measurements (Earth's bow shock, magnetotail, solar GLE protons, Saturn bow shock) or independent remote-sensing determinations, and the free-exponent regression (Eqs. 6-8) is a legitimate empirical fit rather than a fixed-exponent in-sample prediction. The self-citations to Makishima (1999) and Terasawa (2001) are not load-bearing: the paper re-derives the diffusive form (Eqs. 3-4) from the diffusion coefficient and η, so the scaling does not rest on uncited prior authority. The main specific circularity is the Crab Nebula electron case, where B inferred from the synchrotron break is used both to compute εH and to convert the photon cutoff into εobs,e, making that datapoint agree by construction. Additional weaknesses — instrument-limited lower limits treated as exact, and broad parameter ranges bracketing εobs — undermine the strength of the validation but are not definitional circularity. On balance, the claim still has substantial independent content, but the one coupled datapoint and the acknowledged lower-limit treatment keep the score at 4 rather than lower.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. The compiled data are observational inputs. The main hidden assumptions are that selected V,B,L values represent the acceleration sites, that lower-limit measurements are treated as exact, and that the fitted regression exponents validate the prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • D_p = 9.6e-4
    Free normalization constant in the proton regression (Eq. 7).
  • a_p, b_p, c_p = 1.47±0.56, 0.79±0.10, 0.86±0.07
    Free exponents in proton regression used to claim consistency with Eq. (2).
  • D_e = 2.6e-2
    Free normalization constant in the electron regression (Eq. 8).
  • a_e, b_e, c_e = 1.27±0.23, 0.78±0.09, 0.82±0.06
    Free exponents in electron regression.
  • η (scattering parameter) = 1 to 10^4
    Free parameter in Eq. (12) for the predicted solar flare electron energy cutoff.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Hillas limit derivation from L > 2rg and diffusive scale λ ≤ L is valid.
    Used in Section 1 to derive Eqs. (1)-(3).
  • domain assumption Observed maximum energies can be treated as representative even when they are lower limits.
    Section 2 states εobs values are usually lower limits, but Section 4 treats them as exact in the regression.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetotail V, B, L values apply to Earth's radiation belt and other Type 2 environments.
    Section 3.1 uses magnetotail parameters for the radiation belt because local acceleration is hard to characterize.
  • domain assumption CRAND is the source of excess energetic protons in Earth's and Saturn's radiation belts.
    Section 5.4 attributes the outliers to cosmic ray albedo neutron decay; if this is wrong, the exceptions remain unexplained.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron cooling is the main energy loss limiting solar flare electrons.
    Section 5.3 uses this to derive Eq. (12) and the prediction of ~100 GeV electrons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum Energy of Particles in Plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCOR5JHQ

@misc{pith2026241200564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum Energy of Particles in Plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCOR5JHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00564}
}
abstract

Particles are accelerated to very high, non-thermal energies in space, solar, and astrophysical plasma environments. In cosmic ray physics, the "Hillas limit" is often used as a rough estimate (or the necessary condition) of the maximum energy of particles. This limit is based on the concepts of one-shot direct acceleration by a system-wide motional electric field, as well as stochastic and diffusive acceleration in strongly turbulent environments. However, it remains unclear how well this limit explains the actual observed maximum energies of particles. Here we show, based on a systematic review, that the observed maximum energy of particles -- those in space, solar, astrophysical, and laboratory environments -- often reach the energy predicted by the Hillas limit. We also found several exceptions, such as electrons in solar flares and jet-terminal lobes of radio galaxies, as well as protons in planetary radiation belts, where deviations from this limit occur. We discuss possible causes of such deviations, and we argue in particular that there is a good chance of detecting ultra-high-energy ($\sim$100 GeV) solar flare electrons that have not yet been detected. We anticipate that this study will facilitate further interdisciplinary discussions on the maximum energy of particles and the underlying mechanisms of particle acceleration in diverse plasma environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of different types of plasma environments. Annotated on the left of each illustration are (1) the primary source of energy, (2) our definitions of V , B, and L, and (3) example plasma environments. This categorization is not meant to restrict the acceleration mechanism. For example, in the Type 2 environment, particles may be accelerated not only by magnetic reconnection but also by the termin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The maximum energy of protons in various plasma environments, as compared between the Hillas limit prediction (horizontal axis) and observations (vertical axis). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The maximum energy of electrons in various plasma environments, with the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy loss time for fast electrons in the solar corona, demonstrating the importance of synchrotron cooling in the rela￾tivistic regime. Four different processes (as annotated) are con￾sidered with densities n = 108 − 1010cm−3 and magnetic fields B = (5 − 50) × 106 nT…

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. Let there be neutrons! Hadronic photoproduction from a large flux of high-energy photons

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    High-energy photons from a gamma-ray burst jet can transmute protons in the surrounding stellar envelope into neutrons, potentially enabling neutron-capture nucleosynthesis in the cocoon.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

180 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    = uiy6c F [de2=F c p j

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629790

    Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629790

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629790 2018

  5. [5]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/28 2011

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Acero, F., Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 516, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913916

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913916 2010

  7. [7]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348651

    Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., Aschersleben, J., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348651

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348651 2024

  8. [8]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd32e

    Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Bastieri, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd32e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd32e 2021

Show all 180 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00023

    Alves Batista, R., Biteau, J., Bustamante, M., et al. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00023

    2019

  2. [10]

    2020, Phys Rev Lett, 124, 065101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.065101

    Amano, T., Katou, T., Kitamura, N., et al. 2020, Phys Rev Lett, 124, 065101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.065101

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Goldstein, M

    Ambrosiano, J., Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Plante, D. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 14383, 10.1029/JA093iA12p14383

    1988 doi

  4. [12]

    F., et al

    Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W., Kennel, C. F., et al. 1992, J Geophys Res-Space, 97, 4027, Doi 10.1029/91ja02701

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    V., Kennel, C

    Angelopoulos, V., Coroniti, F. V., Kennel, C. F., et al. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 4967, 10.1029/95JA02722

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 585, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526853

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Bell, A

    Araudo, A. T., Bell, A. R., Blundell, K. M., & Matthews, J. H. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3500, 10.1093/mnras/stx2552

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Bell, A

    Araudo, A. T., Bell, A. R., Crilly, A., & Blundell, K. M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 3554, 10.1093/mnras/stw1204

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Zhang, X

    Artemyev, A. V., Zhang, X. J., Demekhov, A. G., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, 10.1029/2023ja032287

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 578, L91, 10.1086/344566

    Asai, A., Masuda, S., Yokoyama, T., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 578, L91, 10.1086/344566

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/3-540-30766-4

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 3, 10.1007/s11214-011-9865-x

    ---. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 3, 10.1007/s11214-011-9865-x

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Hudson, H., Kosugi, T., & Schwartz, R

    Aschwanden, M. J., Hudson, H., Kosugi, T., & Schwartz, R. A. 1996, Astrophys J, 464, 985, Doi 10.1086/177386

    1996 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 278, 525, 10.1093/mnras/278.2.525

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 827, 10.1086/374687

    Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., & Koyama, K. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 827, 10.1086/374687

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    S., et al

    Bamba, A., Fukazawa, Y., Hiraga, J. S., et al. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, S153, 10.1093/pasj/60.sp1.S153

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 10.1086/172995

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    N., Alexander, J

    Becker, H. N., Alexander, J. W., Connerney, J. E. P., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, 10.1029/2020je006772

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    2004

  20. [28]

    G., Ksenofontov, L

    Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., & Völk, H. J. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 395, 943, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021219

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    K., & Edenhofer, P

    Bird, M. K., & Edenhofer, P. 1990, Remote Sensing Observations of the Solar Corona (Berlin Hidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 13--98

    1990

  22. [30]

    B., Kolasinski, W

    Blake, J. B., Kolasinski, W. A., Fillius, R. W., & Mullen, E. G. 1992, Geophysical Research Letters, 19, 821, 10.1029/92gl00624

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    1987, Physics Reports, 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford, R., & Eichler, D. 1987, Physics Reports, 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    1987 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Janssen, M., Thorne, R., et al

    Bolton, S. J., Janssen, M., Thorne, R., et al. 2002, Nature, 415, 987, 10.1038/415987a

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Jackman, C

    Bowers, C. F., Jackman, C. M., Sun, W., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, 10.1029/2023ja032162

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, Rep Prog Phys, 77, 066901, 10.1088/0034-4885/77/6/066901

    Buhler, R., & Blandford, R. 2014, Rep Prog Phys, 77, 066901, 10.1088/0034-4885/77/6/066901

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Ness, N

    Burlaga, L. F., Ness, N. F., Acuña, M. H., et al. 2008, Nature, 454, 75, 10.1038/nature07029

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    L., & Barthel, P

    Carilli, C. L., & Barthel, P. D. 1996, Astron Astrophys Rev, 7, 1, 10.1007/s001590050001

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    1962, Space Science Reviews, 1, 10.1007/bf00174635

    Carmichael, H. 1962, Space Science Reviews, 1, 10.1007/bf00174635

    1962 doi

  30. [38]

    2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 31, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.11.003

    Casse, F., & Marcowith, A. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 31, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.11.003

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Shen, C., et al

    Chen, Bastian, T. S., Shen, C., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 1238, 10.1126/science.aac8467

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Gary, D

    Chen, B., Shen, C. C., Gary, D. E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1140, 10.1038/s41550-020-1147-7

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, Nat Phys, 10.1038/s41567-022-01839-x

    Chien, A., Gao, L., Zhang, S., et al. 2023, Nat Phys, 10.1038/s41567-022-01839-x

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Mitchell, D

    Christon, S. P., Mitchell, D. G., Williams, D. J., et al. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 2562, 10.1029/JA093iA04p02562

    1988 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Williams, D

    Christon, S. P., Williams, D. J., Mitchell, D. G., Frank, L. A., & Huang, C. Y. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, 13409, 10.1029/JA094iA10p13409

    1989 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Williams, D

    Christon, S. P., Williams, D. J., Mitchell, D. G., Huang, C. Y., & Frank, L. A. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research, 96, 1, 10.1029/90ja01633

    1991 doi

  37. [45]

    C., & Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., & Stone, E. C. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 83, 51, 10.1023/a:1005057010311

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    de Pater, I., & Dunn, D. E. 2003, Icarus, 163, 449, 10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00068-x

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Raines, J

    Dewey, R. M., Raines, J. M., Sun, W., Slavin, J. A., & Poh, G. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 10.1029/2018gl079056

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b1

    Diesing, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b1

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Seenu, N., & Brown, M

    Dmitruk, P., Matthaeus, W. H., Seenu, N., & Brown, M. R. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L81, 10.1086/379751

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Opher, M., Swisdak, M., & Chamoun, J

    Drake, J. F., Opher, M., Swisdak, M., & Chamoun, J. N. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 963, 10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/963

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    Drury, L. O. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 39-40, 52, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.02.006

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    C., & Ramaty, R

    Ellison, D. C., & Ramaty, R. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 298, 10.1086/163623

    1985 doi

  45. [53]

    Evenson, P., Meyer, P., Yanagita, S., & Forrest, D. J. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 283, 10.1086/162323

    1984 doi

  46. [54]

    Fairfield, D. H. 1971, Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 6700, 10.1029/JA076i028p06700

    1971 doi

  47. [55]

    H., & Jones, J

    Fairfield, D. H., & Jones, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 7785, 10.1029/95ja03713

    1996 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Laurent-Muehleisen, S

    Feigelson, E. D., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Kollgaard, R. I., & Fomalont, E. B. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 449, 10.1086/309642

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Pehlke, E., Wibberenz, G., Lanzerotti, L

    Fischer, H. M., Pehlke, E., Wibberenz, G., Lanzerotti, L. J., & Mihalov, J. D. 1996, Science, 272, 856, 10.1126/science.272.5263.856

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Grassi, A., et al

    Fiuza, F., Swadling, G. F., Grassi, A., et al. 2020, Nat Phys, 16, 916, 10.1038/s41567-020-0919-4

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff4a

    Fukui, Y., Sano, H., Yamane, Y., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff4a

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    F., & Milne, D

    Gardner, F. F., & Milne, D. K. 1965, The Astronomical Journal, 70, 10.1086/109813

    1965 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Fuselier, S

    Gershman, D. J., Fuselier, S. A., Cohen, I. J., et al. 2024, Space Science Reviews, 220, 10.1007/s11214-023-01017-2

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 10.1007/s11214-022-00890-7

    Giacalone, J., Fahr, H., Fichtner, H., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 10.1007/s11214-022-00890-7

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 157, 10.1086/150119

    1969 doi

  56. [64]

    L., Matthaeus, W

    Goldstein, M. L., Matthaeus, W. H., & Ambrosiano, J. J. 1986, Geophysical Research Letters, 13, 205, 10.1029/GL013i003p00205

    1986 doi

  57. [65]

    Green, D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 10.1007/s12036-019-9601-6

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, Space Science Reviews, 220, 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Zenitani, S., & Hoshino, M. 2024, Space Science Reviews, 220, 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, 10.1029/2023gl103069

    Guo, J., Li, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, 10.1029/2023gl103069

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 10.1007/s41614-024-00162-7

    Guo, R., & Yao, Z. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 10.1007/s41614-024-00162-7

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Drake, K

    Hairston, M. R., Drake, K. A., & Skoug, R. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, 10.1029/2004ja010864

    2005 doi

  62. [70]

    Hess, W. N. 1959, Physical Review Letters, 3, 11, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.11

    1959 doi

  63. [71]

    W., Thomsen, M

    Hill, T. W., Thomsen, M. F., Henderson, M. G., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, 10.1029/2007ja012626

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    Hillas, a. M. 1984, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 425, 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233

    1984

  65. [73]

    Hillas, A. M. 2005, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 31, R95, 10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/r02

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Krimigis, S

    Ho, G. C., Krimigis, S. M., Gold, R. E., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1865, 10.1126/science.1211141

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, 10.1029/2012ja017983

    ---. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, 10.1029/2012ja017983

    2012 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Thomsen, M

    Jackman, C. M., Thomsen, M. F., & Dougherty, M. K. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 8865, 10.1029/2019ja026628

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Arridge, C

    Jackman, C. M., Arridge, C. S., André, N., et al. 2014, Space Science Reviews, 182, 85, 10.1007/s11214-014-0060-8

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    N., Baker, D

    Jaynes, A. N., Baker, D. N., Singer, H. J., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7240, 10.1002/2015ja021234

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1987, Astrophys J, 313, 842, Doi 10.1086/165022

    1987 doi

  72. [80]

    R., & Giacalone, J

    Jokipii, J. R., & Giacalone, J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 83, 123, 10.1023/a:1005077629875

    1998 doi

  73. [81]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 428, 10.1086/174292

    Kahler, S. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 428, 10.1086/174292

    1994 doi

  74. [82]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 453, 10.1086/309742

    Kaneda, H., Tashiro, M., Ikebe, Y., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 453, 10.1086/309742

    1995 doi

  75. [83]

    S., et al

    Katsuda, S., Petre, R., Long, K. S., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, L105, 10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/l105

    2009 doi

  76. [84]

    F., & Coroniti, F

    Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 283, 10.1086/162356

    1984 doi

  77. [85]

    G., & Khurana, K

    Kivelson, M. G., & Khurana, K. K. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, 10.1029/2001ja000249

    2002 doi

  78. [86]

    1994, Astrophys J Suppl S, 90, 719, 10.1086/191896

    Kliem, B. 1994, Astrophys J Suppl S, 90, 719, 10.1086/191896

    1994 doi

  79. [87]

    2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 5259, 10.1002/2017gl073730

    Kollmann, P., Paranicas, C., Clark, G., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 5259, 10.1002/2017gl073730

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    Kotera, K., & Olinto, A. V. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 119, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102620

    2011 doi

  81. [89]

    V., et al

    Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E. V., et al. 1995, Nature, 378, 255, DOI 10.1038/378255a0

    1995 doi

  82. [90]

    Krimigis, S. M. 1979, AIP Conference Proceedings, 56, 179, 10.1063/1.32079

    1979 doi

  83. [91]

    A., Woch, J., Krupp, N., & Lagg, A

    Kronberg, E. A., Woch, J., Krupp, N., & Lagg, A. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, 10.1029/2008ja013332

    2008 doi

  84. [92]

    J., et al

    Krucker, S., Battaglia, M., Cargill, P. J., et al. 2008, Astron Astrophys Rev, 16, 155, 10.1007/s00159-008-0014-9

    2008 doi

  85. [93]

    2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 10.1029/2018gl078096

    Krupp, N., Roussos, E., Kollmann, P., et al. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 10.1029/2018gl078096

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    O., & Cesarsky, C

    Lagage, P. O., & Cesarsky, C. J. 1983, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 125, 249

    1983

  87. [95]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937307

    Larrodera, C., & Cid, C. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937307

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Anderson, B

    Lawrence, D. J., Anderson, B. J., Baker, D. N., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 2851, 10.1002/2014ja020792

    2015 doi

  89. [97]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad598

    Li, J.-T., Ballet, J., Miceli, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad598

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    2023, Earth and Planetary Physics, 7, 109, 10.26464/epp2023009

    Li, Y., Yue, C., Liu, Y., et al. 2023, Earth and Planetary Physics, 7, 109, 10.26464/epp2023009

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    P., Dennis, B

    Lin, R. P., Dennis, B. R., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2002, Solar Physics, 210, 3, 10.1023/a:1022428818870

    2002 doi

  92. [100]

    F., Krucker, S., & Mason, G

    Liu, Z., Wang, L., Wimmer‐Schweingruber, R. F., Krucker, S., & Mason, G. M. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, 10.1029/2020ja028702

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics, 3rd edn. (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), 861, 10.1017/cbo9780511778346

    2011 doi

  94. [102]

    L., Duldig, M

    Lovell, J. L., Duldig, M. L., & Humble, J. E. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 23733, 10.1029/98ja02100

    1998 doi

  95. [103]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd406

    Lu, Y., Guo, F., Kilian, P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd406

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    1999, Astron Nachr, 320, 163

    Makishima, K. 1999, Astron Nachr, 320, 163. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000084277700001

    1999

  97. [105]

    L., Gillett, F

    Marsden, P. L., Gillett, F. C., Jennings, R. E., et al. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 278, 10.1086/184215

    1984 doi

  98. [106]

    Martens, P. C. H. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 330, 10.1086/185220

    1988 doi

  99. [107]

    2013, Nat Phys, 9, 164, 10.1038/nphys2541

    Masters, A., Stawarz, L., Fujimoto, M., et al. 2013, Nat Phys, 9, 164, 10.1038/nphys2541

    2013 doi

  100. [108]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495, 10.1038/371495a0

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495, 10.1038/371495a0

    1994 doi

  101. [109]

    H., Ambrosiano, J

    Matthaeus, W. H., Ambrosiano, J. J., & Goldstein, M. L. 1984, Physical Review Letters, 53, 1449, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.1449

    1984 doi

  102. [110]

    H., Bell, A

    Matthews, J. H., Bell, A. R., & Blundell, K. M. 2020, New Astronomy Reviews, 89, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101543

    2020

  103. [111]

    E., O’Brien, T

    Mazur, J. E., O’Brien, T. P., & Looper, M. D. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 10.1007/s11214-023-00962-2

    2023 doi

  104. [112]

    J., Thomsen, M

    McAndrews, H. J., Thomsen, M. F., Arridge, C. S., et al. 2009, Planetary and Space Science, 57, 1714, 10.1016/j.pss.2009.03.003

    2009 doi

  105. [113]

    G., Shea, M

    McCracken, K. G., Shea, M. A., & Smart, D. F. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 72, 3414, 10.1016/j.asr.2023.06.049

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    G., & Röser, H

    Meisenheimer, K., Yates, M. G., & Röser, H. J. 1997, AstroAstronomy & Astrophysics, 325, 57

    1997

  107. [115]

    A., Looper, M

    Mewaldt, R. A., Looper, M. D., Cohen, C. M. S., et al. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 97, 10.1007/s11214-012-9884-2

    2012 doi

  108. [116]

    2009, J Geophys Res-Space, 114, n/a, Artn A01211 10.1029/2008ja013225

    Miyashita, Y., Machida, S., Kamide, Y., et al. 2009, J Geophys Res-Space, 114, n/a, Artn A01211 10.1029/2008ja013225

    2009 doi

  109. [117]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 442, 10.1038/s41550-021-01594-8

    Mori, K., Hailey, C., Bridges, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 442, 10.1038/s41550-021-01594-8

    2022 doi

  110. [118]

    1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 10.1086/168034

    Moses, D., Droege, W., Meyer, P., & Evenson, P. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 10.1086/168034

    1989 doi

  111. [119]

    A., Melrose, D

    Norman, C. A., Melrose, D. B., & Achterberg, A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 454, 10.1086/176465

    1995 doi

  112. [120]

    S., & Saint-Hilaire, P

    Oka, M., Krucker, S., Hudson, H. S., & Saint-Hilaire, P. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 129, 10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/129

    2015 doi

  113. [121]

    D., Krucker, S., Fujimoto, M., & Shinohara, I

    Oka, M., Phan, T. D., Krucker, S., Fujimoto, M., & Shinohara, I. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 915, 10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/915

    2010 doi

  114. [122]

    2006, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L24104, 10.1029/2006gl028156

    Oka, M., Terasawa, T., Seki, Y., et al. 2006, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L24104, 10.1029/2006gl028156

    2006 doi

  115. [123]

    2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 82, 10.1007/s11214-018-0515-4

    Oka, M., Birn, J., Battaglia, M., et al. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 82, 10.1007/s11214-018-0515-4

    2018 doi

  116. [124]

    2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8

    Oka, M., Birn, J., Egedal, J., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8

    2023 doi

  117. [125]

    G., Krimigis, S

    Paranicas, C., Mitchell, D. G., Krimigis, S. M., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115, 10.1029/2009ja014971

    2010 doi

  118. [126]

    Parizot, E., Marcowith, A., Ballet, J., & Gallant, Y. A. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 453, 387, 10.1051/0004-6361:20064985

    2006 doi

  119. [127]

    D., Eastwood, J

    Phan, T. D., Eastwood, J. P., Shay, M. A., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 202, 10.1038/s41586-018-0091-5

    2018 doi

  120. [128]

    A., Jia, X., et al

    Poh, G., Slavin, J. A., Jia, X., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 678, 10.1002/2016gl071612

    2017 doi

  121. [129]

    V., & Troitsky, S

    Ptitsyna, K. V., & Troitsky, S. V. 2010, Physics-Uspekhi, 53, 691, 10.3367/UFNe.0180.201007c.0723

    2010

  122. [130]

    P., & Biermann, P

    Rachen, J. P., & Biermann, P. L. 1993, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 272, 161

    1993

  123. [131]

    M., Slavin, J

    Raines, J. M., Slavin, J. A., Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. 2011, Planetary and Space Science, 59, 2004, 10.1016/j.pss.2011.02.004

    2011 doi

  124. [132]

    2014, Planetary and Space Science, 104, 3, 10.1016/j.pss.2014.03.021

    Roussos, E., Krupp, N., Paranicas, C., et al. 2014, Planetary and Space Science, 104, 3, 10.1016/j.pss.2014.03.021

    2014 doi

  125. [133]

    2018, Science, 362, 47, ARTN eaat1962 10.1126/science.aat1962

    Roussos, E., Kollmann, P., Krupp, N., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 47, ARTN eaat1962 10.1126/science.aat1962

    2018 doi

  126. [134]

    Saint-Hilaire, P., & Benz, A. O. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 743, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041918

    2005 doi

  127. [135]

    M., & Gloeckler, G

    Scholer, M., Hovestadt, D., Ipavich, F. M., & Gloeckler, G. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 9040, 10.1029/JA086iA11p09040

    1981 doi

  128. [136]

    Shepherd, S. G. 2007, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 69, 234, 10.1016/j.jastp.2006.07.022

    2007 doi

  129. [137]

    2024, Solar Physics, 299, 10.1007/s11207-024-02349-0

    Shi, G., Feng, L., Chen, J., et al. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, 10.1007/s11207-024-02349-0

    2024 doi

  130. [138]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 451, 10.1086/309688

    Shibata, K., Masuda, S., Shimojo, M., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 451, 10.1086/309688

    1995 doi

  131. [139]

    A., Eraker, J

    Simpson, J. A., Eraker, J. H., Lamport, J. E., & Walpole, P. H. 1974, Science, 185, 160, 10.1126/science.185.4146.160

    1974 doi

  132. [140]

    Singer, S. F. 1958 a , Physical Review Letters, 1, 171, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.1.171

    1958 doi

  133. [141]

    1958 b , Physical Review Letters, 1, 181, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.1.181

    ---. 1958 b , Physical Review Letters, 1, 181, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.1.181

    1958 doi

  134. [142]

    A., Imber, S

    Slavin, J. A., Imber, S. M., Boardsen, S. A., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, 10.1029/2012ja017926

    2012 doi

  135. [143]

    F., & Shea, M

    Smart, D. F., & Shea, M. A. 1985, J Geophys Res-Space, 90, 183, DOI 10.1029/JA090iA01p00183

    1985 doi

  136. [144]

    W., Jackman, C

    Smith, A. W., Jackman, C. M., & Thomsen, M. F. 2016, J Geophys Res Space Phys, 121, 2984, 10.1002/2015JA022005

    2016 doi

  137. [145]

    A., Ukhorskiy, A

    Sorathia, K. A., Ukhorskiy, A. Y., Merkin, V. G., Fennell, J. F., & Claudepierre, S. G. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 5590, 10.1029/2018ja025506

    2018 doi

  138. [146]

    C., & Blundell, K

    Steenbrugge, K. C., & Blundell, K. M. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1457, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12665.x

    2008

  139. [147]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b5

    Suzuki, H., Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., & Ohira, Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b5

    2022 doi

  140. [148]

    2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, S131, 10.1093/pasj/60.sp1.S131

    Takahashi, T., Tanaka, T., Uchiyama, Y., et al. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, S131, 10.1093/pasj/60.sp1.S131

    2008 doi

  141. [149]

    Tanaka, T., Uchida, H., Sano, H., & Tsuru, T. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 900, 10.3847/2041-8213/abaef0

    2020 doi

  142. [150]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60c7

    Tao, M., Kataoka, J., & Tanaka, T. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60c7

    2024 doi

  143. [151]

    2001, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 2, 461, 10.1016/s1468-6996(01)00144-9

    Terasawa, T. 2001, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 2, 461, 10.1016/s1468-6996(01)00144-9

    2001 doi

  144. [152]

    2011, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 6, 214, 10.1017/s174392131100696x

    ---. 2011, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 6, 214, 10.1017/s174392131100696x

    2011 doi

  145. [153]

    1976, Planetary and Space Science, 24, 855, 10.1016/0032-0633(76)90076-3

    Terasawa, T., & Nishida, A. 1976, Planetary and Space Science, 24, 855, 10.1016/0032-0633(76)90076-3

    1976 doi

  146. [154]

    F., Jackman, C

    Thomsen, M. F., Jackman, C. M., & Lamy, L. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 7799, 10.1029/2019ja026819

    2019 doi

  147. [155]

    J., Fuselier, S

    Trattner, K. J., Fuselier, S. A., Schwartz, S. J., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, 10.1029/2022ja030631

    2023 doi

  148. [156]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 10.1093/pasj/psw102

    Tsuji, N., & Uchiyama, Y. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 10.1093/pasj/psw102

    2016 doi

  149. [157]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b29

    Tsuji, N., Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b29

    2019 doi

  150. [158]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 495, L67, 10.1086/311207

    Tsuneta, S., & Naito, T. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 495, L67, 10.1086/311207

    1998 doi

  151. [159]

    L., Wilson, L

    Turner, D. L., Wilson, L. B., r., Liu, T. Z., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 206, 10.1038/s41586-018-0472-9

    2018 doi

  152. [160]

    L., Cohen, I

    Turner, D. L., Cohen, I. J., Michael, A., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, 10.1029/2021gl095495

    2021 doi

  153. [161]

    A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y

    Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y. 2007, Nature, 449, 576, 10.1038/nature06210

    2007 doi

  154. [162]

    L., & Korth, A

    Vampola, A. L., & Korth, A. 1992, Geophysical Research Letters, 19, 625, 10.1029/92gl00121

    1992 doi

  155. [163]

    V., Balabin, Y

    Vashenyuk, E. V., Balabin, Y. V., & Gvozdevsky, B. B. 2011, Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions, 7, 459, 10.5194/astra-7-459-2011

    2011 doi

  156. [164]

    Vasyliunas, V. M. 1983, Plasma distribution and flow (Cambridge University Press), 395--453, 10.1017/CBO9780511564574.013

    1983 doi

  157. [165]

    L., Trottet, G., & Barat, C

    Vilmer, N., MacKinnon, A. L., Trottet, G., & Barat, C. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 412, 865, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031488

    2003 doi

  158. [166]

    F., Kivelson, M

    Vogt, M. F., Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., Joy, S. P., & Walker, R. J. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115, 10.1029/2009ja015098

    2010 doi

  159. [167]

    F., Connerney, J

    Vogt, M. F., Connerney, J. E. P., DiBraccio, G. A., et al. 2020, J Geophys Res Space Phys, 125, 10.1029/2019ja027486

    2020 doi

  160. [168]

    C., Hester, J

    Weisskopf, M. C., Hester, J. J., Tennant, A. F., et al. 2000, Astrophys J, 536, L81, 10.1086/312733

    2000 doi

  161. [169]

    B., Sibeck, D

    Wilson, L. B., Sibeck, D. G., Turner, D. L., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 117, 215101, ARTN 215101 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.215101

    2016 doi

  162. [170]

    F., Gupta, G., & Long, K

    Winkler, P. F., Gupta, G., & Long, K. S. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 324, 10.1086/345985

    2003 doi

  163. [171]

    M., Anderson, B

    Winslow, R. M., Anderson, B. J., Johnson, C. L., et al. 2013, J Geophys Res-Space, 118, 2213, 10.1002/jgra.50237

    2013 doi

  164. [172]

    S., Isobe, N., et al

    Yaji, Y., Tashiro, M. S., Isobe, N., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 37, 10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/37

    2010 doi

  165. [173]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 595, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034212

    Yamazaki, R., Yoshida, T., Terasawa, T., Bamba, A., & Koyama, K. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 595, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034212

    2004 doi

  166. [174]

    N., et al

    Yao, W., Fazzini, A., Chen, S. N., et al. 2021, Nat Phys, 17, 1177, 10.1038/s41567-021-01325-w

    2021 doi

  167. [175]

    Yeung, P. K. H. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038166

    2020 doi

  168. [176]

    Yuan, Q., Liu, S., Fan, Z., Bi, X., & Fryer, C. L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/120

    2011 doi

  169. [177]

    P., le Roux, J

    Zank, G. P., le Roux, J. A., Webb, G. M., Dosch, A., & Khabarova, O. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 28, 10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/28

    2014 doi

  170. [178]

    P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 137, 10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/137

    2015 doi

  171. [179]

    Q., Baumjohann, W., Wang, C., Dai, L., & Tang, B

    Zhang, L. Q., Baumjohann, W., Wang, C., Dai, L., & Tang, B. B. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 8773, 10.1002/2016ja022397

    2016 doi

  172. [180]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3477, 10.1093/mnras/staa2151

    Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Huang, J., & Chen, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3477, 10.1093/mnras/staa2151

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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