Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

$\textit{Eppur Si Muove}$: Self-Sustained Streaming Motions in Multi-Phase MHD

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 In magnetized gas, radiative cooling does not shatter clouds; it organizes them into long-lived, field-aligned, counter-streaming flows at ~100 km/s, because magnetic pressure can only resist compression perpendicular to field lines.

desk verdict A serious, well-diagnosed claim that MHD cooling gas streams rather than shatters; the main caveat is the unresolved grid-alignment question for oblique fields. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00136 v1 pith:SLVO2DFR submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Chaoran Wang , S. Peng Oh , Yan-Fei Jiang , Ish Kaul This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords multi-phasegasMHDthermalinstabilitycloudshatteringcounter-streamingflowsmagneticpressuresupportthinshellcoronalraincircumgalacticmedium
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

Radiative cooling can drive violent dynamics in multi-phase astrophysical gas: in pure hydrodynamics, a cooling cloud that falls out of pressure balance 'shatters' into many small fragments. This paper shows that in magnetized gas that outcome is replaced by orderly motion: after an initial round of fragmentation, hot and cold gas settle into long-lived, field-aligned streams at roughly 100 km/s, with neighboring bundles of field lines (flux tubes) flowing in opposite directions. The cause is that magnetic pressure supports cooling gas only perpendicular to the field lines, so pressure differences along the field are never balanced and keep accelerating gas. The authors argue this is a generic outcome of cooling in magnetized multi-phase gas, robust across field strength, cooling curve, thermal conduction, and dimensionality, and that it explains the counter-streaming flows already observed in solar coronal rain and shapes line widths and kinematics in the circumgalactic and intracluster medium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anisotropic MHD pressure tensor: magnetic pressure and tension act only perpendicular to the field, so gas can slide freely along field lines and field-parallel thermal pressure gradients $\nabla P_{th,\parallel}$ go unbalanced. Cooling creates the conditions for this to matter — when the cooling time drops sharply below the sound-crossing time, gas falls out of thermal pressure balance and cools nearly isochorically, producing a deep thermal pressure deficit — and the unbalanced gradients then drive flows described by the conserved quantity $P_{th} + \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 \approx {\rm const}$ along each flux tube, giving streaming velocities $v \sim (2\Delta P/\rho)^{1/2}$. The second element is the cooling-induced MHD thin shell instability, an adaptation of the non-linear thin shell instability (a corrugational instability of thin dense shells in colliding flows, first identified at shock fronts): because the cold gas is under-pressured rather than over-pressured as in the classic case, it is magnetic tension that deflects the inflows, diverting them away from convex heads and into concave tails of neighboring wrinkles, which amplifies the corrugation and sets up alternating counter-streaming winds in adjacent flux tubes. The mechanism holds together only if field lines stay nearly straight, with sub-Alfvénic flows (slower than the magnetic wave speed, $M_A \lesssim 1$), so the deflections remain small and the pressure gradients stay field-aligned.

What would settle it

Run the fiducial CGM thermal-instability setup in 3D with an initially tangled magnetic field (coherence length much smaller than the box, no mean guide field). The mechanism requires straight, ordered fields: if coherent ~100 km/s counter-streaming between adjacent flux tubes still develops, the central claim is wrong, whereas if streaming appears only where the field is locally ordered, the mechanism survives. The observational counterpart is spatially resolved spectroscopy of solar coronal rain, where the claimed alternating ~50–100 km/s velocity pattern between adjacent threads is a specific signature that would be absent if streaming is not the operating physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that magnetized, radiatively cooling gas does not shatter the way hydrodynamic gas does; instead it streams. After initial fragmentation, both the cold ($\sim 10^4$ K) and hot phases settle into long-lived, coherent, field-aligned flows at velocities up to the hot-phase sound speed — roughly 50–100 km/s for CGM and solar-corona conditions and up to an order of magnitude higher for the ICM — with adjacent flux tubes counter-streaming. The driver is the anisotropic character of magnetic pressure support: flux freezing makes the cooling gas magnetically dominated, so total-pressure balance $P_B + P_{\rm gas} \approx {\rm const}$ holds only perpendicular to the field, while field-parallel thermal pressure gradients are unopposed and accelerate the gas according to the Bernoulli relation $v \sim (2\Delta P/\rho)^{1/2}$. Counter-streaming is produced by a cooling-induced MHD version of the non-linear thin shell instability, in which magnetic tension deflects the pressure-driven inflows away from convex cold-gas heads and toward the concave tails of neighboring corrugations, amplifying the wrinkles and pushing each cloud from behind. The authors establish this with idealized 2D and 3D simulations, force analysis, and tracer-particle runs, and show the effect survives thermal conduction, weak initial fields (plasma $\beta_i = 100$), power-law cooling, and coarse resolution, while being suppressed for ISM-range cooling curves and whenever field lines become strongly bent.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism requires the magnetic field to stay nearly straight while gas flows along it: streaming is coherent only for sub-Alfvénic flow, and the authors find that when fields become strongly bent — for instance in high-$\beta$ gas with strong thermal conduction — the ordered streaming is replaced by disordered motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Streaming velocities of roughly 50–100 km/s for $10^4$ K gas match the observed ~70–80 km/s counter-streaming speeds of solar coronal rain, giving a heating-independent origin for such 'siphon flows.'
  • In the CGM and ICM, streaming adds a coherent, field-aligned ~100 km/s velocity component to cold gas, contributing non-thermal line broadening that unresolved observations would likely attribute to isotropic turbulence.
  • In the ICM, where the hot phase reaches $10^8$ K, streaming velocities can be an order of magnitude higher than in the CGM — approaching ~1000 km/s.
  • Streaming survives in weakly magnetized backgrounds because flux freezing amplifies the field as gas cools and compresses, so the cold phase always ends up magnetically dominated; conduction enlarges the streaming cloudlets but does not qualitatively change the dynamics.
  • The mechanism is suppressed for ISM-range cooling curves ($10$–$10^4$ K), where cooling remains isobaric, so molecular gas does not stream even though its hydrodynamic counterpart still shatters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's temperature-independent conduction coefficient is far stronger than Spitzer conduction at $10^4$ K, and the authors themselves flag this as a source of artifacts in high-$\beta$ runs; the natural follow-up is a high-$\beta$ simulation with realistic $\kappa \propto T^{5/2}$, which the no-conduction high-$\beta$ results suggest would still stream.
  • If streaming is real, single-line non-thermal broadening measurements in the CGM would be conflating an ordered, field-aligned velocity pattern with isotropic turbulence; comparing line widths measured along and across the projected field orientation in spatially resolved systems would separate the two.
  • The mechanism's control parameter is field-line straightness, which predicts that initially tangled fields should show streaming only in patches where the field is locally coherent — a testable prediction the paper leaves open.
  • Because the effect depends on anisotropic support, well-coupled cosmic rays (whose pressure is isotropic) should not produce streaming, making CR+MHD simulations a clean discriminator of the mechanism.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper uses Athena++ MHD simulations of radiatively cooling gas in thermal-instability and cooling-cloud setups to argue that, unlike hydrodynamic 'shattering', magnetized cooling gas does not fragment chaotically but instead develops long-lived, field-aligned, self-sustained streaming motions at velocities of order 100 km/s, with adjacent flux tubes counter-streaming. The authors attribute the streaming to unbalanced field-aligned thermal pressure gradients arising from anisotropic MHD pressure support, quantified by a Bernoulli-type relation (Eqs. 16-17), and attribute the counter-streaming to a cooling-induced MHD version of the thin-shell instability driven by magnetic tension. The paper explores parameter dependence on cooling curve, temperature range, thermal conduction, plasma beta, and numerical resolution, and connects the results to coronal rain and CGM/ICM kinematics.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a potentially important new dynamical mode—self-sustained, counter-streaming, field-aligned flows in radiatively cooling multiphase gas—with direct implications for line broadening and kinematics in the CGM/ICM and for solar coronal rain. The evidence is unusually multi-pronged for an exploratory study: convergence tests in velocity and pressure over 256^2 to 2048^2, a run that explicitly resolves c_s t_cool, a 3D check, tracer-particle momentum asymmetry, and force-velocity correlations. The authors are also candid about assumptions and limitations, including the constant heat diffusivity, the diagonal-field discrepancy in Appendix A, and the suppression of streaming for ISM-like cooling curves. The main gap is that the central claim rests almost entirely on grid-aligned initial fields, while the only oblique-field run behaves qualitatively differently and is not subjected to a convergence study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A; §2] The diagonal-field run mhd-bxy is the most direct test of whether streaming is a physical outcome or a grid-alignment artifact, and the paper does not currently resolve this issue. With identical physics except a 45-degree field rotation, mhd-bxy forms long filaments instead of grid-scale clumps, and the authors attribute the difference to 'excessive numerical diffusion' without showing that the diagonal run converges to the grid-aligned behavior at higher resolution. Since nearly all physics claims rest on grid-aligned runs, please add a resolution study (e.g., 256^2, 1024^2, 2048^2) for mhd-bxy and demonstrate that streaming speed, pressure dip, and morphology approach those of mhd-fid; if they do not, the claim that streaming is a robust physical outcome of MHD thermal instability is not supported.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 6] The 3D verification is a single low-resolution run (256^3) that the authors themselves describe as containing many underpressured single-grid-cell clumps due to poor resolution. This provides only weak evidence for robustness, especially because the 3D morphology differs from the 2D case. Please either add a 3D convergence sequence (at least 256^3 versus 512^3, with and without conduction) or explicitly restrict the robustness claim to 2D with a tentative 3D check.
  3. [Abstract; §5.3; Fig. 26] The abstract states that thermal conduction 'does not qualitatively modify dynamics', but the paper's own high-beta conduction run (Fig. 26) shows that ordered streaming disappears when magnetic fields become strongly bent, and §4.2 states that relatively straight field lines are a key requirement. This is a significant limitation of the central claim and should be reconciled or stated more prominently in the abstract and conclusions. As written, the abstract overstates the robustness of streaming with respect to conduction and field-line bending.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.4] In the sentence reporting the resolution study, the phrase 'non-conduction runs (mhd-cd-2048, mhd-2048)' lists mhd-cd-2048, which is a conduction run; this appears to be a typo and should likely read 'mhd-fid and mhd-2048'.
  2. [§4.2] The text uses 'NSTI' once ('The NSTI is a non-linear instability') where 'NTSI' is intended.
  3. [§3.2] The phrase 'our fidicial MHD thermal instability setup' contains a typo; 'fidicial' should be 'fiducial'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the streaming mechanism is diagnosed from simulation outputs and tested against external benchmarks; the Bernoulli relation is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

Score 0: no significant circularity. The paper's central claim—that MHD cooling gas streams along field lines instead of shattering—is derived from simulation outputs (force balances, pressure maps, tracer particles) and compared against external observables (coronal rain velocities) and controlled hydro/MHD pairs; it is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The Bernoulli relation (Eqs. 16-17) is presented as a diagnostic consistency check: P_th + 1/2 rho v^2 is computed from the simulation and shown to be roughly constant, and the 'predicted' velocity v = sqrt(2 Delta P / rho) is compared with the measured velocity in the same runs. This is a momentum-conservation identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; no free constant is adjusted to force agreement. The thin-shell-instability explanation is inferred from force-velocity cross-correlations and tracer-particle asymmetries, not assumed as an input. Self-citations (e.g., Gronke & Oh 2020b for the hydrodynamic shattering criterion; Jiang & Oh 2018 for the two-moment conduction solver; Kaul et al. 2025 for cloud infall) are background or methodological and are not used to justify the novel streaming claim. The Appendix A diagonal-field discrepancy is an acknowledged numerical robustness limitation (excessive numerical diffusion) rather than a circular derivation; it is a correctness/convergence risk, not a logical reduction of the conclusion to its premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several modeling assumptions: globally balanced heating, ideal MHD flux freezing, constant diffusivity conduction, 2D geometry, and nearly straight field lines. The free parameters (diffusivity, temperature floor, numerical conduction speed) are chosen by hand and explored, not fitted to data.

free parameters (4)
  • Heat diffusivity alpha_parallel (fiducial alpha_FID) = 1.5e28 cm^2/s
    Chosen constant diffusivity to resolve the Field length; much larger than Spitzer value at T~1e4 K. Affects filament sizes and, in high-beta runs, whether streaming survives. This is a hand-picked numerical/physical parameter, not derived from data.
  • Anisotropy ratio alpha_parallel/alpha_iso = 30
    Chosen to model field-aligned conduction; varies in some runs. Affects cross-field Field length resolution and clump morphology.
  • Two-moment conduction propagation speed V_m = 1000 km/s
    Numerical parameter in the reduced-speed-of-light-like conduction scheme; checked for convergence but still an artificial cap on heat flux propagation.
  • Temperature floor T_floor = 1e4 K
    Mimics photoionization; setting it to 1e6 K eliminates streaming in mhd-tf6. This floor is an input assumption that the streaming result depends on.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Global heating rate Gamma is set equal to the box-averaged cooling rate at every timestep, enforcing thermal equilibrium by fiat.
    Section 2, near equation 7. This idealized heating prescription allows the multiphase state to develop but may suppress global cooling-induced flows.
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with flux freezing; no viscosity or resistivity.
    Equation 4. The amplification of B in cold gas, a central part of the argument, relies on flux freezing.
  • domain assumption 2D simulations are representative of the 3D dynamics; only a single low-resolution 3D run is used as a check.
    Sections 2 and 4.1; the physical mechanism is argued to be dimension-independent but 3D verification is limited.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant heat diffusivity approximates temperature-dependent Spitzer conduction.
    Sections 2 and 5.2; the authors state the artificial diffusivity is much larger than Spitzer at low temperature and can produce artifacts in high-beta runs.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field lines remain nearly straight, with sub-Alfvenic flows (M_A <= 1), so that field-aligned pressure gradients are unopposed.
    Section 4.2: a key requirement in streaming is that B-fields remain relatively straight. This is verified in streaming runs but breaks in high-beta with conduction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\textit{Eppur Si Muove}$: Self-Sustained Streaming Motions in Multi-Phase MHD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLVO2DFR

@misc{pith2026250700136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\textitEppur Si Muove$: Self-Sustained Streaming Motions in Multi-Phase MHD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLVO2DFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00136}
}
abstract

Radiative cooling can drive dynamics in multi-phase gas. A dramatic example is hydrodynamic `shattering', the violent, pressure-driven fragmentation of a cooling cloud which falls drastically out of pressure balance with its surroundings. We run MHD simulations to understand how shattering is influenced by magnetic fields. In MHD, clouds do not `shatter' chaotically. Instead, after initial fragmentation, both hot and cold phases coherently `stream' in long-lived, field-aligned, self-sustaining gas flows, at high speed ($\sim 100 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$). MHD thermal instability also produces such flows. They are due to the anisotropic nature of MHD pressure support, which only operates perpendicular to B-fields. Thus, even when $P_{\rm B} + P_{\rm gas} \approx$const, pressure balance only holds perpendicular to B-fields. Field-aligned gas pressure variations are unopposed, and results in gas velocities $v \sim (2 \Delta P/\rho)^{1/2}$ from Bernoulli's principle. Strikingly, gas in adjacent flux tubes $\textit{counter-stream}$ in opposite directions. We show this arises from a cooling-induced, MHD version of the thin shell instability. Magnetic tension is important both in enabling corrugational instability and modifying its non-linear evolution. Even in high $\beta$ hot gas, streaming can arise, since magnetic pressure support grows as gas cools and compresses. Thermal conduction increases the sizes and velocities of streaming cloudlets, but does not qualitatively modify dynamics. These results are relevant to the counter-streaming gas flows observed in solar coronal rain, as well as multi-phase gas cooling and condensation in the ISM, CGM and ICM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Analytic cooling time as a function of temperature as derived from Sutherland & Dopita 1993 for the ICM and Koyama & Inutsuka 2002 for the ISM, for a range of ambient pressures. 2 METHODOLOGY We perform numerical simulations using the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) code Athena++ (Stone et al. 2020). We adopt the HLLC and HLLD Riemann solvers for the hydrodynamic and MHD runs, respectively. We solve the MHD equations: 𝜕 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cloud shattering in the run hd-cc. Panel (a) and (b) show the temperature maps at the end of cloud contraction and the subsequent explosion, respectively. The inset between the two panels shows the initial temperature distribution. Panel (c) show the time evolution of number of cold clumps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a) and (b) show the temperature maps of the central 20 × 10 kpc2 region in mhd-cc. The cloud extends horizontally with growing corrugation. Panel (c) shows gas thermal pressure map in a zoomed-in region as denoted by the red box in panel (b). The cold cloud lays in the low-pressure region enclosed by the blue-dashed lines; and the arrows annotate gas velocity. . effect is sufficiently rich that we devote an e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The streaming motions and thermal properties of multiphase gas arising from linear thermal instability. Panels (a1) and (b1) show gas temperature maps of mhd-fid at 𝑡 = 370 Myr and mhd-cd-fid at 𝑡 = 171 Myr, respectively. The corresponding 𝑛 − 𝑇 phase plots are shown i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Anisotropic MHD pressure support results in field-aligned thermal pressure gradients which drive gas streaming. Left panel: the left and right halves shows the total pressure (𝑃tot = 𝑃th + 𝑃mag) and thermal pressure 𝑃th respectively in the mhd-cd-fid run. While the tot…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median pressure as a function of temperature in both 2D (mhd-256) and 3D (mhd-3d) runs. The solid lines show thermal pressure; and the dashed lines show the Bernoulli constant 𝑃th + 𝜌𝜎2 /2. The latter is indeed roughly constant (except for a spike near 𝑇 ∼ 104K; see te…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-linear development of the thin shell instability in hydrodynamics (left) and MHD (right), starting with a cooling slab of cold gas. The large panels present temperature maps at 𝑡 = 23 Myr, when the thin shell instability is well developed. Velocity fields in the ce…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Source terms of the Euler momentum equation and their cross-correlation with gas velocity. The momentum source terms are shown as ftot, (the total force, left panel), −∇𝑃th (thermal pressure, middle panel), and fmhd (the MHD force, right panel), where ftot = fmhd − ∇𝑃t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sketch of the classic non-linear thin shell instability (NTSI). Two head-on flows represented by the thick black arrows collide in the middle. The collision creates high pressure shocked gas (red; shock fronts are depicted by dashed lines). Thermal pressure gradients (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Deflection of the streaming flow. From the left to right panel: 𝑣𝑦, the vertical component of gas velocity, 𝑓tot,y/𝜌, the total vertical acceleration, and [∇BB)]𝑦 /4𝜋𝜌, the vertical acceleration due to magnetic tension. The black contour encloses the cold gas (𝑇 < 105…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sketch of how corrugations grow in the cooling-induced MHD thin shell instability. The dashed curves shows the interface between hot and cold gas. The values of thermal pressure is represented by colors, where P(blue)≪P(red) < P(pink): the cold gas (red) is underpress…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Scatterplot of 𝑡cool as a function of temperature for all points within a simulation snapshot, for mhd-fid, mhd-cd-fid and mhd-b100. The solid blue lines in the plots indicate the isobaric cooling expectation. Most of the gas in all three simulations largely follows t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Runs without thermal conduction with varying properties of the cooling curve. Panels (a) – (g) show snapshots of gas temperature at times when the simulation evolves to the stable stages, i.e., when the cold gas mass and velocity do not significantly change with time.…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left: time evolution of cold gas rms velocities (top) and cold gas mass fraction (bottom) of runs (a) –(g) as labeled in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (Left) Number density snapshot, (Middle) 𝑇 − 𝑛 phase diagram, and (Right) gas velocity in 𝑥 as a function of temperature for the cooling cloud setup with 𝑇floor = 106K and outflow boundary conditions. The dashed line in the 𝑇 − 𝑛 phase plot shows an isobar down to 𝑇 ∼…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Temperature snapshot for the hydrodynamic cooling cloud run with ISM conditions (𝑇floor = 102𝐾, 𝑇ceil = 104𝐾). Similar to the CGM case, the cloud shatters, and then eventually re-establishes pressure balance with its surroundings. . runs mhd-cd-v1, mhd-cd-fid, mhd-cd-…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Conduction runs with different combinations of heat diffusivity (𝛼∥ , 𝛼⊥). We use the parallel heat diffusion coefficient 𝛼∥ of mhd-cd-fid to define 𝛼FID = 1.5 × 1028 cm2 · s −1 . Two snapshots of gas temperature are shown for each run: the left ones, i.e., (A1), (B1)…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The gallery of identified cold clumps. From top to the bottom, each row shows four clumps that are randomly chosen from simulation snapshots at 𝑡 = 150, 160, ..., 200 Myr, respectively. Clumps with 𝐿𝑥 < 0.1 kpc are not included. The characteristic scales 𝐿𝑥 and 𝐿𝑦 are…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Statistics of 𝐿𝑥 and 𝐿𝑦 of runs with different (𝛼∥ , 𝛼⊥) with fixed 𝛼∥/𝛼⊥ = 30. Panel (1) – (3): Corner plots showing the distributions of clump characteristic scales, 𝐿𝑥 and 𝐿𝑦. Panel (4): time evolution of the number of clumps. Panel (5) median of 𝐿𝑥 and 𝐿𝑦 v.s. 𝛼⊥.…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Gas velocity in the 𝑥 direction as a function of temperature for the fiducial no-conduction runs with varying plasma 𝛽. Streaming velocities are largely consistent across different 𝛽 suggesting an independence of streaming criterion on the magnetic field strength for …
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Plasma 𝛽, temperature, and velocity (𝑥 and 𝑦) snapshots of the mhd-b100 simulation. Here, more extended cold filaments are formed, along with significant bending of field lines. The cold gas is at much lower 𝛽(∼ 0.1), as compared to the background gas, (𝛽 ∼ 100 − 1000…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Thermal instability setup with solar corona conditions, where 𝑐s𝑡cool of the cold gas is resolved. As before, the dashed line in the 𝑇 − 𝑛 phase plot is an isobar. Streaming motions are still observed, caused by the pressure dip indicating that the existence of stream…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Convergence performance of gas velocity (top) and pressure com￾ponents (bottom), as a function of temperature. Red (blue) lines show results of runs with (without) thermal conduction, with deeper color representing higher resolution, which are 2562 , 10242 , and 20482…
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: The PDFs of the cold clump widths for the no conduction (Left) and with conduction (Right) cases in the thermal instability setup for varying resolution from 5122 to 20482 . The widths are scaled by the physical length of the clumps corresponding to the 5122 simulatio…

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. Multiphase gas in Circumgalactic cloud complexes: Insights from kiloparsec-scale Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence Simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cold-gas survival in the circumgalactic medium is set by t_cool/t_mix; small-scale cold gas requires dense, quiescent regions, not turbulent cascade patches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W., Bryan G

    Abruzzo M. W., Bryan G. L., Fielding D. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..199A 925, 199

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  2. [2]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721...74A 721, 74

    Ahn K., Chae J., Cao W., Goode P. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721...74A 721, 74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/74 2010

  3. [3]

    E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775L..32A 775, L32

    Alexander C. E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775L..32A 775, L32

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l32 2013

  4. [4]

    Antolin P., 2020, @doi [Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion] 10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PPCF...62a4016A 62, 014016

    doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406 2020

  5. [5]

    Antolin P., Froment C., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.820116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...920116A 9, 820116

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Antolin P., Vissers G., Pereira T. M. D., Rouppe van der Voort L., Scullion E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...81A 806, 81

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/81 2015

  7. [7]

    Auch \`e re F., Bocchialini K., Solomon J., Tison E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...563A...8A 563, A8

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322572 2014

  8. [8]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...86C 747, 86

    Choi E., Stone J. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...86C 747, 86

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/86 2012

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Claes N., Keppens R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..96C 624, A96

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Claes N., Keppens R., Xia C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A.112C 636, A112

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Bicknell G

    Cooper J. L., Bicknell G. V., Sutherland R. S., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/330 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..330C 703, 330

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp.2982D

    Das H. K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp.2982D

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Choudhury P

    Das H. K., Choudhury P. P., Sharma P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.4935D 502, 4935

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..221D 670, 221

    Dursi L. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..221D 670, 221

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529371 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..993D 677, 993

    Dursi L. J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529371 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..993D 677, 993

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Johnstone R

    Fabian A. C., Johnstone R. M., Sanders J. S., Conselice C. J., Crawford C. S., Gallagher III J. S., Zweibel E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07169 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.454..968F 454, 968

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Fang X., Xia C., Keppens R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..29F 771, L29

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Fang X., Xia C., Keppens R., Van Doorsselaere T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807..142F 807, 142

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    B., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148317 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..531F 142, 531

    Field G. B., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148317 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..531F 142, 531

    1965 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894L..24F 894, L24

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Fogerty E., Carroll-Nellenback J., Frank A., Heitsch F., Pon A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2938F 470, 2938

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Froment C., Auch \`e re F., Bocchialini K., Buchlin E., Guennou C., Solomon J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807..158F 807, 158

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..131..273F 131, 273

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt692 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3401G 432, 3401

    Gaspari M., Ruszkowski M., Oh S. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt692 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3401G 432, 3401

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmpL.135G

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmpL.135G

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    P., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1970G 492, 1970

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1970G 492, 1970

    1970 doi

  20. [28]

    P., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..27G 494, L27

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..27G 494, L27

    doi

  21. [29]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..498G 524, 498

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..498G 524, 498

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Devriendt J

    Heitsch F., Slyz A. D., Devriendt J. E. G., Hartmann L. W., Burkert A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..445H 665, 445

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Hennebelle P., Inutsuka S.-i., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6....5H 6, 5

    2019

  25. [33]

    J., Gronke M., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    Hidalgo Pineda F., Farber R. J., Gronke M., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 177.75

    2023

  26. [34]

    W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..140H 931, 140

    Huang X., Jiang Y.-f., Davis S. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..140H 931, 140

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Inoue T., Inutsuka S.-i., Koyama H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508334 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1331I 652, 1331

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Iwasaki K., Inutsuka S.-i., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784..115I 784, 115

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Li Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5238J 505, 5238

    Jennings R. M., Li Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5238J 505, 5238

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    P., McCourt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..852J 476, 852

    Ji S., Oh S. P., McCourt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..852J 476, 852

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..737J 487, 737

    Ji S., Oh S. P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..737J 487, 737

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854....5J 854, 5

    Jiang Y.-F., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854....5J 854, 5

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Gaalaas J

    Jones T. W., Gaalaas J. B., Ryu D., Frank A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304145 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...482..230J 482, 230

    1997 doi

  34. [42]

    Kanjilal V., Dutta A., Sharma P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1143K 501, 1143

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Mandelker N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3669K 539, 3669

    Kaul I., Tan B., Oh S. P., Mandelker N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3669K 539, 3669

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Kim J.-G., Kim W.-T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...48K 779, 48

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Koyama H., Inutsuka S.-i., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564L..97K 564, L97

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    Koyama H., Inutsuka S.-i., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382478 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602L..25K 602, L25

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Kriginsky M., Oliver R., Antolin P., Kuridze D., Freij N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..71K 650, A71

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Norman M

    Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340785 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569L.127K 569, L127

    2002 doi

  41. [49]

    L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/54 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...54L 789, 54

    Li Y., Bryan G. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/54 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...54L 789, 54

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1841L 492, 1841

    Li Z., Hopkins P. F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1841L 492, 1841

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Remming I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5056L 491, 5056

    Liang C. J., Remming I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5056L 491, 5056

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    r., Wiik J

    Lin Y., Engvold O. r., Wiik J. E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1026150809598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SoPh..216..109L 216, 109

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    Lyutikov M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10835.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373...73L 373, 73

    2006

  46. [54]

    C., Springel V., van de Voort F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab30cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881L..20M 881, L20

    Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Springel V., van de Voort F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab30cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881L..20M 881, L20

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Springel V., van de Voort F., Burchett J

    Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Springel V., van de Voort F., Burchett J. N., Butsky I. S., Nagai D., Oh S. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..115M 923, 115

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Dickey J

    McClure-Griffiths N. M., Dickey J. M., Gaensler B. M., Green A. J., Haverkorn M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1339M 652, 1339

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2

    McCourt M., O'Leary R. M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2

    2015

  50. [59]

    P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2687 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5407M 473, 5407

    McCourt M., Oh S. P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2687 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5407M 473, 5407

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    D., R \" o ttgering H

    Mellema G., Kurk J. D., R \" o ttgering H. J. A., 2002, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021408 , 395, L13

    2002 doi

  52. [61]

    Nagashima M., Koyama H., Inutsuka S.-i., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00057.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361L..25N 361, L25

    2005

  53. [62]

    N., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...117..431P 117, 431

    Parker E. N., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...117..431P 117, 431

    1953 doi

  54. [63]

    A., Penn M

    Schad T. A., Penn M. J., Lin H., Judge P. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833....5S 833, 5

    2016 doi

  55. [64]

    E., Ostriker E

    Schneider E. E., Ostriker E. C., Robertson B. E., Thompson T. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...43S 895, 43

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    Sharma P., Parrish I. J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    2010 doi

  57. [66]

    J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20246.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3174S 420, 3174

    Sharma P., McCourt M., Quataert E., Parrish I. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20246.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3174S 420, 3174

    2012

  58. [67]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Vogelsberger M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.5401S 482, 5401

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Ehlert K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.4261S 499, 4261

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    M., Tomida K., White C

    Stone J. M., Tomida K., White C. J., Felker K. G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....4S 249, 4

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    S., Dopita M

    Sutherland R. S., Dopita M. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...88..253S 88, 253

    1993 doi

  62. [71]

    B., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.14424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230514424T p

    Tan B., Fielding D. B., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.14424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230514424T p. arXiv:2305.14424

    2023 doi arXiv

  63. [72]

    P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508L..37T 508, L37

    Tan B., Oh S. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508L..37T 508, L37

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    P., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3179T 502, 3179

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3179T 502, 3179

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2571T 520, 2571

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2571T 520, 2571

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni E., Gazol A., Scalo J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..271V 540, 271

    2000 doi

  67. [76]

    415, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-10416-4

    Vial J.-C., Engvold O., eds, 2015, Solar Prominences Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 415, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-10416-4

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    T., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..152V 274, 152

    Vishniac E. T., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..152V 274, 152

    1983 doi

  69. [78]

    Waters T., Proga D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875..158W 875, 158

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    D., Voit G

    Wibking B. D., Voit G. M., O'Shea B. W., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250610277W p. arXiv:2506.10277

    2025 doi arXiv

  71. [80]

    Xia C., Keppens R., Fang X., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A..42X 603, A42

    2017 doi

  72. [81]

    Xu S., Ji S., Lazarian A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878..157X 878, 157

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    P., Aung H., Dekel A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.3053Y 536, 3053

    Yao Z., Mandelker N., Oh S. P., Aung H., Dekel A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.3053Y 536, 3053

    2025 doi

  74. [83]

    H., Chen P

    Zhou Y. H., Chen P. F., Hong J., Fang C., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1094-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..994Z 4, 994

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    B., Engvold O., Martin S

    Zirker J. B., Engvold O., Martin S. F., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/24798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.396..440Z 396, 440

    1998 doi

Pith tools

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