pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07750 · v2 · pith:TLH6C6SLnew · submitted 2019-07-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · physics.plasm-ph

Physics of relativistic collisionless shocks: The scattering center frame

G. Pelletier (IPAG) , L. Gremillet (CEA) , A. Vanthieghem (IAP) , M. Lemoine (IAP) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph
keywords Weibel framecurrent filamentation instabilityrelativistic collisionless shocksshock precursormicroturbulencePIC simulationspair shocks
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Weibel frame moves at subrelativistic velocities relative to the background plasma in relativistic shocks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces the Weibel frame, or scattering center frame, in which the microturbulence generated by the current filamentation instability in the shock precursor is mostly magnetic. Kinetic linear analysis with Maxwell-Jüttner distributions and a quasistatic nonlinear model both derive the frame's motion. The calculations establish that the frame travels subrelativistically relative to the background plasma yet relativistically relative to the shock front, that its speed scales directly with the suprathermal beam pressure parameter ξ_b, and that it lags slightly behind the background plasma motion relative to the shock. These predictions match measurements from large-scale 2D3V PIC simulations. The frame supplies the reference for how suprathermal particles scatter in the precursor.

Core claim

Both the kinetic linear analysis and the quasistatic nonlinear model show that the Weibel frame moves at subrelativistic velocities relative to the background plasma, therefore at relativistic velocities relative to the shock front, that its velocity scales with ξ_b, and that it moves slightly less fast than the background plasma relative to the shock front.

What carries the argument

The Weibel frame, defined as the frame in which the microturbulence generated by the current filamentation instability is of mostly magnetic nature.

If this is right

  • The Weibel frame moves at subrelativistic velocities relative to the background plasma.
  • Its velocity relative to the background plasma scales with the suprathermal beam pressure ξ_b.
  • The Weibel frame moves slightly less fast than the background plasma relative to the shock front.
  • The theoretical results agree with measurements from large-scale 2D3V PIC simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The velocity offset between the Weibel frame and background plasma supplies a natural reference velocity for computing particle scattering rates in the precursor.
  • The scaling with ξ_b implies that the frame speed changes when beam pressure varies, which could modify the effective diffusion coefficient for suprathermal particles.
  • The same frame construction could be applied to other beam-plasma instabilities to locate their scattering centers.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that there exists a frame in which the microturbulence is of mostly magnetic nature anchors the velocity calculations.

What would settle it

A dedicated 2D3V PIC simulation in which the measured velocity of the Weibel frame fails to scale with the beam pressure parameter ξ_b would falsify the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07750 by A. Vanthieghem (IAP), G. Pelletier (IPAG), L. Gremillet (CEA), M. Lemoine (IAP).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spatial profiles of the main hydrodynamic quantities characterizing the background plasma and the beam of suprather [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spatial profiles of normalized electromagnetic field en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the nonlinearity parameter of the back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this first paper of a series dedicated to the microphysics of unmagnetized, relativistic collisionless pair shocks, we discuss the physics of the Weibel-type transverse current filamentation instability (CFI) that develops in the shock precursor, through the interaction of an ultrarelativistic suprathermal particle beam with the background plasma. We introduce in particular the notion of "Weibel frame", or scattering center frame, in which the microturbulence is of mostly magnetic nature. We calculate the properties of this frame, using first a kinetic formulation of the linear phase of the instability, relying on Maxwell-J\"uttner distribution functions, then using a quasistatic model of the nonlinear stage of the instability. Both methods show that: (i) the Weibel frame moves at subrelativistic velocities relative to the background plasma, therefore at relativistic velocities relative to the shock front; (ii) the velocity of the Weibel frame relative to the background plasma scales with $\xi_{\rm b}$, i.e., the pressure of the suprathermal particle beam in units of the momentum flux density incoming into the shock; and (iii), the Weibel frame moves slightly less fast than the background plasma relative to the shock front. Our theoretical results are found to be in satisfactory agreement with the measurements carried out in dedicated large-scale 2D3V PIC simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the 'Weibel frame' (scattering center frame) in which CFI microturbulence in the precursor of unmagnetized relativistic pair shocks is of mostly magnetic nature. Using a kinetic linear analysis based on Maxwell-Jüttner distributions and a quasistatic nonlinear model, it derives three properties: (i) the frame moves at subrelativistic speed relative to the background plasma (hence relativistic relative to the shock), (ii) this velocity scales with the beam pressure parameter ξ_b, and (iii) the frame moves slightly slower than the background plasma relative to the shock front. These results are stated to agree with dedicated 2D3V PIC simulations.

Significance. If the central claims hold after clarification of the frame definition, the work would offer a useful first-principles characterization of the microturbulence frame relevant to particle scattering in relativistic shocks. The dual-method approach (linear kinetic + quasistatic nonlinear) plus direct PIC comparison is a positive feature that strengthens the result if the anchoring assumption is independently justified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and opening paragraphs: the Weibel frame is introduced by definition as the frame in which 'the microturbulence is of mostly magnetic nature,' after which the two methods are used to compute its velocity. No derivation is supplied showing that such a frame must exist, how its boost velocity is located (e.g., by extremizing |E|/|B| or nulling the electric component in the dispersion relation or nonlinear equations), or why the resulting velocity is unique. Because this definition anchors all subsequent scalings with ξ_b and the comparison to PIC, the reported properties risk being dependent on the a priori choice rather than an emergent outcome of the instability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater clarity on the definition and determination of the Weibel frame. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and opening paragraphs: the Weibel frame is introduced by definition as the frame in which 'the microturbulence is of mostly magnetic nature,' after which the two methods are used to compute its velocity. No derivation is supplied showing that such a frame must exist, how its boost velocity is located (e.g., by extremizing |E|/|B| or nulling the electric component in the dispersion relation or nonlinear equations), or why the resulting velocity is unique. Because this definition anchors all subsequent scalings with ξ_b and the comparison to PIC, the reported properties risk being dependent on the a priori choice rather than an emergent outcome of the instability.

    Authors: The definition of the Weibel frame is physically motivated by the fact that the CFI generates predominantly magnetic fluctuations, so that the frame in which electric fields are subdominant is the natural one for analyzing particle scattering. In the linear kinetic analysis the dispersion relation is evaluated in a boosted frame and the velocity is identified as the boost that renders the unstable mode essentially magnetic (i.e., the electric component of the eigenmode is minimized). The quasistatic nonlinear model likewise solves for the frame in which the self-consistent electric fields remain negligible relative to the magnetic ones. Both independent calculations return the same ξ_b scaling, which is then confirmed by the PIC measurements; this convergence indicates that the velocity is fixed by the instability physics rather than chosen a priori. We nevertheless agree that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the extremization procedure and a short discussion of uniqueness, and we will add this material to the revised introduction and methods sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Weibel frame velocity derived from independent kinetic and quasistatic models

full rationale

The paper introduces the Weibel frame by definition as the frame in which CFI microturbulence is mostly magnetic, then applies a kinetic linear analysis (Maxwell-Jüttner distributions) and quasistatic nonlinear model to compute its velocity relative to the background plasma and its scaling with the input parameter ξ_b. These calculations are first-principles derivations from the instability equations rather than tautological redefinitions or self-citations; no equation reduces to its own input by construction, and the reported agreement with PIC simulations rests on the model outputs, not on the anchoring definition alone. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides no explicit free parameters beyond the input ξ_b, no listed axioms, and no invented entities; the definition of the Weibel frame itself functions as an organizing assumption rather than a derived quantity.

free parameters (1)
  • ξ_b
    Beam pressure normalized to incoming momentum flux; used as the scaling variable for frame velocity but treated as an input characterizing the suprathermal population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5800 in / 1422 out tokens · 19185 ms · 2026-05-24T19:57:27.478236+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Physics of Weibel-mediated relativistic collisionless shocks

    astro-ph.HE 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A comprehensive theoretical model of Weibel-mediated relativistic collisionless pair shocks is developed, including a noninertial frame analysis and microscopic plasma interaction description, and validated against 2D...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    in 3D and κTb = 1/(2 √

    work page

  2. [2]

    Weibel frame

    in 2D. Strictly speaking, the tem- perature of suprathermal particles is by definition larger than that of the shocked plasma, defined above. Yet, as this temperature of suprathermal particles always scales withγ∞, we retain the above definition, emphasizing that κTb is generically larger than the above, by about an order of magnitude, so that κTb ∼ a few. T...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Weibel frame

    The response δjp x |w of the background plasma can be written δjp x |w≃ ω2 p 4π δAx |w (24) to first order inξb, since the term that has been neglected here with respect to Eq. (16) is of the order of β2 p|w∼ξ2 b. Note also that we have assumed that the background plasma temperature remains sub-relativistic over most of the precursor, as discussed in Paper...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In this limit, ∆ sp ≃ √ 2/µp, and hence the hydrodynamic response of the background plasma implies √ µp/2|χp|≫ 1

    Hydrodynamic limit In the outermost part of the precursor, the background plasma is characterized by a nonrelativistic proper tem- perature, µp ≫ 1 [52]. In this limit, ∆ sp ≃ √ 2/µp, and hence the hydrodynamic response of the background plasma implies √ µp/2|χp|≫ 1. This condition coincides with the large-argument limit (˜χp≃|χp| √ µp/2≫ 1) of theZ andZ′...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (B8), (B10) and (B12)

    Kinetic limit We now consider the limit ˜ χp ≪ 1 of Eqs. (B8), (B10) and (B12). Using the power series Z(η) ≃ i√π exp(−η2)− 2η··· [66] and assuming |ζ2|≪ 1, this yields, in the background plasma rest frame εp xx≃ 1 +i √πµp 2 ω2 p k2ζ , (45) εp yy≃ 1 +ω2 pµp k2 ( 1 +i √πµp 2 ζ ) , (46) εp xy = 0. (47) B. Evaluation of the dielectric tensor for the suprathe...

    work page

  6. [6]

    As a re- sult, the integrand of Eq

    Hydrodynamic limit In contrast to the background plasma, the beam parti- cles are characterized by an ultrarelativistic drift velocity in the background plasma rest frame ( γb≡ γb|p≫ 1) and a relativistic proper temperature (µb≪ 1). As a re- sult, the integrand of Eq. (38) presents the approximate width ∆sb≃ 1, so that the hydrodynamic response of the sup...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Weibel frame

    Kinetic limit The kinetic response of the beam particles can be read- ily obtained, to leading order in|χb|, from the expansion (χb−s)−1≃−iπδ(s)−P (1/s) in Eq. (A30), where δ(s) is the Dirac delta function and P denotes the Cauchy principal value, which here vanishes. In general, how- ever, the beam particles appear to be only marginally kinetic in PIC sh...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Weibel frame

    Hydrodynamic plasma and beam In the hydrodynamic regime (and in the background plasma rest frame),|ζ|≪ µ−1/2 p and|ζ|≪ 1/γb|p. Hence, the dispersion relation gives to leading order: ζ2≃− ω2 pbµbβ2 b|p k2 + 2ω2p , (60) and so the growth rate saturates at Γ max≃ ω2 pbµb for k≫ √ 2ωp. Adding up the hydrodynamic plasma and beam con- tributions into Eq. (35) a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    (65) 10 The growth rate reaches its maximum value Γ max =√ ω2 pbµb for k ≲ kmax≃ (2πω2 pbµpµb)1/6ω2/3 p

    Kinetic plasma and hydrodynamic beam In this limit, 1/γb|p≫| ζ|≫ µ−1/2 p ; to leading order, the dispersion relation takes the form i √ 2πµpω2 pbζ− ω2 pbµbβ2 b|p ζ2 −k2≃ 0. (65) 10 The growth rate reaches its maximum value Γ max =√ ω2 pbµb for k ≲ kmax≃ (2πω2 pbµpµb)1/6ω2/3 p . We de- fine|ζmax| = Γmax/kmax≃ ( ω2 pbµb/√2πµpω2 p )1/3 . Making use of Eqs. (4...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Weibel frame

    Hydrodynamic plasma and kinetic beam In this limit, we now have 1/γb|p≪|ζ|≪ µ−1/2 p . Using Eqs. (42) and (56), the dispersion relation reduces to 2ω2 pbµbγ2 b|p [ 1 +i3π 4 γb|pζ ] − 2ω2 p [ 1 + 1 µpζ2 ] −k2≃ 0. (68) Let us first assume that ω2 p/(µpζ2) can be neglected in front of 2ω2 pbµbγ3 b|pζ. An unstable solution then exists provided γ2 b|p > ω2 p/ (...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Weibel frame

    Kinetic plasma and beam Finally, we consider the case of a fully kinetic beam- plasma system. This regime is of particular importance since it is found to hold in most of the precursor region in long-time shock simulations (see Sec. III D). Using the expressions (45) and (56), the dispersion relation writes i √ 2πµpω2 pζ + 2ω2 pbµbγ2 b|p ( 1 +i3π 4 γb|pζ ...

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    E. S. Weibel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 83 (1959). [2] B. D. Fried, Phys. Fluids 2, 337 (1959). 23

    work page 1959

  13. [13]

    R. C. Davidson, D. A. Hammer, I. Haber, and C. E. Wagner, Phys. Fluids 15, 317 (1972)

    work page 1972

  14. [14]

    Califano, F

    F. Califano, F. Pegoraro, and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. E 56, 963 (1997)

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Achterberg and J

    A. Achterberg and J. Wiersma, Astron. Astrophys. 475, 1 (2007)

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    S. S. Moiseev and R. Z. Sagdeev, Journal of Nuclear En- ergy. Part C, Plasma Physics, Accelerators, Thermonu- clear Research 5, 43 (1963)

    work page 1963

  17. [17]

    M. V. Medvedev and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 526, 697 (1999)

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow: Polarization and Analytic Light Curves

    A. Gruzinov and E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 511, 852 (1999), astro-ph/9807111

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  19. [19]

    Sentoku, K

    Y. Sentoku, K. Mima, P. Kaw, and K. Nishikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 155001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    J. C. Adam, A. H´ eron, and G. Laval, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 205006 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Allen, V

    B. Allen, V. Yakimenko, M. Babzien, M. Fedurin, K. Kusche, and P. Muggli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 185007 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Debayle, J

    A. Debayle, J. J. Honrubia, E. d’Humi` eres, and V. T. Tikhonchuk, Phys. Rev. E 82, 036405 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    P. E. Masson-Laborde, W. Rozmus, Z. Peng, D. Pesme, S. H¨ uller, M. Casanova, V. Y. Bychenkov, T. Chapman, and P. Loiseau, Phys. Plasmas 17, 092704 (2010)

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    Mondal, V

    S. Mondal, V. Narayanan, W. J. Ding, A. D. Lad, B. Hao, S. Ahmad, W. M. Wang, Z. M. Sheng, S. Sengupta, P. Kaw, A. Das, and G. R. Kumar, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Quinn, L

    K. Quinn, L. Romagnani, B. Ramakrishna, G. Sarri, M. E. Dieckmann, P. A. Wilson, J. Fuchs, L. Lancia, A. Pipahl, T. Toncian, O. Willi, R. J. Clarke, M. Not- ley, A. Macchi, and M. Borghesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 135001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Fiuza, R

    F. Fiuza, R. A. Fonseca, J. Tonge, W. B. Mori, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 235004 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Ruyer, L

    C. Ruyer, L. Gremillet, and G. Bonnaud, Phys. Plasmas 22, 082107 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    W. Fox, G. Fiksel, A. Bhattacharjee, P.-Y. Chang, K. Germaschewski, S. X. Hu, and P. M. Nilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 225002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    C. M. Huntington, F. Fiuza, J. S. Ross, A. B. Zyl- stra, R. P. Drake, D. H. Froula, G. Gregori, N. L. Kug- land, C. C. Kuranz, M. C. Levy, C. K. Li, J. Meinecke, T. Morita, R. Petrasso, C. Plechaty, B. A. Remington, D. D. Ryutov, Y. Sakawa, A. Spitkovsky, H. Takabe, and H.-S. Park, Nat. Phys. 11, 173 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    R. P. Drake and G. Gregori, Astrophys. J. 749, 171 (2012)

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    H. Chen, F. Fiuza, A. Link, A. Hazi, M. Hill, D. Hoarty, S. James, S. Kerr, D. D. Meyerhofer, J. Myatt, J. Park, Y. Sentoku, and G. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 215001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Lobet, C

    M. Lobet, C. Ruyer, A. Debayle, E. d’Humi` eres, M. Grech, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 215003 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Ruyer, L

    C. Ruyer, L. Gremillet, G. Bonnaud, and C. Riconda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 065001 (2016); Phys. Plasmas 24, 041409 (2017)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Wiersma and A

    J. Wiersma and A. Achterberg, Astron. Astrophys. 428, 365 (2004)

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Lyubarsky and D

    Y. Lyubarsky and D. Eichler, Astrophy. J. 647, 1250 (2006)

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    M. V. Medvedev, M. Fiore, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Astrophys. J. 618, L75 (2004)

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    Milosavljevic and E

    M. Milosavljevic and E. Nakar, Astrophys. J. 641, 978 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Achterberg, J

    A. Achterberg, J. Wiersma, and C. A. Norman, Astron. Astrophys. 475, 19 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    A. Bret, A. Stockem, D. Fiuza, C. Ruyer, L. Gremillet, R. Narayan, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Plasmas 20, 042102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Ruyer, L

    C. Ruyer, L. Gremillet, A. Debayle, and G. Bonnaud, Phys. Plasmas 22, 032102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Vanthieghem, M

    A. Vanthieghem, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Phys. Plasmas 25, 072115 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Lee and M

    R. Lee and M. Lampe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1390 (1973)

    work page 1973

  43. [43]

    L. O. Silva, R. A. Fonseca, J. W. Tonge, J. M. Dawson, W. B. Mori, and M. V. Medvedev, Astrophys. J. Lett. 596, L121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    J. T. Frederiksen, C. B. Hededal, T. Haugbølle, and ˚A. Nordlund, Astrophys. J. Lett. 608, L13 (2004)

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    C. H. Jaroschek, H. Lesch, and R. A. Treumann, Astro- phys. J. 618, 822 (2005)

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    Nishikawa, J

    K.-I. Nishikawa, J. Niemiec, P. E. Hardee, M. Medvedev, H. Sol, Y. Mizuno, B. Zhang, M. Pohl, M. Oka, and D. H. Hartmann, Astrophys. J. Lett. 698, L10 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Shvets, O

    G. Shvets, O. Polomarov, V. Khudik, C. Siemon, and I. Kaganovich, Phys. Plasmas 16, 056303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, and M. E. Dieckman, Phys. Plas- mas 17, 120501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    T. N. Kato, Astrophys. J. Lett. 668, 974 (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    Spitkovsky, Astrophys

    A. Spitkovsky, Astrophys. J. Lett. 682, L5 (2008)

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    S. F. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Astrophys. J. Lett. 695, L189 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Keshet, B

    U. Keshet, B. Katz, A. Spitkovsky, and E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 693, L127 (2009)

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    Sironi and A

    L. Sironi and A. Spitkovsky, Astrophys. J. 698, 1523 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    Sironi, A

    L. Sironi, A. Spitkovsky, and J. Arons, Astrophys. J. 771, 54 (2013)

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Haugbølle, Astrophys

    T. Haugbølle, Astrophys. J. Lett. 739, 42 (2011)

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    Kumar, D

    R. Kumar, D. Eichler, and M. Gedalin, Astrophys. J. 806, 165 (2015)

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Lemoine and G

    M. Lemoine and G. Pelletier, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 402, 321 (2010)

    work page 2010

  58. [58]

    Rabinak, B

    I. Rabinak, B. Katz, and E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 736, 157 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Lemoine and G

    M. Lemoine and G. Pelletier, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 417, 1148 (2011)

    work page 2011

  60. [60]

    Shaisultanov, Y

    R. Shaisultanov, Y. Lyubarsky, and D. Eichler, Astro- phys. J. 744, 182 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Physics of Weibel-mediated relativistic collisionless shocks

    M. Lemoine, L. Gremillet, G. Pelletier, and A. Van- thieghem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 035101 (2019), arXiv:1907.07595

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Lemoine, A

    M. Lemoine, A. Vanthieghem, G. Pelletier, and L. Gremillet, Phys. Rev. E, submitted (Pap. II) (2019), arXiv:1907.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Lemoine, G

    M. Lemoine, G. Pelletier, A. Vanthieghem, and L. Gremillet, Phys. Rev. E, submitted (Pap. III) (2019), arXiv:1907.10294 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Vanthieghem, M

    A. Vanthieghem, M. Lemoine, L. Gremillet, and G. Pel- letier, Phys. Rev. E, in prep. (Pap. IV) (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    R. D. Blandford and C. F. McKee, Phys. Fluids 19, 1130 (1976)

    work page 1976

  66. [66]

    L. O. Silva, R. A. Fonseca, J. W. Tonge, W. B. Mori, and J. M. Dawson, Phys. Plasmas 9, 2458 (2002)

    work page 2002

  67. [67]

    Ichimaru, Basic Principles of Plasma Physics: A Sta- 24 tistical Approach, A lecture note and reprint series (W

    S. Ichimaru, Basic Principles of Plasma Physics: A Sta- 24 tistical Approach, A lecture note and reprint series (W. A. Benjamin, Reading, MA (USA), 1973)

    work page 1973

  68. [68]

    Molvig, Phys

    K. Molvig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1504 (1975)

    work page 1975

  69. [69]

    J. R. Cary, L. E. Thode, D. S. Lemons, M. E. Jones, and M. A. Mostrom, Phys. Fluids 24, 1818 (1981)

    work page 1981

  70. [70]

    Okada and K

    T. Okada and K. Niu, J. Plasma Phys. 23, 423 (1980)

    work page 1980

  71. [71]

    J. M. Hill, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, and R. R. Freeman, Phys. Plasmas 12, 082304 (2005)

    work page 2005

  72. [72]

    Bret, M.-C

    A. Bret, M.-C. Firpo, and C. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. E 70, 046401 (2004)

    work page 2004

  73. [73]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, and J. C. Bellido, Phys. Plasmas 14, 032103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    J¨ uttner, Annalen der Physik339, 856 (1911)

    F. J¨ uttner, Annalen der Physik339, 856 (1911)

    work page 1911

  75. [75]

    T. P. Wright and G. R. Hadley, Phys. Rev. A 12, 686 (1975)

    work page 1975

  76. [76]

    J. D. Huba, Plasma Physics (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, 2013) pp. 1–71

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Lefebvre, N

    E. Lefebvre, N. Cochet, S. Fritzler, V. Malka, M.- M. Al´ eonard, J.-F. Chemin, S. Darbon, L. Disdier, J. Faure, A. Fedotoff, O. Landoas, G. Malka, V. M´ eot, P. Morel, M. Rabec LeGloahec, A. Rouyer, C. Rubbe- lynck, V. Tikhonchuk, R. Wrobel, P. Audebert, and C. Rousseaux, Nucl. Fus. 43, 629 (2003)

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    B. B. Godfrey and J.-L. Vay, J. Comput. Phys. 267, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, and D. B´ enisti, Phys. Rev. E 81, 036402 (2010)

    work page 2010

  80. [80]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions (Dover Publications, New York, 1972)

    work page 1972

Showing first 80 references.