Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Magnetohydrodynamic waves in braided magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in a braided coronal magnetic field, phase mixing spreads wave-energy dissipation across the entire magnetic structure rather than confining it to density-gradient boundaries.

desk verdict Solid simulation study of phase mixing in braided fields; the qualitative volume-filling claim holds, but the 'larger cross-section for dissipation' is inferred from vorticity, not directly measured, and the quantitative heating enhancement is modest and resolution-sensitive. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03089 v1 pith:ULM2AM2I submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.SR

Thomas Howson , Ineke De Moortel , Jack Reid , Alan Hood This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalheatingphasemixingAlfvénwavesmagnetohydrodynamicsbraidedmagneticfieldscurrentsheetssolarcoronawavedissipation
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 argues that when a transverse magnetohydrodynamic wave travels through a braided, current-carrying coronal magnetic field, phase mixing happens throughout the braided volume instead of only at the edges of a flux tube. In the simulations, the wave front develops small spatial scales across the whole region where the field is complex, because neighbouring field lines have different Alfvén travel times and because background current sheets rotate the wave's polarization. The result is that viscous dissipation deposits wave energy over a large cross-section of the magnetic structure, which the authors argue sidesteps a known objection to classical phase mixing as a coronal heating mechanism. The paper also claims that the rate of small-scale formation is set by the complexity of the background field, and that the wave's weak compressibility may reveal information about that field.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three related objects: the Alfvén travel time $\Omega(x,y)=\int ds/v_A$ along each magnetic field line, whose spatial gradients set where and how fast phase mixing creates small scales; the background current sheets, whose strong vertical currents interact with the wave's perturbed horizontal field to rotate the wave's polarization; and the volume-integrated vorticity $\int|\omega|\,dV$, used as a proxy for small-scale formation and hence viscous dissipation. The braided equilibria themselves are produced by relaxing a stressed, continuously driven magnetic field into a numerical equilibrium, so all wave dynamics are studied against an inhomogeneous background rather than a prescribed density profile.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a resolution study: run the same wave driver through a braided equilibrium whose background current sheets are resolved at the true dissipation scale and compare the volume-integrated vorticity and viscous heating with the uniform-field case; if the enhanced, volume-filling dissipation disappears once the sheets are resolved, or if it persists when the sheets are artificially smoothed away, the claimed mechanism would be refuted or confirmed accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that phase mixing in a braided magnetic field is volume-filling rather than boundary-localized. In classical phase mixing, a density gradient across a loop creates a narrow layer of small scales; here, the braided field's spatially distributed gradients in Alfvén speed and varying field-line lengths create small transverse gradients across the whole wave front. In addition, the strong vertical currents of the background field interact with the wave's perturbed horizontal field to generate a Lorentz force that locally transfers energy between the two horizontal velocity components, modifying the wave's polarization. The simulations show that volume-integrated vorticity grows with field complexity, and that viscous heating in the most braided case is more than twice the uniform-field case at Reynolds number $10^3$, with a larger relative enhancement at lower viscosity. Because the dissipated energy is spread over the whole braided cross-section, the paper concludes that the standard objection that phase mixing cannot sustain the observed corona does not apply in this regime.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations' braided magnetic equilibria have current sheets whose width is limited by the numerical grid, and the paper itself notes that higher resolution produces narrower sheets; if real coronal sheets are much narrower, the quantitative heating enhancement could change, though the volume-filling phase mixing would probably survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wave-energy dissipation in a non-ideal plasma is no longer confined to narrow boundary layers, so phase mixing remains viable as a coronal heating mechanism even under the constraints raised for classical models.
  • The rate at which small scales form, and hence the heating rate, increases with the complexity of the background field; more braided equilibria dissipate more of the same injected wave energy.
  • Small spatial gradients in the driving motions at the footpoints are amplified into large gradients in the corona, so even smooth, large-scale photospheric driving can produce strong phase mixing.
  • The wave's weak compressibility and its phase-mixing pattern carry information about the background field, potentially allowing coronal seismology to probe magnetic complexity.
  • With continuous driving, the wide range of field-line lengths and Alfvén speeds should make it easy to excite resonances, so continuous drivers would deposit more energy than the single pulses studied here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: the same volume-filling phase mixing should make wave heating self-limiting in a real corona, because the heating smoothes the very Alfvén-speed gradients that create the small scales; the simulations stop before such feedback develops.
  • Going beyond the paper: if real coronal current sheets are systematically narrower than the grid can resolve, the dissipation enhancement at true coronal Reynolds numbers is likely larger than simulated, making the reported heating ratios lower bounds rather than converged estimates.
  • Going beyond the paper: polarization rotation by background currents implies that observations of a single transverse velocity component could misclassify a wave mode; synthetic observables from these runs could calibrate that bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the propagation of a small-amplitude transverse MHD wave pulse through three-dimensional braided magnetic fields, using simulations initialised from the stress-twisted equilibria of Reid et al. (2018). Four braided configurations of increasing complexity (s1, s2, s3, s5) and a uniform-field baseline are driven with a single-period sinusoid on the lower boundary. The authors analyze wave-front deformation, phase mixing, polarization changes, and viscous dissipation. They conclude that phase mixing is volume-filling in braided fields, that wave energy is deposited over a larger cross-sectional area than in classical phase-mixing models, and that the rate of small-scale formation increases with field complexity.

Significance. If confirmed, the volume-filling phase-mixing picture is an important departure from the classical idea that phase mixing occurs only at density-gradient boundaries. The simulations are physically motivated, use a standard and well-tested code (Lare3D), include a resolution study (s5 vs. t5), and provide a quantitative proxy for field complexity (I(z)). The diagnostics are internally consistent, and the authors are appropriately cautious about the small energy budget and the need for continuous driving in future work. However, the headline claim about the spatial distribution of dissipation is not directly measured, and the quantitative complexity dependence is resolution-sensitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Figs. 18 and 19] The central claim that wave energy is dissipated over a larger cross-section in braided fields is not directly supported by the dissipation diagnostics presented. The paper reports volume-integrated |ω| (Fig. 18) and cumulative volume-integrated viscous heating (Fig. 19), but the only spatial maps shown (Fig. 13) are isosurfaces of |ω|, not of the viscous heating rate Q_visc. Since Q_visc depends on the symmetric rate-of-strain tensor rather than the antisymmetric vorticity, the spatial distribution of |ω| is not a direct proxy for the location of viscous heating. The authors should either (i) compute and display maps or cross-sections of the actual viscous heating rate (or the rate-of-strain magnitude) to substantiate the "greater cross-section" claim, or (ii) explicitly restrict the claim to the vorticity field and soften the dissipation statement.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 20 and §2.1] The quantitative claim that the small-scale formation rate is a function of field complexity is not numerically converged. The paper acknowledges in Section 2.1 that the relaxed equilibria are resolution dependent ("narrower current sheets are present when the more refined grid is used"), and Fig. 20 shows that the t5 simulation produces systematically higher volume-integrated |ω| than the corresponding s5 run. Thus the differences between s1, s2, s3, and s5 are at least partly attributable to how the grid resolves the current sheets, not solely to the intended field complexity. The qualitative ordering may be robust, but the specific quantitative statements (e.g., the factor-of-two heating enhancement in Fig. 19, and the resolution-normalized vorticity curves) are not. The authors should either demonstrate a convergence trend (e.g., show that s5 and t5 bracket the converged result) or temper the quantitative claims.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The abstract and Section 4 assert that wave energy is deposited "over a larger cross-section than in classical phase mixing models." However, the simulations do not include a classical phase-mixing configuration as a baseline; the only comparison is to a uniform-field case. Since classical phase mixing proceeds from a transverse Alfvén speed gradient (e.g., a density-enhanced loop), the comparison in the present study is indirect. The authors should either include a simple classical phase-mixing run with the same driver and energy budget, or explicitly state that the "greater cross-section" claim is relative to a uniform background and is an inference from the spatial extent of the vorticity gradients.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4] Typo: "intoduced" should be "introduced".
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 19 caption] Typo: "obseverd" should be "observed".
  3. [§4] Typo: "identied" should be "identified".
  4. [§3.5] Typo: "horiztontal" should be "horizontal".
  5. [§2.1] Typo: "caclulate" should be "calculate".
  6. [References] The reference "Goossens, M. Erdélyi, R. & Ruderman, M. S. 2011" is missing an ampersand between the authors; it should read "Goossens, M., Erdélyi, R., & Ruderman, M. S. 2011".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central wave-dissipation claims are derived from independent MHD simulations and measured diagnostics.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—volume-filling phase mixing and enhanced viscous dissipation in braided fields—are derived from MHD simulations of an externally imposed wave packet, not from a parameter fitted to the target quantity. The initial braided equilibria are taken from Reid et al. (2018), a self-cited prior simulation, but that work supplies only the background state; it does not contain or assume the wave phase-mixing result, and the wave evolution is simulated independently here. The diagnostics used (vorticity, viscous heating, Alfvén-travel-time maps) are measured from simulation output and are not defined in terms of the conclusions. For example, the claim that wave energy is deposited over a larger cross-section is inferred from distributed small-scale vorticity and from isosurfaces of the vorticity magnitude; whether one agrees with that inference, it is not equivalent to an input by construction. No equation reduces a reported prediction to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The resolution dependence of the initial equilibria is a legitimate quantitative robustness concern, but it is not a circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the validity of MHD for the corona, on the representativeness of the chosen braided-field states, and on the numerical resolution being sufficient. The free parameters are experimental choices, not fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • wave driver amplitude v0 = 20 km/s
    Chosen to be small relative to the Alfven speed and similar to observed wave amplitudes (Section 2.2). Not fitted to a target result.
  • wave driver period tau = 30 s
    Chosen so that the 100 Mm domain contains several wavelengths of the pulse (Section 2.2). Not fitted.
  • viscosity coefficients nu = 10^-3, 10^-4, 10^-5
    Chosen to probe Reynolds numbers 10^3, 10^4, 10^5 (Section 3.3). Not fitted to data.
  • Gaussian width l of non-uniform driver = 6 Mm
    Chosen so the imposed velocity is approximately zero near the x and y boundaries (Section 3.5). Not fitted.
  • initial condition times = 100, 200, 300, 500 Alfven times
    Chosen to yield different levels of field complexity (Section 2.1). Not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ideal MHD equations with viscous and Ohmic dissipation describe the coronal plasma (Eqs. 1-4).
    Section 2.1 states the Lare3D code advances the full 3D MHD equations; this is the standard model for coronal dynamics.
  • domain assumption The relaxed background field is approximately force-free with beta < 1 and currents dominated by the parallel component.
    Section 2.1: 'In each case beta < 1, and the relaxed field is approximately force-free. Since j x B is approximately 0, the currents are dominated by the component parallel to B.' This is essential for the polarization-modification argument.
  • domain assumption The braided field states from Reid et al. (2018), after relaxation, are representative of coronal braided magnetic fields.
    The initial conditions are taken from a continuously driven model that may produce more stressed fields than typical coronal configurations; the paper does not compare against observational constraints on coronal field complexity.
  • domain assumption The relaxation phase leaves the plasma in a numerical equilibrium with negligible background flows relative to the wave amplitude.
    Section 2.1: relaxation continues 'until the velocities are small in comparison to the amplitude of the wave driver.' This justifies attributing small-scale formation to the wave.
  • domain assumption The Lare3D code accurately solves the specified MHD equations at the quoted resolution.
    The paper relies on the code as implemented (Arber et al. 2001) without providing code or validation runs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetohydrodynamic waves in braided magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULM2AM2I

@misc{pith2026190803089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetohydrodynamic waves in braided magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULM2AM2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03089}
}
read the original abstract

We consider a series of MHD simulations in which a small amplitude, transverse velocity perturbation is introduced into a complex magnetic field. We analysed the deformation of the wave fronts as the perturbation propagates through the braided magnetic structures and explore the nature of Alfv\'enic wave phase mixing in this regime. Spatial gradients in the local Alfv\'en speed and variations in the length of magnetic field lines ensure that small scales form throughout the propagating wave front due to phase mixing. Additionally, the presence of complex, intricate current sheets associated with the background field locally modifies the polarisation of the wave front. The combination of these two effects enhances the rate of viscous dissipation, particularly in more complex field configurations. Unlike in classical phase mixing configurations, the greater spatial extent of Alfv\'en speed gradients ensures that wave energy is deposited over a larger cross-section of the magnetic structure. Further, the complexity of the background magnetic field ensures that small gradients in a wave driver can map to large gradients within the coronal plasma. The phase mixing of MHD waves in a complex magnetic field will progress throughout the braided volume. As a result, in a non-ideal regime wave energy will be dissipated over a greater cross-section than in classical phase mixing models. The formation rate of small spatial scales in a propagating wave front is a function of the complexity of the background magnetic field. As such, if the coronal field is sufficiently complex it remains plausible that phase mixing induced wave heating can contribute to maintaining observed temperatures. Furthermore, the weak compressibility of the transverse wave and the observed phase mixing pattern may provide seismological information about the nature of the background plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of rotational driving implemented in Reid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Configuration of magnetic field lines for the least (s1; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Projections of magnetic field lines onto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Initial configuration for the most complex field (s5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measure of the field complexity, I (see equation 6), in each of the four field configurations as a function of z. In addition to the initial states described above, for the purposes of comparison, we will also consider the behaviour of waves in a uniform domain with a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Alfvén travel time, Ω (see equation 5), along magnetic field lines traced from the upper z boundary. Despite this, the Alfvén travel time is not necessarily shorter in the centre of the x-y-plane, as here, field lines are typically more twisted, and hence, longer. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy injected into the domain by the wave driver. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Isosurfaces of the magnitude of vy corresponding to |vy| ≈ 0.8 v0. (a) t = 0.3 Te. (b) t = 0.8 Te [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The y component of the velocity field in a horizontal cut through the wave front at t = 0.8 Te. velocity driver induces a perturbation of the y component of the magnetic field. The interaction between this pertur￾bation and the z component of the background currents g…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Here, we clearly see the large transverse gradients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Isosurfaces of the magnitude of ω in the s5 simu￾lation. We display this behaviour by showing the change in the volume integrated magnitude of vorticity and of each com￾ponent in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Volume integrated |ω| as a function of time for simulation, s5. Additionally, we display the volume integral of the magnitude of each component and the dashed black line corresponds to the time t = τ when the wave driving ceases. The formation of these small spatial s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Isosurfaces of the magnitude of vy corresponding to |vy| ≈ 0.8 v0 at t = 0.8 Te. (a) s2. (b) s3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Isosurfaces of the magnitude of vx corresponding to |vx| ≈ 0.25 v0 at t = 0.8 Te. 3.2. Field complexity In order to quantify the effects of varying the field com￾plexity, we now contrast the observed wave dynamics in the s1, s2, s3 and s5 simulations. In Figs. 14 and …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Transverse gradients of vy for the s1 (blue) and s5 (red) simulations. We show dvy dx along y = 0 Mm (left-hand panel) and dvy dy along x = 0 Mm (right-hand panel) at t = 0.8 Te through the location of the wave front. In each case we have normalised by the maximum tra…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Time evolution of |ω| integrated over the numer￾ical domain for the s5 simulation with different transport coefficients. We note that the early stages of the simulation are omitted here and we have normalised the integral using the maximum value attained in the ideal …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cumulative volume integrated viscous heating for the braided and uniform field simulations. We show the heating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_19.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Non-uniform driver profile imposed at the lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_21.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Volume integrated |ω| for the two forms of the wave driver in the s5 and straight field simulations. For the uniform driver cases, we have normalised by the maximum of the red curve. For the non-uniform driver cases, we have normalised by the maximum of the dashed blu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afanasyev, A. N. & Zhukov, A. N. 2018, A&A, 614, A139

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    D., Longbottom, A

    Arber, T. D., Longbottom, A. W., Gerrard, C. L., & Milne, A. M. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 171, 151

    2001

  3. [3]

    2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140261

    Arregui, I. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140261

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    J., de Pontieu, B., Schrijver, C

    Aschwanden, M. J., de Pontieu, B., Schrijver, C. J., & Title, A. M. 2002, Sol. Phys., 206, 99

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    J., Fletcher, L., Schrijver, C

    Aschwanden, M. J., Fletcher, L., Schrijver, C. J., & Alexander, D. 1999, ApJ, 520, 880

    1999

  6. [6]

    J., De Moortel, I., & Kiddie, G

    Cargill, P. J., De Moortel, I., & Kiddie, G. 2016, ApJ, 823, 31

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Cranmer, S. R. & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, ApJS, 156, 265 De Moortel, I., Ireland, J., & Walsh, R. W. 2000, A&A, 355, L23 Duckenfield, T., Anfinogentov, S. A., Pascoe, D. J., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, L5

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Engvold, O. 2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 247, Waves &amp; Oscil- lations in the Solar Atmosphere: Heating and Magneto-Seismology, ed. R. Erdélyi & C. A. Mendoza-Briceno, 152–157 Erdélyi, R. & Ballai, I. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 726

    work page 2008

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Goossens, M., Terradas, J., Andries, J., Arregui, I., & Ballester, J. L. 2009, A&A, 503, 213

    2009

  2. [10]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 191

    Goossens, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., Soler, R., & Verth, G. 2013, ApJ, 768, 191

    2013

  3. [11]

    Erdélyi, R

    Goossens, M. Erdélyi, R. & Ruderman, M. S. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 158, 289

    2011

  4. [12]

    & Priest, E

    Heyvaerts, J. & Priest, E. R. 1983, A&A, 117, 220

    1983

  5. [13]

    J., & Erdélyi, R

    Hillier, A., Morton, R. J., & Erdélyi, R. 2013, ApJ, 779, L16

    2013

  6. [14]

    Ionson, J. A. 1978, Astrophys. J., 226, 650

    1978

  7. [15]

    C., Liu, C., Sun, X., et al

    Joshi, N. C., Liu, C., Sun, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 50

    2015

  8. [16]

    & Van Doorsselaere, T

    Karampelas, K. & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2018, A&A, 610, L9

    2018

  9. [17]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2006, Solar Physics, 234, 41

    2006

  10. [18]

    Lazzaro, E., Lontano, M., & Ryutov, D. D. 2000, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 3069

    2000

  11. [19]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 39

    Lim, E.-K., Yurchyshyn, V., Park, S.-H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 39

    2016

  12. [20]

    W., Rickard, G

    Longbottom, A. W., Rickard, G. J., Craig, I. J. D., & Sneyd, A. D. 1998, ApJ, 500, 471

    1998

  13. [21]

    Longcope, D. W. & Sudan, R. N. 1994, ApJ, 437, 491

    1994

  14. [22]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 14820

    Magyar, N., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Goossens, M. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 14820

    2017

  15. [23]

    McEwan, M. P. & De Moortel, I. 2006, A&A, 448, 763

    2006

  16. [24]

    W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al

    McIntosh, S. W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 475, 477

    2011

  17. [25]

    McLaughlin, J. A. 2016, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 37, 2

    2016

  18. [26]

    A., Thurgood, J

    McLaughlin, J. A., Thurgood, J. O., Botha, G. J. J., & Wiggs, J. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1390

    2019

  19. [27]

    J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R

    Morton, R. J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R. 2015, Nature Communica- tions, 6, 7813

    2015

  20. [28]

    J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R

    Morton, R. J., Tomczyk, S., & Pinto, R. F. 2016, ApJ, 828, 89

    2016

  21. [29]

    & Thompson, B

    Ofman, L. & Thompson, B. J. 2002, ApJ, 574, 440 O’Hara, J. P. & De Moortel, I. 2016, A&A, 594, A67 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. WBF

    2002

  22. [30]

    J., Tsuneta, S., Berger, T

    Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Berger, T. E., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1577

    2007

  23. [31]

    & De Moortel, I

    Pagano, P. & De Moortel, I. 2017, A&A, 601, A107

    2017

  24. [32]

    Parker, E. N. 1972, Astrophys. J., 174, 499

    1972

  25. [33]

    Parnell, C. E. & De Moortel, I. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 3217

    2012

  26. [34]

    J., Wright, A

    Pascoe, D. J., Wright, A. N., & De Moortel, I. 2010, ApJ, 711, 990

    2010

  27. [35]

    J., Wright, A

    Pascoe, D. J., Wright, A. N., & De Moortel, I. 2011, ApJ, 731, 73

    2011

  28. [36]

    V., & Nordlund, Å

    Peter, H., Gudiksen, B. V., & Nordlund, Å. 2004, ApJ, 617, L85

    2004

  29. [37]

    I., Candelaresi, S., Russell, A

    Pontin, D. I., Candelaresi, S., Russell, A. J. B., & Hornig, G. 2016, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 58, 054008

    2016

  30. [38]

    Prokopyszyn, A. P. K., Hood, A. W., & De Moortel, I. 2019, A&A

    2019

  31. [39]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 21

    Reale, F., Orlando, S., Guarrasi, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 21

    2016

  32. [40]

    W., Parnell, C

    Reid, J., Hood, A. W., Parnell, C. E., Browning, P. K., & Cargill, P. J. 2018, A&A, 615, A84

    2018

  33. [41]

    Similon, P. L. & Sudan, R. N. 1989, ApJ, 336, 442

    1989

  34. [42]

    K., Zaqarashvili, T

    Srivastava, A. K., Zaqarashvili, T. V., Kumar, P., & Khodachenko, M. L. 2010, ApJ, 715, 292

    2010

  35. [43]

    W., & Bethge, C

    Threlfall, J., De Moortel, I., McIntosh, S. W., & Bethge, C. 2013, A&A, 556, A124

    2013

  36. [44]

    O., Morton, R

    Thurgood, J. O., Morton, R. J., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2014, ApJ, 790, L2

    2014

  37. [45]

    & McIntosh, S

    Tomczyk, S. & McIntosh, S. W. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1384

    2009

  38. [46]

    W., Keil, S

    Tomczyk, S., McIntosh, S. W., Keil, S. L., et al. 2007, Science, 317, 1192

    2007

  39. [47]

    2010, ApJ, 724, L194

    Verwichte, E., Marsh, M., Foullon, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, L194

    2010

  40. [48]

    J., Ofman, L., & Davila, J

    Wang, T. J., Ofman, L., & Davila, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1448

    2009

  41. [49]

    Wilmot-Smith, A. L. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140265

    2015

  42. [50]

    L., Pontin, D

    Wilmot-Smith, A. L., Pontin, D. I., Yeates, A. R., & Hornig, G. 2011, A&A, 536, A67

    2011

  43. [51]

    Withbroe, G. L. & Noyes, R. W. 1977, Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys, 15, 363

    1977

  44. [52]

    L., Xue, Z

    Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Liu, J. H., Kong, D. F., & Xu, C. L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 52

    2014

  45. [53]

    Yuan, D., Li, B., & Walsh, R. W. 2016, ApJ, 828, 17

    2016

  46. [54]

    J., Nakariakov, V

    Yuan, D., Pascoe, D. J., Nakariakov, V. M., Li, B., & Keppens, R. 2015, ApJ, 799, 221 Article number, page 14 of 14

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.