Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Solar Alfvenic Pulses and Mesoscale Solar Wind

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Photospheric bright-point motions can pack 10^25 erg into Alfvénic pulses, enough to seed solar-wind switchbacks.

desk verdict A genuine first measurement of individual Alfvénic pulse energies from network bright points, but the headline 'adequately higher than switchbacks' claim is not secure because the equipartition density assumption may overestimate the energies rather than give a lower limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12658 v1 pith:UZ5YJSV3 submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Jeongwoo Lee , Manolis K. Georgoulis , Rahul Sharma , Nour E. Raouafi , Qin Li , Haimin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords AlfvénicpulsesnetworkbrightpointsmagneticswitchbacksmesoscalesolarwindcoronalholeboundaryParkerProbefillingfactorconvection
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 tries to establish that the Sun itself, through the jostling of small magnetic features called network bright points along a coronal hole boundary, generates Alfvénic pulses energetic enough to explain the magnetic switchbacks observed by Parker Solar Probe. By tracking these bright points in high-resolution H-$\alpha$ images and combining their motion, magnetic flux, and lifetime, the authors estimate individual pulse energies around $10^{25}$ erg, with a range of $10^{23}$ to $10^{26}$ erg. That is higher than the roughly $10^{22}$ to $10^{23}$ erg estimated for six PSP switchbacks, even after accounting for partial reflection of the pulses in the solar atmosphere. The paper also reports a filling factor of about 8% for the pulse sources, comparable to the roughly 6% filling factor of switchbacks detected by PSP. If correct, this would mean ordinary convective motions at the solar surface can supply the energy that later appears as mesoscale structure in the solar wind.

What carries the argument

The central object is the network bright point (NBP), a small magnetic feature at the chromospheric network boundary whose random motion agitates open flux tubes. The key identity is the pulse energy formula E = c tau E_perp phi_z / 8 pi, obtained by integrating the Alfvén wave flux over the flux-tube cross-section and the NBP lifetime, with the equipartition relation rho $u^{2}$ = $B_z^{2}$ / 4 pi used to replace the unmeasured mass density. The magnetic flux phi_z and convective electric field E_perp are measured from co-aligned magnetograms, while tau is the NBP lifetime; the formula converts these observable quantities into an energy that can be compared directly with switchback energies.

What would settle it

Measure the actual plasma density or plasma beta at network bright point heights in a coronal hole boundary; if the true density is more than about an order of magnitude lower than the equipartition value, the derived pulse energies would drop below the switchback energy range and the central comparison would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Alfvénic pulses generated by the transverse motions of network bright points at a coronal hole boundary carry enough energy to be viable seeds for magnetic switchbacks. Using the Southwest Automatic Magnetic Identification Suite to track the bright points, the authors measure each point's velocity, magnetic flux, and lifetime, then convert these into a pulse energy via an equipartition assumption. They find individual pulse energies clustered around 7 x $10^{24}$ erg and spanning $10^{23}$ to $10^{26}$ erg, which exceeds the 5 x $10^{21}$ to 3 x $10^{23}$ erg magnetic energies calculated for the six switchbacks from Laker et al. (2021). The paper further finds that the mobile bright points cover about 8% of the filigree area, a filling factor comparable to the 6% filling factor of PSP switchbacks. The authors interpret these results as support for the idea that photospheric convection, acting through Alfvénic pulses, provides a solar source for the mesoscale solar wind.

Load-bearing premise

The energy estimate depends on assuming the kinetic energy density of the plasma equals the magnetic energy density (rho $u^{2}$ = $B_z^{2}$/4 pi) because the mass density is not measured directly, and if the true density differs, the stated pulse energies and their comparison to switchbacks would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, photospheric granular and supergranular convection is a sufficient energy source for the mesoscale solar wind, not just for heating the corona.
  • The Alfvénic pulse energy range of 10^23 to 10^26 erg, even after a 1-10% transmission through the transition region, still overlaps the switchback energy range of 10^22 to 10^23 erg.
  • The measured filling factor of about 8% provides a solar-surface boundary condition that Alfvén wave/turbulence models of switchbacks must reproduce.
  • The result strengthens the case that switchbacks are seeded by solar-origin Alfvénic pulses rather than formed entirely in situ in the solar wind.
  • The comparison between pulse energies and switchback energies offers a new quantitative link between solar observations and PSP near-Sun measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to map the same NBP-tracking analysis across multiple coronal hole boundaries to see whether the 8% filling factor and 10^25 erg pulse energy are typical or peculiar to this one region.
  • The equipartition assumption could be tested directly by measuring the plasma density at NBP heights with spectropolarimetric inversions, which would either confirm the lower-limit interpretation or shift the energy scale.
  • If solar convection indeed seeds switchbacks, similar Alfvénic pulse generation might be expected at the boundaries of coronal holes in other stars, making the filling factor a potentially observable stellar wind diagnostic.
  • The authors' energy comparison assumes each pulse remains coherent; testing coherence by simulating propagation through a stratified atmosphere with the measured source parameters would clarify how much of the initial energy reaches 1 AU.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses high-resolution Hα images and magnetograms from the GST at Big Bear Solar Observatory to track network bright points (NBPs) along a coronal hole boundary. It measures NBP motions, magnetic fluxes, and lifetimes to estimate the energy of individual Alfvénic pulses generated by these motions, finding energies in the range 10^23–10^26 erg with a peak near 7×10^24 erg. It also computes a filling factor of ~8% for mobile NBPs relative to the surrounding filigree area, which it compares to the ~6% filling factor of switchbacks reported by PSP. The authors argue that these pulses carry sufficient energy to seed mesoscale switchbacks, even after accounting for reflection at the transition region, and that their spatial distribution matches the granular/supergranular modulation of switchbacks.

Significance. If the energy and filling factor estimates were robust, the paper would provide a direct observational link between photospheric footpoint motions and the energy budget of switchbacks, addressing a central open question in the field. The work introduces a novel method for estimating individual Alfvénic pulse energies from NBP tracking, and the use of high-resolution GST data with a documented tracking tool (SW AMIS) is a strength. However, the central conclusions hinge on an assumed equipartition between kinetic and magnetic energy densities that is not directly measured, and on a filling factor definition that is not clearly equivalent to the PSP in-situ measurement. These caveats currently limit the strength of the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (1)] The claim that the equipartition assumption ρu^2 = B_z^2/4π yields a lower limit on the pulse energy is not established. A plasma with β>1 implies thermal pressure exceeds magnetic pressure, but it does not constrain the mass density relative to ρ_eq = B^2/(4πu^2). At the Hα -1.0 Å formation height, standard models give densities 10^-8–10^-7 g/cm^3, while ρ_eq for B ~ 300 G and u ~ 1 km/s is ~7×10^-7 g/cm^3. If the true density is lower than ρ_eq, the actual energy is lower by a factor sqrt(ρ/ρ_eq), potentially ~0.1–0.4, which would shift a substantial fraction of the 10^23–10^26 erg distribution below the switchback energy band (10^22–10^23 erg). The paper's assertion that the result is a physically meaningful lower limit is therefore not robust to the choice of density. The authors should either provide an independent density constraint (e.g., from chromospheric modeling or co-observations) or present the energy results as explicitly conditional on the uncertain density, with the corresponding range of possible energies.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (3)] The filling factor is defined as the ratio of mobile NBP area to filigree area, explicitly excluding field-free and closed-field regions. This choice inflates the filling factor relative to a definition based on the total area of the coronal hole boundary or the supergranule. Moreover, the PSP 'filling factor' of 6% is a time fraction of switchback occurrence along the spacecraft trajectory, not an area fraction on the solar surface. The conceptual equivalence of these two quantities is not justified, so the statement that the measured ~8% filling factor is 'comparable to' the PSP value is not quantitatively supported. Please clarify the correspondence between surface area filling and in-situ temporal filling, or rephrase the comparison to avoid implying a direct match.
  3. [Appendix A] The transmission coefficient of 1–10% is derived from a model with parameters (Alfvén speed contrast α, density scale height H_ρ) chosen from 'plausible ranges' rather than measured from the target region. Combined with the density uncertainty above, the final statement that transmitted pulse energies remain comparable to switchback energies is not robust across the plausible parameter space. For example, if the source density is at the lower end of the standard model range and the transmission is at the low end of the 1–10% range, the transmitted energies would fall below the switchback band for a large fraction of the pulse distribution. The authors should provide a propagation of uncertainties through the transmission calculation, or at least discuss the sensitivity of their conclusion to the assumed parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The intensity contrast threshold for NBP detection is set at ≥0.07, but no information is given on the sensitivity of the results to this threshold. The filling factor error bars are derived from a 2–3% contrast threshold for filigree, but the NBP threshold sensitivity is not discussed.
  2. [Abstract and §3.3] There are several typos: 'some of then' in the abstract, 'which is is' in §3.3, and 'a few 10 17 Mx' missing an exponent. Also, the title contains a stray accent: 'Alfv´enic'.
  3. [§4] The references to '§2.3', '§2.4', and '§2.5' in the Discussion do not match the actual section numbers; the corresponding material is in §3.3 and §3.4.
  4. [§3.2] The description of SW AMIS is brief; citing the algorithm's specific parameters or any validation performed for Hα images would help readers assess the tracking accuracy.
  5. [§3.3] The derivation of the switchback energy ΔE = αB^2D^3/32 is not shown; please provide the geometric steps or a reference that includes the derivation, and clarify whether the six selected switchbacks are representative of the overall PSP switchback population.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Alfvenic pulse energy is computed from directly measured NBP motion, magnetic flux, and lifetime under an explicitly stated equipartition assumption, and the switchback comparison uses independent external PSP data without any fitted parameter forcing agreement.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Section 3.3 integrates the Alfven wave flux F = 1/2 rho u^2 V_A over each NBP area and lifetime. Since the mass density is not directly observed, the authors explicitly assume equipartition, rho u^2 = B_z^2/4pi, which converts the energy integral into E = c tau E_perp phi_z / 8pi using measured quantities: the NBP velocity u, the line-of-sight magnetic flux phi_z, the convective electric field E_perp = u B_z / c, and the NBP lifetime tau. This is a stated physical modeling assumption, not a hidden fit. The comparison with switchback energies uses six PSP switchbacks from Laker et al. (2021) with independently obtained parameters, so the claimed 'adequately higher' energy range is not forced by construction. Likewise, the filling factor f = sum A_NBP / sum A_filigree (Eq. 3) is measured directly from the H-alpha images and magnetograms; the resulting ~8% value is compared with, rather than fitted to, the PSP value of ~6%. The self-citations (Lee et al. 2022, 2024; Georgoulis et al. 2012, 2025) provide context or explicitly deferred future work and are not load-bearing for the energy formula or the switchback comparison. Whether the equipartition assumption yields a true lower limit is a question of physical correctness, not circularity, since the assumption is openly stated and the derivation does not presuppose the switchback energies it aims to compare with.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The Alfvenic pulses are standard MHD wave pulses and the comparison target is the observed magnetic switchback. The main unmeasured inputs are the density set by equipartition, the detection thresholds, and the transmission model parameters, all of which are explicit assumptions rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (4)
  • Plasma density rho via equipartition = inferred from rho u^2 = B_z^2/4pi
    Density is not measured; this relation sets the Alfvenic pulse energy in Eq. (1) and the final energy formula. The paper acknowledges it gives a lower limit in the high-beta NBP environment.
  • NBP intensity contrast threshold = 0.07
    Used to segment NBPs in H-alpha far blue wing images; changing this threshold changes NBP areas and hence the energy and filling factor estimates.
  • Filigree intensity contrast threshold = 2-3%
    Used to define the open-field filigree region in the filling factor denominator; the error bars in Figure 6c are based on this range.
  • Alfven speed contrast alpha and density scale height H_rho = alpha=10-40, H_rho=200-400 km
    Literature-based ranges used in Appendix A to estimate the 1-10% transmission of pulse energy through the transition region.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Photospheric motions of network bright points agitate open flux tubes and generate propagating Alfvenic pulses.
    Stated as the premise of the study in Section 1; no direct observation of wave excitation or propagation is presented.
  • domain assumption Energy equipartition rho u^2 = B_z^2/4pi holds for the NBP environment.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to set the density because it is not measured; the paper notes this is more suitable for active regions and provides a lower limit here.
  • standard math The energy flux of the generated pulses is F = 1/2 rho u^2 V_A.
    Standard expression for transverse wave energy flux, used in Eq. (1); assumes small-amplitude sinusoidal wave behavior.
  • standard math The classical stratified-atmosphere reflection model of Zhugzhda and Locans (1982) describes transmission through the transition region.
    Used in Appendix A to estimate 1-10% transmission; the model assumes a linear temperature variation and an exponential density variation.
  • domain assumption The vertical field B_z is obtained by dividing the LOS field by cos(theta) with theta = 39 degrees.
    Projection correction in Section 3.3; assumes the field is effectively vertical on the scale of the NBP and that no significant horizontal field contributes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Alfvenic Pulses and Mesoscale Solar Wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZ5YJSV3

@misc{pith2026250712658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Alfvenic Pulses and Mesoscale Solar Wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZ5YJSV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12658}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale solar ejections are well understood, but the extent to which small-scale solar features directly influence the solar wind remains an open question, primarily due to the challenges of tracing these small-scale ejections and their impact. Here, we measure the fine-scale motions of network bright points along a coronal hole boundary in high-resolution H-alpha images from the 1.6m Goode Solar Telescope at Big Bear Solar Observatory to quantify the agitation of open flux tubes into generating Alfvenic pulses. We combine the motion, magnetic flux, and activity duration of the flux tubes to estimate the energy content carried by individual Alfvenic pulses, which is ~10+25 erg, adequately higher than the energies ~10+23 erg estimated for the magnetic switchbacks observed by the Parker Solar Probe (PSP). This implies the possibility that the surface-generated Alfvenic pulses could reach the solar wind with sufficient energy to generate switchbacks, even though some of then are expected to be reflected back in the stratified solar atmosphere. Alfvenic pulses further reproduce for the first time other properties of switchbacks, including the filling factor above ~8% at granular and supergranular scales, which correspond best to the lower end of the mesoscale structure. This quantitative result for solar energy output in the form of Alfvenic pulses through magnetic funnels provides a crucial clue to the ongoing debate about the dynamic cycle of energy exchange between the Sun and the mesoscale solar wind that has been raised, but has not been adequately addressed, by PSP near-Sun observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Target region in the coronal hole boundary. (a) SDO/AIA 193 ˚A image shows the coronal hole and EUV bright regions around. The superimposed contours represent the LoS magnetic field at +50 G (pink) and −50 G (green) from the NIRIS magnetogram. The white box denotes the FOV of the other panels. (b) Hα far blue wing image in the sub-region shows spicules (dark straw-like features), filigree (white contours), and NBPs … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spicules and NBPs in a GST/VIS Hα-1.0˚A blue wing image. A few field lines inferred from the selective spicule trajectories are marked in color together with NBPs outlined by a blue contour underneath. The inset magnifies the white box region, in which the color-filled masks represent the NBPs and associated field lines are colored in the same code. Using SWAMIS, we track each NBP in subsequent frames to determine i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tracking NBP motions in a magnetogram. In the top panel, NBPs are marked with cyan circles with equivalent area and their total displacements during their lifetimes are indicated by cyan lines (same in both plots), with length 3 times longer than actual displacements for visual convenience. The equivalent areas (cyan dots) and velocities (cyan lines) of these NBPs are further shown against the corresponding NIRIS LO… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the energy calculation and the associated parameters (top) and the distribution of the results. (a) Parameters in the photophere and chromosphere. (b) Parameters of a magnetic switchback. (c) Number distributions of electric field, magnetic flux, and en…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Physical quantities derived from the GST/VIS Hα blue wing images and the GST/NIRIS magnetograms. (a) Convective electric field, (b) magnetic flux of NBPs, and (c) energy of Alfv´enic pulses are plotted as color shades of Gaussians centered on individual NBPs. An animat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Filling factor of NBPs. (a) The areas of mobile NBPs (red circles) and filigree (blue contours) The filling factor is calculated by dividing the sum of the NBP areas by the total area of the filigree at each time. (b) Time-distance (T-R) map of the NBPs. At each time, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transmission of Alfv´enic pulses. (a) Transmission coefficient in energy as a function of period for selected values of the Alfv´en speed contrast, α = VA2 /VA1 calculated for two density scale heights, Hρ. (b) Transmission coefficient as a function of Hρ and α at a fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    I., Zank , G

    Abramenko , V. I., Zank , G. P., Dosch , A., et al. 2013, , 773, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/167

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/167 2013

  3. [3]

    Akhavan-Tafti , M., & Soni , S. L. 2024, , 970, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bc 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Cranmer , S

    Asgari-Targhi , M., van Ballegooijen , A. A., Cranmer , S. R., & DeLuca , E. E. 2013, , 773, 111, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/111

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/111 2013

  5. [5]

    D., Badman , S

    Bale , S. D., Badman , S. T., Bonnell , J. W., et al. 2019, , 576, 237, 10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Horbury , T

    Bale , S. D., Horbury , T. S., Velli , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d8c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d8c 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Drake , J

    Bale , S. D., Drake , J. F., McManus , M. D., et al. 2023, , 618, 252, 10.1038/s41586-023-05955-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05955-3 2023

  8. [8]

    H., Jess , D

    Berberyan , A., Keys , P. H., Jess , D. B., & Christian , D. J. 2024, , 690, A363, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451199

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451199 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    S., Dudok de Wit , T., & Velli , M

    Bizien , N., Froment , C., Madjarska , M. S., Dudok de Wit , T., & Velli , M. 2025, , 694, A181, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452140

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Mallet , A., Dunn , C

    Bowen , T. A., Mallet , A., Dunn , C. I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13384, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13384

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    o ger , M. Collados Vera , H. Socas-Navarro , R. Schlichenmaier , M. Carlsson , T. Berger , A. Cadavid , P. R. Gilbert , P. R. Goode , & M. Kn \

    Cao, W., Goode, P. R., Ahn, K., et al. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 463, Second ATST-EAST Meeting: Magnetic Fields from the Photosphere to the Corona., ed. T. R. Rimmele , A. Tritschler , F. W \"o ger , M. Collados Vera , H. Socas-Navarr...

    2012

  4. [12]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636, 10.1002/asna.201011390

    Cao, W., Gorceix, N., Coulter, R., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636, 10.1002/asna.201011390

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, , 924, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4015

    Cattell , C., Breneman , A., Dombeck , J., et al. 2022, , 924, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4015

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, , 954, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace771

    Chae , J., & Lee , K.-S. 2023, , 954, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace771

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    P., van Ballegooijen , A

    Chitta , L. P., van Ballegooijen , A. A., Rouppe van der Voort , L., DeLuca , E. E., & Kariyappa , R. 2012, , 752, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/48

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, , 971, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c4

    Choi , K.-E., Agapitov , O., Colomban , L., et al. 2024, , 971, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c4

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Lee , D.-Y., et al

    Choi , K.-E., Agapitov , O. V., Lee , D.-Y., et al. 2025, , arXiv:2506.08278, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08278

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    R., & van Ballegooijen , A

    Cranmer , S. R., & van Ballegooijen , A. A. 2005, , 156, 265, 10.1086/426507

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    R., & Winebarger , A

    Cranmer , S. R., & Winebarger , A. R. 2019, , 57, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Hagenaar , H

    DeForest , C. E., Hagenaar , H. J., Lamb , D. A., Parnell , C. E., & Welsch , B. T. 2007, , 666, 576, 10.1086/518994

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Bale , S

    Dudok de Wit , T., Krasnoselskikh , V. V., Bale , S. D., et al. 2020, , 246, 39, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5853

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    B., & Zirker , J

    Dunn , R. B., & Zirker , J. B. 1973, , 33, 281, 10.1007/BF00152419

    1973 doi

  15. [23]

    P., et al

    Fargette , N., Lavraud , B., Rouillard , A. P., et al. 2021, , 919, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1112

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    L., & Handy , B

    Freeland , S. L., & Handy , B. N. 2012, SolarSoft: Programming and data analysis environment for solar physics , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.013

    2012

  17. [25]

    K., Li , Q., Lee , J., Wang , H., & Raouafi , N

    Georgoulis , M. K., Li , Q., Lee , J., Wang , H., & Raouafi , N. 2025, , in preparation

    2025

  18. [26]

    K., Titov , V

    Georgoulis , M. K., Titov , V. S., & Miki \'c , Z. 2012, , 761, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/61

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Cao, W

    Goode, P. R., & Cao, W. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, ed. L. M. Stepp , R. Gilmozzi , & H. J. Hall , 844403, 10.1117/12.925494

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Hollweg , J. V. 1978, , 56, 305, 10.1007/BF00152474

    1978 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Vourlidas , A., & Stenborg , G

    Howard , R. A., Vourlidas , A., & Stenborg , G. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1264226, 10.3389/fspas.2023.1264226

    2023

  22. [30]

    B., Pascoe , D

    Jess , D. B., Pascoe , D. J., Christian , D. J., et al. 2012, , 744, L5, 10.1088/2041-8205/744/1/L5

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 072902, 10.1063/5.0097983

    Johnston , Z., Squire , J., Mallet , A., & Meyrand , R. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 072902, 10.1063/5.0097983

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    1997, , 486, L145, 10.1086/310842

    Kalkofen , W. 1997, , 486, L145, 10.1086/310842

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Bale , S

    Kasper , J. C., Bale , S. D., Belcher , J. W., et al. 2019, , 576, 228, 10.1038/s41586-019-1813-z

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, , 893, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    Krasnoselskikh , V., Larosa , A., Agapitov , O., et al. 2020, , 893, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Bale , S

    Laker , R., Horbury , T. S., Bale , S. D., et al. 2021, , 650, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039354

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Larosa , A., Chen , C. H. K., McIntyre , J. R., Jagarlamudi , V. K., & Sorriso-Valvo , L. 2024, , 686, A238, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450030

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 650, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    Larosa , A., Krasnoselskikh , V., Dudok de Wit , T., et al. 2021, , 650, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 32, 10.1007/s41614-022-00096-y

    Lee , J. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 32, 10.1007/s41614-022-00096-y

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, , 963, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e0

    Lee , J., Wang , H., Wang , J., & Wang , M. 2024, , 963, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e0

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, , 935, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86bf

    Lee , J., Yurchyshyn , V., Wang , H., et al. 2022, , 935, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86bf

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 913, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/abefd1

    Mackenzie Dover , F., Sharma , R., & Erd \'e lyi , R. 2021, , 913, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/abefd1

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, , 929, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aa9

    ---. 2022, , 929, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aa9

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Mallet , A., Squire , J., Chandran , B. D. G., Bowen , T., & Bale , S. D. 2021, , 918, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c12

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    A., de Wijn , A

    Nisenson , P., van Ballegooijen , A. A., de Wijn , A. G., & S \"u tterlin , P. 2003, , 587, 458, 10.1086/368067

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    J., & De Pontieu , B

    Okamoto , T. J., & De Pontieu , B. 2011, , 736, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/736/2/L24

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Parker , E. N. 1958, , 128, 664, 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  39. [47]

    1965, , 4, 666, 10.1007/BF00216273

    ---. 1965, , 4, 666, 10.1007/BF00216273

    1965 doi

  40. [48]

    Parnell , C. E. 2002, , 335, 389, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05618.x

    2002

  41. [49]

    E., DeForest , C

    Parnell , C. E., DeForest , C. E., Hagenaar , H. J., et al. 2009, , 698, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/75

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Stenborg , G., Seaton , D

    Raouafi , N. E., Stenborg , G., Seaton , D. B., et al. 2023 a , , 945, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6c

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Matteini , L., Squire , J., et al

    Raouafi , N. E., Matteini , L., Squire , J., et al. 2023 b , , 219, 8, 10.1007/s11214-023-00952-4

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Badman , S

    Rivera , Y. J., Badman , S. T., Stevens , M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962, 10.1126/science.adk6953

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    J., & Bel , N

    Schwartz , S. J., & Bel , N. 1984, , 137, 128

    1984

  46. [54]

    1877, L'astronomia in Roma nel pontificato DI Pio IX

    Secchi , A. 1877, L'astronomia in Roma nel pontificato DI Pio IX

  47. [55]

    Sharma , R., & Morton , R. J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1301, 10.1038/s41550-023-02070-1

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, , 934, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c11

    Shi , C., Panasenco , O., Velli , M., et al. 2022, , 934, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c11

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Shoda , M., Chandran , B. D. G., & Cranmer , S. R. 2021, , 915, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdbc

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    W., & Leighton , R

    Simon , G. W., & Leighton , R. B. 1964, , 140, 1120, 10.1086/148010

    1964 doi

  51. [59]

    Soler , R., Terradas , J., Oliver , R., & Ballester , J. L. 2019, , 871, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64c

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Squire , J., Chandran , B. D. G., & Meyrand , R. 2020, , 891, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab74e1

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 112903, 10.1063/5.0099924

    Squire , J., Johnston , Z., Mallet , A., & Meyrand , R. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 112903, 10.1063/5.0099924

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    2004, The Sun: An Introduction

    Stix , M. 2004, The Sun: An Introduction

    2004

  55. [63]

    2024, , 692, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452019

    Touresse , J., Pariat , E., Froment , C., et al. 2024, , 692, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452019

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Ulmschneider , P., Zaehringer , K., & Musielak , Z. E. 1991, , 241, 625

    1991

  57. [65]

    2010, , 511, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913085

    Utz , D., Hanslmeier , A., Muller , R., et al. 2010, , 511, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913085

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Nisenson , P., Noyes , R

    van Ballegooijen , A. A., Nisenson , P., Noyes , R. W., et al. 1998, , 509, 435, 10.1086/306471

    1998 doi

  59. [67]

    G., & Maruca , B

    Verscharen , D., Klein , K. G., & Maruca , B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    M., DeForest , C

    Viall , N. M., DeForest , C. E., & Kepko , L. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 139, 10.3389/fspas.2021.735034

    2021

  61. [69]

    M., & Sheeley , N

    Wang , Y. M., & Sheeley , N. R., J. 1990, , 355, 726, 10.1086/168805

    1990 doi

  62. [70]

    2012, , 486, 505, 10.1038/nature11202

    Wedemeyer-B \"o hm , S., Scullion , E., Steiner , O., et al. 2012, , 486, 505, 10.1038/nature11202

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    F., Pariat , E., Squire , J., Touresse , J., & Matteini , L

    Wyper , P. F., Pariat , E., Squire , J., Touresse , J., & Matteini , L. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, SH24A--01

    2024

  64. [72]

    D., & Locans , V

    Zhugzhda , I. D., & Locans , V. 1982, , 76, 77, 10.1007/BF00214131

    1982 doi

  65. [73]

    1988, Astrophysics of the sun

    Zirin , H. 1988, Astrophysics of the sun

    1988

Pith tools

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