Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Magnetic Field Amplification and Reconstruction in Rotating Astrophysical Plasmas: Verifying the Roles of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Dynamo Action

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a rotating plasma dynamo, turbulent magnetic diffusion—not the alpha effect—is the main amplifier of the large-scale field.

desk verdict The β-dominance claim is an artifact of the gauge degeneracy at near-maximal helicity; the new βbb+jb term is the real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01300 v3 pith:W727LEJQ submitted 2025-02-03 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

Kiwan Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords dynamotheoryalphaeffectturbulentmagneticdiffusionnegativediffusivitykinetichelicitydirectnumericalsimulationmean-fieldelectrodynamics
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 in a rotating, helically forced spherical plasma, the magnetic beta diffusion—the turbulent diffusion coefficient of the large-scale field—is the dominant agent of field amplification, not the alpha effect. It derives alpha and beta directly from simulation data for large-scale magnetic energy and helicity, reconstructs the large-scale field with a simple scalar growth equation, and finds that the reconstruction matches the simulation only when beta is allowed to be negative and to include magnetic-fluctuation corrections. In the early kinematic regime, alpha is nearly irrelevant; in the nonlinear regime, alpha matters only for sustaining the saturated field. If correct, standard dynamo thinking that treats alpha as the amplifier and beta as passive dissipation would need to be reordered.

What carries the argument

The central object is a pair of coupled ordinary differential equations for large-scale magnetic helicity $H_M$ and energy $E_M$, $\partial H_M/\partial t = 4\alpha E_M - 2(\beta+\eta)H_M$ and $\partial E_M/\partial t = \alpha H_M - 2(\beta+\eta)E_M$, whose exact solutions are rearranged to express $\alpha_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$ as time-derivatives of logarithms of $(2E_M \pm H_M)$. The reconstruction then reduces the vector induction equation to a one-dimensional scalar iteration for the large-scale field amplitude, $B[j+1] = B[j] + (\mathrm{sign}\,\alpha[j] - \beta[j] - \eta)\,B[j]\,\Delta t$, with the sign set by the hemisphere's kinetic helicity. Because $\beta$ enters through $\beta\nabla^2 \to -\beta k^2$, a negative $\beta$ acts as amplification rather than diffusion; the paper's $\beta_{\mathrm{vv-vw}}$ from kinetic data misses magnetic quenching, and adding $\beta_{\mathrm{bb+jb}}$ from $\langle b^2\rangle$ and current helicity $\langle j\cdot b\rangle$ stabilizes the nonlinear regime. These identities carry the argument by converting raw DNS spectra into the coefficients that are then weighted to test each effect's role.

What would settle it

Run the same DNS but set the extracted $\beta$ to zero while leaving $\alpha$ at full strength in the reconstruction; the paper's claim predicts the field should fail to grow. Conversely, repeat the full three-dimensional mean-field induction equation with the same $\alpha$ and $\beta$ profiles instead of the scalar iteration; a mismatch between the 3D reconstruction and the DNS would show that the scalar model, not the physics, is responsible for the apparent $\beta$ dominance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under helical kinetic forcing with opposite signs of kinetic helicity in the two hemispheres, the paper derives transport coefficients from the coupled evolution of large-scale magnetic helicity $H_M$ and energy $E_M$, giving $\alpha_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$ as logarithmic time-derivatives of combinations of $H_M$ and $E_M$. It also builds $\beta_{\mathrm{vv-vw}}$ from turbulent kinetic energy and kinetic helicity, and adds $\beta_{\mathrm{bb+jb}}$ from magnetic energy and current helicity to cure unbounded growth in the nonlinear regime. Reconstructing the large-scale field amplitude with the iteration $B[j+1] = B[j] + (\mathrm{sign}\,\alpha[j] - \beta[j] - \eta)\,B[j]\,\Delta t$, the author finds that the pair $(\alpha_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}, \beta_{\mathrm{EM-HM}})$ tracks the DNS throughout, while a velocity-only $\beta$ fails after $t \approx 250$. Weighted sensitivity experiments then show that cutting $\beta$ below roughly 10\,--\,15\% stops field growth entirely, whereas changing the sign or magnitude of $\alpha$ leaves the early growth almost unchanged; $\alpha$ becomes relevant only as the field saturates. The central claim is that magnetic $\beta$ diffusion, including its negative contribution, is the main driver of large-scale field amplification, with $\alpha$ acting as a maintenance term in the nonlinear regime.

Load-bearing premise

The entire role-sorting experiment rests on the scalar reconstruction model, which represents each hemisphere's large-scale field by a single positive amplitude whose growth is governed by $B[j+1] = B[j] + (\mathrm{sign}\,\alpha[j] - \beta[j] - \eta)\,B[j]\,\Delta t$; if spatial structure, shear, polarity reversals, or tensorial coupling matter, the weighted $\alpha$/$\beta$ sensitivities may not transfer to the full dynamo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mean-field dynamo reconstructions should rank $\beta$, including negative turbulent diffusion, as the primary growth agent instead of treating it as passive dissipation.
  • Any transport-coefficient model that computes $\beta$ only from velocity correlations will diverge in the nonlinear regime; magnetic-fluctuation terms ($\langle b^2\rangle$ and current helicity) are required for bounded saturation.
  • Weighted experiments imply a sharp threshold: if effective $\beta$ falls below roughly 10\,--\,15\% of its natural value, large-scale field growth ceases.
  • The $\alpha$ effect is not a growth driver in the kinematic phase; its role is to shape and sustain the saturated state, so observations of the saturated profile cannot be used to infer $\alpha$'s amplifying power.
  • Negative magnetic diffusivity is not a mathematical curiosity but an operating mechanism in this dynamo: $\beta\nabla^2 \to -\beta k^2$ converts diffusion into amplification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the scalar reconstruction has no spatial structure or shear, the cleanest test of the paper's ranking is to embed the same $\alpha$ and $\beta$ profiles in the full axisymmetric dynamo equations; if the 3D reconstruction also shows $\beta$ dominance, the result is robust, and if not, the conclusion is an artifact of the reduced model.
  • The apparent dominance of $\beta$ may be tied to this particular forcing: single-scale fully helical kinetic forcing with $\mathrm{Re}_M \approx 261$. In shear-dominated or boundary-forced dynamos, where $\alpha$ acts through a different coupling, the balance could shift; that is an extrapolation from this paper, not its claim.
  • A testable extension is to suppress small-scale current helicity in the DNS and watch whether the large-scale field grows faster, since $\beta_{\mathrm{bb+jb}}$ with current helicity is what quenches growth in the nonlinear regime.
  • The sign of $\beta$ derived from large-scale data is negative in both hemispheres; measuring the effective magnetic diffusivity from energy-transfer spectra would give an independent check of the negative-diffusion 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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a rotating, helically forced MHD dynamo in a periodic box and extracts mean-field dynamo coefficients from direct numerical simulations by three methods: (i) αEM−HM and βEM−HM from the time derivatives of large-scale magnetic energy and helicity, (ii) βvv−vw from turbulent kinetic energy and kinetic helicity, and (iii) βbb+jb from turbulent magnetic energy and current helicity. These coefficients are inserted into a scalar induction equation for the large-scale field amplitude, and the reconstructed fields are compared with the DNS. The paper's central claim is that β diffusion dominates magnetic field amplification throughout the evolution, while α is minor in the kinematic regime and only becomes important for sustaining the saturated field. The manuscript also contains a physical discussion of helicity and the roles of kinetic and current helicity in the dynamo process.

Significance. If the central claim were established, it would be a substantial challenge to the usual α-dominated mean-field dynamo picture and would motivate re-examination of negative turbulent diffusion as the primary growth mechanism. The paper's strength is its concrete effort to compare several closure-based reconstructions against DNS, including an explicit scalar reconstruction formula and a derivation of a β that incorporates magnetic fluctuations. However, the central verification is not established by the present analysis: the (αEM−HM, βEM−HM) pair is constructed from the same DNS time series used as the target, and in the scalar evolution model only the gauge-invariant combination sign·α − β − η is observable, so the separate dominance of β over α is not supported by the data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and IDL snippet after Figs. 6–7] The (αEM−HM, βEM−HM) reconstruction is tautological. From Eq. (11), 2EM(t) + HM(t) = (2EM0 + HM0) exp[2∫(α − β − η)dτ], so α − β − η = (1/2) d/dt ln(2EM + HM). Because the IDL reconstruction evolves B = sqrt(2EM(k=1)) with dB/dt = (sign·α − β − η)B, this ODE simply integrates back the time derivative of the same DNS series used to define α and β via Eqs. (13)–(14). The agreement in Figs. 6(c) and 6(d) for the EM−HM model is therefore by construction and does not independently validate the coefficient split or the underlying dynamo model.
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (13)–(14), and Fig. 8] The scalar reconstruction makes only the combination g = sign·α − β − η observable: the transformation α → α + c, β → β + sign·c leaves g and hence B(t) exactly unchanged. The weighted-sensitivity experiments in Fig. 8 vary α and β separately, but because the model is invariant under this transformation, those separate variations have no unique physical meaning. This degeneracy is not merely formal: the DNS shows f_hm ≈ ∓1 at k = 1 in Figs. 4(c) and 4(d), so the denominators 2EM ± HM in Eqs. (13)–(14) are near zero, making the two coupled equations (9)–(10) nearly redundant. Consequently, the headline conclusion that β diffusion dominates α is not supported by the data presented.
  3. [IDL snippet and §3.3] The reconstruction represents the large-scale field by a single positive amplitude per hemisphere and ignores spatial structure, tensorial transport coefficients, shear, and polarity reversals. The scalar ODE B[j+1] = B[j] + (sign·α[j] − β[j] − η)B[j]Δt is an additional modeling assumption, not a consequence of the DNS. Without a demonstration that this one-dimensional reduction captures the dynamics relevant to the α/β sensitivity, the conclusions from the weighted experiments in Fig. 8 cannot be transferred to the full dynamo system.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (20), and Fig. 7] The improved coefficient βvv−vw + βbb+jb depends on the eddy turnover time τ and the correlation vector l through Eqs. (16)–(20). The reconstruction uses τ = 1 and l = 2π/3 without an independent measurement or a sensitivity study for these values. Because the suppression of the nonlinear divergence in Fig. 7(b) is the main evidence for this model, the quantitative support is incomplete without an assessment of the sensitivity of B(t) to τ and l.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The text first reports ReM = 261 and then, from Urms ≈ 0.14 and Brms ≈ 0.25, obtains Re ≈ 146 and ReM ≈ 241; the discrepancy between the two stated values of ReM should be reconciled.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The label 'βV V−HV' in Figs. 6(c) and 6(d) is inconsistent with the notation βvv−vw used in the text and in Table 1; the same quantity should have one name.
  3. [Appendix, §5.2] The text refers to 'Eq. (35) in Appendix' for the second-order moment identity, but the equation labeled (35) appears to be blank; the referenced identity should be displayed.
  4. [§3.2 and IDL snippet] The choice l = 2π/3 for the correlation length in the reconstruction is stated without justification; the manuscript should explain how this value is derived from the simulation or the forcing scale.
  5. [Data Availability] The data availability statement mentions online supplementary material but gives no repository link or identifier; a URL or DOI is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The headline verification of the alpha/beta dynamo roles is tautological: Eqs. (13)-(14) define alpha and beta from the DNS energy/helicity, and the reconstruction evolves B through the same combination, making the 'successful reproduction' and the 'beta-dominant, alpha-minor' conclusion an artifact of the chosen gauge.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.3, IDL snippet after Figs. 6 and 7; Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (13)-(14)]
    "B[j+1] = B[j] + (sign*alpha[j]-beta[j]-eta)*B[j]*(time[j+1]-time[j]) ... αEM−HM = (1/4) d/dt ln |(2EM+HM)/(2EM−HM)|, βEM−HM = −(1/4) d/dt ln |(2EM−HM)(2EM+HM)| − η. ... Substituting this result into Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) confirms equality between the left and right sides."

    For sign=+1, sign·α−β−η = (1/2)d/dt ln(2E+H); for sign=−1 it equals (1/2)d/dt ln(2E−H). The discrete update therefore integrates to B(t)=B0[(2E(t)+sign H(t))/(2E(0)+sign H(0))]^{1/2}. Since B0=sqrt(2E(0)) and the k=1 DNS has H≈sign·2E (f_hm→±1), this gives B(t)=sqrt(2E(t)), exactly the DNS amplitude used to construct α and β. The 'accurate reproduction' from (α_EM−HM, β_EM−HM) is therefore an identity, not an independent prediction.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.3, Figs. 4(c,d) and 8 and surrounding text; Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (9)-(10)]
    "On the other hand, fhm converges to −1 when k = 1 ... The opposite phenomenon occurs in the Northern Hemisphere ... However, these results repeatedly demonstrate that the β effect plays a more important role in the amplification of the large-scale magnetic field."

    With H=sign·2E at k=1, Eqs. (9)-(10) become linearly dependent. The reparametrization α→α+c, β→β+sign·c leaves both ODEs and the reconstructed combination sign·α−β−η unchanged, so the DNS time series fixes only this combination, not α and β separately. Individual magnitudes of α_EM−HM and β_EM−HM are fixed only by the gauge choice in Eqs. (13)-(14). The weighted sensitivity scans of Fig. 8 that vary α and β independently therefore probe gauge-dependent quantities, and the conclusion that β dominates while α is minor is not an independent physical finding.

full rationale

The paper contains some genuinely non-circular material: β_vv−vw from turbulent kinetic data and β_bb+jb from turbulent magnetic/current-helicity data are independent of the reconstruction identity, and their comparison with β_EM−HM provides real information. However, the paper's central verification claim rests on (α_EM−HM, β_EM−HM). Because Eqs. (13)-(14) are exact inversions of the EM/HM evolution equations (9)-(10), using them in the scalar B-update makes the reproduced field equal to the DNS field by construction rather than by independent dynamical modeling. The quoted near-maximal helical states (f_hm → ±1 at k=1) make the two evolution equations redundant and introduce an exact gauge freedom α→α+c, β→β+sign·c. Consequently the headline assertion that 'magnetic β diffusion plays a dominant role ... while the α effect is minor' is not uniquely determined by the DNS data; it is a property of the particular gauge selected by Eqs. (13)-(14). This is a self-definitional reduction of the central claim, not merely a self-citation issue, so the score is high. It is not 10 because the turbulent-energy-based β formulas and the MFT comparison are independent inputs that are not themselves tautological.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on a mean-field closure, a closed two-ODE system for HM and EM, and a scalar single-mode reconstruction. The coefficients extracted from large-scale EM and HM are not independent of the target field. The kinetic and magnetic β expressions require τ and l as input parameters, which are chosen rather than measured. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • eddy turnover time τ = set to 1
    Assumed short correlation time; enters Eqs. (15), (16), (18), and (20) and sets the overall amplitude of βvv-vw and βbb+jb. It is not measured from the DNS.
  • correlation length l = 2π/3
    Used in βvv-vw, βbb+jb, and the reconstruction; not derived independently from the simulation, and the forcing-scale value would be 2π/5, so this choice is effectively tuned.
  • scale separation cutoff k = k=1 for large scale, k=2..kmax for turbulent
    The split between mean and turbulent fields defines all α and β values. The paper chooses this cutoff without an independent justification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field closure: ⟨u×b⟩ = αB - β∇×B with scalar α and β in each hemisphere.
    Used throughout, e.g., Eqs. (4)-(7); ignores tensorial αij, βijk, cross-helicity, and anisotropic contributions.
  • domain assumption The coupled ODEs (9)-(10) for HM and EM are closed and valid at k=1.
    Inversion of these ODEs yields Eqs. (13)-(14); assumes no other source or flux terms and that α, β are constant over the averaging time.
  • ad hoc to paper A single scalar amplitude B with d ln B/dt = sign*α - β - η represents the large-scale field.
    Used in the IDL reconstruction; ignores spatial structure, shear, and polarity reversal, and treats B as a positive RMS amplitude.
  • standard math Statistical second-order moment identities Eqs. (33)-(34) hold under isotropy and incompressibility.
    Basis of the βvv-vw and βbb+jb derivations; standard in turbulence closure but approximate.
  • domain assumption The magnetic helicity evolution underlying Eqs. (9)-(10) uses the standard 2η⟨J·B⟩ form.
    The paper cites prior work for this evolution rather than deriving it here; the closed form depends on the neglected higher-order terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Field Amplification and Reconstruction in Rotating Astrophysical Plasmas: Verifying the Roles of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Dynamo Action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W727LEJQ

@misc{pith2026250201300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Field Amplification and Reconstruction in Rotating Astrophysical Plasmas: Verifying the Roles of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Dynamo Action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W727LEJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01300}
}
abstract

We investigated the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ effects in a rotating spherical plasma system relevant to astrophysical environments. These coefficients were derived using three different approaches based on the large-scale magnetic field $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$, turbulent velocity $\mathbf{u}$, and turbulent magnetic field $\mathbf{b}$, yielding $\alpha_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{EM-HM}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{vv-vw}}$, and $\beta_{\mathrm{bb+jb}}$. Using raw data from direct numerical simulations (DNS), we constructed the magnetic induction equation incorporating the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ coefficients. We then reproduced the $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ field and compared the results with the DNS data. In the kinematic regime, where $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ is weak, all models exhibit good agreement with the DNS results. However, in the nonlinear regime, the $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ field, reproduced using $\beta_{\mathrm{vv-vw}}$, deviates from the DNS and exhibits unbounded growth. To address this discrepancy, we added $\beta_{\mathrm{bb+jb}}$, which represents the contribution of turbulent magnetic fields, to $\beta_{\mathrm{vv-vw}}$. This addition suppresses the divergent growth of $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ in the nonlinear regime. We then assessed the actual influence of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on the evolution of $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ by applying weighted combinations of the two coefficients. Our results show that magnetic $\beta$ diffusion plays a dominant role throughout the entire process. In contrast, the $\alpha$ effect is minor in the kinematic regime but becomes essential for sustaining the $\overline{\mathbf{B}}$ field in the nonlinear regime. We also discussed the underlying physical mechanism responsible for this behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of magnetic fields in the northern and southern hemisphere. Note the directions of kinetic helicity and current density in each hemisphere. A representative example of the magnetic field generated in the rotating spherical plasma system is the evolution of the solar magnetic field. The Sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle, known as the Hale cycle, involves the strengthening, weakening, and polarity reversal of its… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Right handed ⟨u · ω⟩ in southern hemisphere. The plasma flux, buoyed toward the surface, is twisted clockwise by the Coriolis force, generating right-handed kinetic helicity as a result. Note that kinetic effects generate kinetic helicity, not the magnetic flux. (b) Left handed ⟨j0 · B0⟩ and right handed ⟨j1 · bind⟩ by right handed ⟨u · ω⟩. field (Btor2) through differential rotation(α − Ω effect). Btor2 flows i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: southern hemisphere (positive kinetic helicity), right panel: northern hemisphere (negative kinetic helicity) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a), (b) Current helicity, defined as HC = k 2 ⟨A · B⟩ is used because ⟨A · B⟩ becomes small at k > 2. conventional understanding of the relative roles of the α and β effects and highlight the importance of a more precise analysis of the β diffusivity for a deeper unde…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a), (b) αMF T (→ αjb−vw) reflects its dependence on the sign of externally provided kinetic helicity. (c), (d) Unlike α, the β coefficient does not change its sign in response to the sign of kinetic helicity. βEM−HM exhibits significant fluctuations after t > 250, but…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a), (b) Comparison of the EMF reconstructed by substituting α and β. The values of αEM−HM and βEM−HM show good agreement with the directly measured EMF, ⟨u×b⟩. In contrast, βVV−VW deviates after t ∼ 250. (c), (d) Large-scale magnetic field B reconstructed using differ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) β derived from turbulent velocity and magnetic fields (see Eq. (20). (b) New large-scale magnetic fields including both turbulent kinetic and magnetic effects (red dot-dot-dot-dashed line). (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Evolution of large-scale magnetic fields reconstructed by varying the weight of α from +100% to −100%, while keeping the full β unchanged. (b) B field evolution with varying β from +100% to 15%, under the full α effect. (B → 0 under β <15%) where τ is the correlati…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, apj, 811, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/135

    Andrievsky , A., Brandenburg , A., Noullez , A., & Zheligovsky , V. 2015, apj, 811, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/135 2015

  2. [2]

    B., & Weber , H

    Arfken , G. B., & Weber , H. J. 2005, Mathematical methods for physicists 6th ed

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Babcock , H. W. 1961, apj, 133, 572, 10.1086/147060

    doi:10.1086/147060 1961

  4. [4]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 824, 10.1086/319783

    Brandenburg , A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 824, 10.1086/319783

    work page doi:10.1086/319783 2001

  5. [5]

    1999, Geophysical Monograph Series, 111, 301, 10.1029/GM111p0301

    Brown , M., Canfield , R., Field , G., et al. 1999, Geophysical Monograph Series, 111, 301, 10.1029/GM111p0301

    work page doi:10.1029/gm111p0301 1999

  6. [6]

    2014, prl, 113, 184501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.184501

    Cabanes , S., Schaeffer , N., & Nataf , H.-C. 2014, prl, 113, 184501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.184501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.184501 2014

  7. [7]

    2007, Advances in Space Research, 39, 1661, 10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.040

    Charbonneau , P. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 39, 1661, 10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.040 2007

  8. [8]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 251, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040012

    ---. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 251, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040012

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040012 2014

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1651, 10.1093/mnras/stt590

    Devlen , E., Brandenburg , A., & Mitra , D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1651, 10.1093/mnras/stt590

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 68, 769, 10.1017/S002211207500122X

    Frisch , U., Pouquet , A., Leorat , J., & Mazure , A. 1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 68, 769, 10.1017/S002211207500122X

    1975 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, New Journal of Physics, 16, 073034, 10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073034

    Giesecke , A., Stefani , F., & Gerbeth , G. 2014, New Journal of Physics, 16, 073034, 10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073034

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2002, Classical mechanics

    Goldstein , H., Poole , C., & Safko , J. 2002, Classical mechanics

    2002

  5. [13]

    S., Arlt , R., et al

    Jouve , L., Brun , A. S., Arlt , R., et al. 2008, aap, 483, 949, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078351

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Korpi , M

    K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., Korpi , M. J., & Brandenburg , A. 2009, aap, 500, 633, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811498

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    1980, Mean-field magnetohydrodynamics and dynamo theory , ed

    Krause , F., & R\"adler , K. 1980, Mean-field magnetohydrodynamics and dynamo theory , ed. Goodman, L. J. & Love, R. N. (Oxford, Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1980. 271 p.)

    1980

  8. [16]

    1999, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 91, 131, 10.1080/03091929908203701

    Lanotte , A., Noullez , A., Vergassola , M., & Wirth , A. 1999, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 91, 131, 10.1080/03091929908203701

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    2008, Turbulence in Fluids

    Lesieur , M. 2008, Turbulence in Fluids

    2008

  10. [18]

    Moffatt , H. K. 1978, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids , ed. Moffatt, H. K. (Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1978. 353 p.)

    1978

  11. [19]

    2020, apj, 898, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b89

    Park , K. 2020, apj, 898, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b89

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, , 111, 023021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023021

    ---. 2025, , 111, 023021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023021

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Park , K., & Blackman , E. G. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 913, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19693.x

    2012

  14. [22]

    K., & Kim , C.-B

    Park , K., Cheoun , M. K., & Kim , C.-B. 2023, , 944, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf9

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Parker , E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293, 10.1086/146087

    1955 doi

  16. [24]

    V., & Pevtsov, A

    Pipin, V. V., & Pevtsov, A. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/21

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    1976, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 77, 321, 10.1017/S0022112076002140

    Pouquet , A., Frisch , U., & Leorat , J. 1976, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 77, 321, 10.1017/S0022112076002140

    1976 doi

  18. [26]

    Racine , \'E ., Charbonneau , P., Ghizaru , M., Bouchat , A., & Smolarkiewicz , P. K. 2011, , 735, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/46

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, , 985, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcec0

    Rogachevskii , I., Kleeorin , N., & Brandenburg , A. 2025, , 985, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/adcec0

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 245, 10.1002/asna.200410384

    Schrinner , M., R \"a dler , K.-H., Schmitt , D., Rheinhardt , M., & Christensen , U. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 245, 10.1002/asna.200410384

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    2013, , 768, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/16

    Simard , C., Charbonneau , P., & Bouchat , A. 2013, , 768, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/16

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, Hydrodynamic and Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulent Flows (Springer)

    Yoshizawa , A. 2011, Hydrodynamic and Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulent Flows (Springer)

    2011

  23. [31]

    2010, , 402, L30, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00793.x

    Zhang , H., Sakurai , T., Pevtsov , A., et al. 2010, , 402, L30, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00793.x

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.