Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

As A Matter of State: The role of thermodynamics in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Thermodynamics weakens density–magnetic field link in turbulence

desk verdict Solid, systematic MHD turbulence study on thermodynamics; the main trends hold, but the runaway-cooling run must be explicitly excluded from the fits. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03989 v2 pith:WMJJJLXV submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COphysics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph

Philipp Grete , Brian W. O'Shea , Kris Beckwith This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COphysics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph
keywords MHDturbulenceequationofstateadiabaticindexopticallythincoolingsonicMachnumberdensity–magneticfieldcorrelationFaradayrotationintraclustermedium
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 subsonic, super-Alfvénic, high-beta magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, the equation of state of the gas changes the statistical fingerprints used to interpret astrophysical observations. Through 30 simulations that balance turbulent dissipation with idealized cooling, the authors show that as the adiabatic index rises from isothermal to monatomic, the anticorrelation between density and magnetic field weakens (from about $-0.8$ to about $-0.55$), while the linear slope connecting density fluctuations to sonic Mach number steepens. The result is a degeneracy: the same measured relation between density fluctuations and Mach number can arise from different combinations of equation of state and Mach number. The paper proposes that higher-order moments, such as the skewness of the density distribution, depend mainly on the equation of state and may break that degeneracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a suite of 30 ideal MHD simulations of stationary, thermally balanced turbulence, run with two idealized optically thin cooling functions—linear cooling $L\propto\rho e$ and free-free-like cooling $L\propto\rho^2 e^{1/2}$—with the cooling coefficient chosen to balance turbulent dissipation. The analysis rests on correlation coefficients and probability density functions (mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis) of density, thermal pressure, total pressure, and a Faraday-rotation-derived line-of-sight magnetic field strength, computed over 51 snapshots in the stationary regime ($5T\le t\le10T$). The key relations are the $\rho$–$B$ anticorrelation, whose dependence on $\gamma$ and cooling encodes the shift in the compressible mode balance, and the constant $p_{\rm th}$–$p_B$ anticorrelation that signals total-pressure equilibrium.

What would settle it

Run the same turbulence suite with a realistic, tabulated optically thin cooling curve for a specific plasma such as the intracluster medium, and compare the density–magnetic field correlation coefficients and the density-fluctuation versus Mach number slopes: if the ordering by $\gamma$ weakens, reverses, or vanishes, the idealized cooling functions are responsible for the claimed degeneracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the regime studied—subsonic ($M_s\approx0.2$–$0.6$), super-Alfvénic ($M_a\approx1.8$), and high plasma $\beta$ ($10\lesssim\beta_p\lesssim100$)—the thermal–magnetic pressure anticorrelation is essentially fixed near $-0.8$ regardless of thermodynamics, indicating total-pressure equilibrium. The density–magnetic field anticorrelation, however, is set primarily by the adiabatic index: about $-0.81$ for isothermal gas, $-0.71$ for $\gamma=7/5$, and $-0.64$ (linear cooling) or $-0.55$ (free-free cooling) for $\gamma=5/3$. The linear relation between the standard deviation of logarithmic density and sonic Mach number steepens with $\gamma$, from a slope near $0.48$ in the isothermal case to about $0.66$ for $\gamma=5/3$ with free-free cooling. Because Mach number and thermodynamics shift these relations in the same direction, the authors conclude that inferring Mach numbers from such statistics alone is degenerate, but that higher-order moments may separate the two effects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two idealized cooling functions and the dissipation-balance condition lose energy the way real optically thin plasmas do, closely enough that the reported dependence on $\gamma$ is generic rather than an artifact of the chosen cooling forms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observational estimates of sonic Mach number from density fluctuation amplitudes carry a hidden thermodynamic dependence: the same slope can correspond to different combinations of $\gamma$ and $M_s$.
  • Faraday-rotation-based line-of-sight field strengths stay within about 10 percent of the true field in this regime, so the thermodynamic effect is unlikely to dominate measurement error there.
  • The $\rho$–$B$ anticorrelation is not a clean slow-mode diagnostic outside isothermal turbulence, because its strength changes with $\gamma$ and cooling.
  • Higher-order moments, especially the skewness of the density distribution, are nearly independent of $M_s$ and mainly track $\gamma$, offering a path to break the degeneracy.
  • Kinetic, magnetic, and internal energy spectra are practically identical across equations of state, so spectral shape alone cannot reveal the thermodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that published $M_s$ estimates from intracluster-medium-like observations should carry an additional systematic uncertainty for unknown $\gamma$; the slopes reported here provide a first table for quantifying it.
  • A testable extension would be to repeat the analysis with a realistic, tabulated cooling curve: if the ordering by $\gamma$ persists, the idealized cooling functions are not the controlling factor.
  • The weakening $\rho$–$B$ anticorrelation implies a shift in the mix of slow and fast magnetosonic modes with $\gamma$; synthetic polarization or Faraday rotation maps could search for that shift in observed clusters.
  • We infer that the degeneracy should strengthen in the supersonic regime, where density fluctuations are larger, so extending this suite to higher $M_s$ would sharpen or refute the higher-moment diagnostic.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a suite of 30 ideal MHD simulations of driven, thermally balanced turbulence in the subsonic, super-Alfvenic, high-beta regime, with the equation of state varied between approximately isothermal, gamma = 7/5, and gamma = 5/3, and with no cooling, linear cooling, or free-free-like cooling used to balance turbulent dissipation. The central results are that the energy spectra are insensitive to thermodynamics, that the thermal-magnetic pressure anticorrelation is essentially independent of gamma and cooling (about -0.8), while the density-magnetic field anticorrelation weakens systematically with increasing gamma (from about -0.8 isothermal to about -0.55 for gamma = 5/3 with free-free cooling), and that the slopes of the linear relations between density/pressure fluctuation amplitudes and sonic Mach number steepen with gamma. The paper argues this creates a degeneracy between thermodynamics and Mach number in interpreting observations, which may be broken by higher-order moments.

Significance. If the reported gamma-dependences are robust, this is a useful and timely quantification of a usually neglected thermodynamic axis in MHD turbulence simulations, with direct implications for interpreting Faraday-rotation-based and density-fluctuation-based diagnostics in ICM-like plasmas. The study is carefully set up: it uses a fixed numerical scheme with resolution pairs at 512^3 and 1024^3, an explicit stationarity interval (5T-10T), a published code fork, and a candid limitations section that acknowledges the idealized cooling functions and the narrow parameter range. The comparison to previous isothermal and hydrodynamic work (Nolan et al. 2015; Mohapatra & Sharma 2019) is useful. The main caveat is that the quantitative slopes and the cooling-function dependence rest on a small number of simulations and, as detailed below, on the treatment of one non-stationary run.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.3, 3.3, and Tables 1-2] The manuscript does not state whether the non-stationary, runaway-cooling run M0.70P0.37gamma=5/3 Cool:ff A1.00H is included in the regressions of Table 2 and in the correlation and moment plots. Section 2.3 restricts all statistical results to the stationary interval 5T <= t <= 10T, but Table 1 gives only final values at t = 4T for this run, while Sec. 3.3 says moments are computed for all snapshots of all 30 simulations and that regressions use all outputs of all simulations. If the runaway run contributes, the high-Ms endpoint that anchors the gamma=5/3 free-free slope m = 0.664(5) is a transient thermal-instability tail rather than balanced turbulence, so the steepening with gamma and the weakened rho-B anticorrelation would not be clean thermodynamic statements. Please state explicitly whether this run is excluded, and if so, report the fitted slopes and correlations with the run excluded; the gamma=5/3 free-free branch is also described as only marginally stable at Ms ~ 0.5, so the sensitivity of the fits to this branch's stability should be quantified.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A] The text states that higher resolution leads to slightly weaker rho-B anticorrelations of about the same order as the cooling functions, yet no numerical estimate of this resolution effect is given, and Appendix A demonstrates convergence only for PDFs, not for the correlation coefficients. Because the cooling-function difference at fixed gamma (e.g., -0.64(3) for linear versus -0.55(3) for free-free at gamma = 5/3) is one of the paper's quantitative results, please report the resolution-pair differences from the gray-shaded simulations in Fig. 3 and show explicitly that the cooling trend survives after accounting for resolution.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Table 2] The slopes in Table 2 are fit to 51 temporally correlated snapshots per simulation, with only 3-4 simulations per EOS/cooling combination (and 15-16 for gamma = 5/3 free-free) over the narrow range 0.2 < Ms < 0.6. The quoted standard errors, e.g., 0.664(5), therefore reflect within-run scatter rather than simulation-to-simulation variance, and the comparisons of slopes across EOS and cooling functions may not be statistically robust. Please provide a fit or bootstrap that treats each simulation as an independent sample, for example using time-averaged moments per run, or otherwise quantify the inter-run uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract and Sec. 4.2 contain awkward or ungrammatical phrasings such as the physical properties turbulence and Similarly, with the linear relation between variations in density and thermal pressure with sonic Mach number becomes steeper with increasing gamma; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Table 2] Section 3.3 states that linear fits are performed only when the absolute correlation exceeds 0.9, but Table 2 includes a fit for the isothermal pth kurtosis with Corr = 0.86; please reconcile the criterion with the reported fits.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption of Fig. 7 is internally inconsistent about line styles, referring to solid, dashed, and dotted lines in ways that do not agree with the described convergence comparison; the visual distinction between 512^3 and 1024^3 runs should be made unambiguous.
  4. [Table 1] The runaway run M0.70P0.37gamma=5/3 Cool:ff A1.00H is listed without temporal standard deviations; a brief footnote explaining that these are single-epoch final values would help avoid confusion with the stationary rows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all reported trends are measured simulation outputs, with cooling coefficients as input controls and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical outputs of a simulation suite, not quantities derived from assumptions that already contain them. The adiabatic index gamma and the cooling functions (Eqs. 5 and 6) are prescribed inputs; the cooling coefficient Ccool is chosen through Eq. (7) only to balance turbulent dissipation, and it is never fitted to the reported correlation coefficients or slopes. The density--magnetic-field correlations, PDF moments, and linear fits in Table 2 are computed from the simulated stationary-regime data, so they are not equivalent to the input parameters by construction. The conclusion that the rho--B anticorrelation weakens 'by construction' under a total-pressure equilibrium is a physical interpretation of the measured trend, not a circular derivation. Self-citations, such as Grete et al. (2018) for the stochastic forcing scheme and for the isothermal rho--B anticorrelation, are not load-bearing: the isothermal reference case is independently reproduced in this paper's own run M0.50P1.00isoA1.00H, and the forcing scheme is a numerical method rather than a premise that implies the paper's new findings. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its idealized cooling functions and qualitative scope in Sec. 4.3, which further confirms that the results are presented as empirical trends rather than forced identities. The reviewer's concern about the runaway-cooling run M0.70P0.37gamma=5/3 Cool:ff A1.00H is a potential data-selection or robustness issue, not a circularity issue, because including or excluding that run changes which measured points enter a regression; it does not make the regression equivalent to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: simulations produce the statistics, and the statistics are not tautologically encoded in the setup.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the ideal MHD model, the chosen forcing, the idealized cooling functions, the implicit LES assumption, and the stationarity of the analyzed window. The paper acknowledges the most fragile of these in Sec. 4.3. No new entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen simulation controls are the cooling coefficient and forcing amplitude, which set the target regime but are not fitted to the final statistical relations.

free parameters (2)
  • Cooling coefficient Ccool = 0.018 to 0.412 (per simulation, Table 1)
    Hand-chosen per run to balance turbulent dissipation (Eq. 7). It sets the thermal equilibrium but is not fitted to the reported correlation or slope results.
  • Forcing amplitude a = 0.25 to 1.56 (RMS power, Table 1)
    Chosen by hand to reach the target sonic Mach numbers; another simulation control, not a parameter in the final relations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD equations (Eqs. 1-4) with an ideal gas EOS are the governing model.
    Sec. 2 states the equations; the model neglects kinetic effects and low collisionality, which the paper notes.
  • domain assumption The stochastic forcing is purely solenoidal with a parabolic spectrum peaking at k=2 and represents astrophysical driving.
    Sec. 2.3; the results depend on the compressive-to-solenoidal ratio of the forcing, as the paper discusses for Kowal et al. 2007.
  • domain assumption The idealized cooling functions (linear, Eq. 5, and free-free-like, Eq. 6) approximate optically thin cooling in real plasmas.
    Sec. 2.1 introduces them; Sec. 4.3 limits them to subregimes of a realistic cooling function.
  • domain assumption Numerical dissipation from the finite-volume scheme behaves like explicit viscosity and resistivity (implicit LES).
    Sec. 2.2 says no explicit viscosity or resistivity and cites Simon et al. 2009 and Salvesen et al. 2014 for similarity.
  • domain assumption Statistics in the stationary regime (5T to 10T) are converged in resolution and sampling.
    Appendix A shows PDF convergence, but Sec. 3.2 notes residual resolution effects on correlations.
  • domain assumption The Fourier decomposition using sqrt(rho) u and sqrt(rho) c_s is valid despite violating the inviscid criterion.
    Footnote 2 in Sec. 3.1 explains the expected practical insignificance given small density variations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of As A Matter of State: The role of thermodynamics in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMJJJLXV

@misc{pith2026190803989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: As A Matter of State: The role of thermodynamics in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMJJJLXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03989}
}
abstract

Turbulence simulations play a key role in advancing the general understanding of the physical properties turbulence and in interpreting astrophysical observations of turbulent plasmas. For the sake of simplicity, however, turbulence simulations are often conducted in the isothermal limit. Given that the majority of astrophysical systems are not governed by isothermal dynamics, we aim to quantify the impact of thermodynamics on the physics of turbulence, through varying adiabatic index, $\gamma$, combined with a range of optically thin cooling functions. In this paper, we present a suite of ideal magnetohydrodynamics simulations of thermally balanced stationary turbulence in the subsonic, super-Alfv\'enic, high beta (ratio of thermal to magnetic pressure) regime, where turbulent dissipation is balanced by two idealized cooling functions (approximating linear cooling and free-free emission) and examine the impact of the equation of state by considering cases that correspond to isothermal, monatomic and diatomic gases. We find a strong anticorrelation between thermal and magnetic pressure independent of thermodynamics, whereas the strong anticorrelation between density and magnetic field found in the isothermal case weakens with increasing $\gamma$. Similarly, with the linear relation between variations in density and thermal pressure with sonic Mach number becomes steeper with increasing $\gamma$. This suggests that there exists a degeneracy in these relations with respect to thermodynamics and Mach number in this regime, which is dominated by slow magnetosonic modes. These results have implications for attempts to infer (e.g.) Mach numbers from (e.g.) Faraday rotation measurements, without additional information regarding the thermodynamics of the plasma. However, our results suggest that this degeneracy can be broken by utilizing higher-order moments of observable distribution functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The transient phase in which the initial condi￾tions evolve towards the stationary regime under con￾stant driving lasts for about 3 dynamical times (3 T). In general, all data in the stationary regime presented in the following spans the temporal mean (and variations) between 5T ≤ t ≤ 10T, which excludes an additional 2T between 3T ≤ t ≤ 5T as few simulations took longer to reach approximate equilibira. Despite vary… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean energy spectra of kinetic energy (top row), magnetic energy (middle row), and internal energy (bottom row). The mean is taken over the stationary regime t > 5T and the spectra are compensated by power laws of exponent 4/3, 5/3, and 4/3, respectively. The kinetic energy spectrum is calculated based on the Fourier transform of √ρu and the internal energy spectrum based on √ρcs. All spectra are normalized to unit … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation between the density field ρ and the magnetic field strength B (top) and the correlation between thermal and magnetic pressure (bottom). The left column shows the temporal evolution of the correlations for the same five simulations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean probability density functions (PDF) of the density lnρ, the normalized thermal pressure pth/ hpthi, the normalized total pressure ptot/ hptoti, and normalized deviation of the derived line-of-sight magnetic field strength to the actual one (BLOS − B0)/B0. Normaliz…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistical moments (from left to right mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) of the density, thermal pressure, total pressure, and derived magnetic field strength (top to bottom) versus sonic Mach number Ms in the stationary regime. Each data point corresp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean 2D PDFs of the normalized thermal pressure pth/ hpthi versus density. The mean is covering 51 snapshots in in the stationary regime 5T ≤ t ≤ 10T. For reference, the gray dashed lines indicates pth/ hpthi = ρ. The top row illustrates the same simulations as in [PI…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean probability density functions (PDF) of the density lnρ, the normalized thermal pressure pth/ hpthi, the normalized total pressure ptot/ hptoti, and normalized deviation of the derived line-of-sight magnetic field strength to the actual one (BLOS − B0)/B0. Normaliz…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840404

    Andr´ es, N., Sahraoui, F., Galtier, S., et al. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840404

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    2013, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies, ed

    Beck, R., & Wielebinski, R. 2013, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 641

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Beckwith, K., Grete, P., & O’Shea, B. W. 2019, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 1

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Beckwith, K., Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1180

    2008

  6. [6]

    Beckwith, K., & Stone, J. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 193, 6

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 163 Br¨ uggen, M., & Vazza, F

    Brandenburg, A., & Lazarian, A. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 163 Br¨ uggen, M., & Vazza, F. 2015, Turbulence in the Intracluster Medium, ed. A. Lazarian, M. E. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 599

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2015, Cosmic Rays in Galaxy Clusters and Their Interaction with Magnetic Fields, ed. A. Lazarian, M. E. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 557

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 245

    Brunetti, G., & Lazarian, A. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 245

    2007

  2. [10]

    2012, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 89, 563

    Chernyshov, A., Karelsky, K., & Petrosyan, A. 2012, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 89, 563

    2012

  3. [11]

    A., Ferziger, J

    Clark, R. A., Ferziger, J. H., & Reynolds, W. C. 1979, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 91, 1

    1979

  4. [12]

    Dalcin, L., Mortensen, M., & Keyes, D. E. 2019, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing Dalc´ ın, L., Paz, R., & Storti, M. 2005, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 65, 1108

    2019

  5. [13]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82

    Federrath, C. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82

    2016

  6. [14]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 3297

    Federrath, C., & Banerjee, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 3297

    2015

  7. [15]

    S., & Schmidt, W

    Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., & Schmidt, W. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 688, L79

    2008

  8. [16]

    Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P., & Cabot, W. H. 1991, Physics of Fluids A, 3, 1760

    1991

  9. [17]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 858, L19

    2018

  10. [18]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092311

    Christlieb, A. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092311

    2017

  11. [19]

    G., Schmidt, W., & Schleicher, D

    Grete, P., Vlaykov, D. G., Schmidt, W., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 062317

    2016

  12. [20]

    2007, Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    Grinstein, F., Margolin, L., & Rider, W. 2007, Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  14. [22]

    A., & Lazarian, A

    Kowal, G., Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D. A., & Lazarian, A. 2011, New Journal of Physics, 13, 053001

    2011

  15. [23]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 423

    Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., & Beresnyak, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 423

    2007

  16. [24]

    N., & Stone, J

    Lemaster, M. N., & Stone, J. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1092

    2009

  17. [25]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4881

    Mohapatra, R., & Sharma, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4881

    2019

  18. [26]

    Z., Glover, S

    Molina, F. Z., Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2680

    2012

  19. [27]

    S., Kowal, G., Santos-Lima, R., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E

    Nakwacki, M. S., Kowal, G., Santos-Lima, R., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D. A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 3702

    2016

  20. [28]

    A., Federrath, C., & Sutherland, R

    Nolan, C. A., Federrath, C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 1380

    2015

  21. [29]

    Padoan, P., Jones, B. J. T., & Nordlund, A. P. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 474, 730

    1997

  22. [30]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 40

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 40

    2011

  23. [31]

    1998, Phys

    Passot, T., & V´ azquez-Semadeni, E. 1998, Phys. Rev. E, 58, 4501

    1998

  24. [32]

    2003, A&A, 398, 845

    Passot, T., & V´ azquez-Semadeni, E. 2003, A&A, 398, 845

    2003

  25. [33]

    Begelman, M. C. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 1355

    2014

  26. [34]

    M., Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D

    Santos-Lima, R., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D. A., Nakwacki, M. S., & Kowal, G. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 4866 Thermodynamics in MHD turbulence 15

    2017

  27. [35]

    A., & Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 056501

    2006

  28. [36]

    A., Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Kulsrud, R. M., Rosin, M. S., & Heinemann, T. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 081301

    2008

  29. [37]

    Niemeyer, J. C. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 494, 127

    2009

  30. [38]

    B., Hawley, J

    Simon, J. B., Hawley, J. F., & Beckwith, K. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 690, 974

    2009

  31. [39]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. 2009, New Astronomy, 14, 139

    2009

  32. [40]

    Simon, J. B. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 137

    2008

  33. [41]

    V., Porter, D

    Sytine, I. V., Porter, D. H., Woodward, P. R., Hodson, S. W., & Winkler, K.-H. 2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 158, 225

    2000

  34. [42]

    M., Cattaneo, F., & Boldyrev, S

    Tobias, S. M., Cattaneo, F., & Boldyrev, S. 2013, in Ten Chapters in Turbulence, ed. P. Davidson, Y. Kaneda, & K. Sreenivasan (Cambridge University Press), 351

    2013

  35. [43]

    2014, Computing in Science & Engineering, 16, 62 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Towns, J., Cockerill, T., Dahan, M., et al. 2014, Computing in Science & Engineering, 16, 62 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22

    2014

  36. [44]

    H., & Chen, S

    Yang, Y., Shi, Y., Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., & Chen, S. 2016, Phys. Rev. E, 93, 061102

    2016

  37. [45]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 85

    Yoon, H., Cho, J., & Kim, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 85

    2016

  38. [46]

    2018, Phys

    Zhao, D., & Aluie, H. 2018, Phys. Rev. Fluids, 3, 054603 16 Grete, O’Shea & Beckwith APPENDIX A. CONVERGENCE OF SIMULATIONS 0.5 0.0 0.5 ln / 0 1 2 3 4 PDF 0.5 1.0 1.5 pth/ pth 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 1.0 1.5 ptot/ ptot 0 2 4 6 8 2.5 0.0 2.5 (BLOS B0)/B0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 M0.35P0.91 = 5/3 ...

    2018

Pith tools

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