Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

An Acoustic Model for Sunquakes Unifying the Solar Interior and Atmosphere

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Particle beams that make sunquakes also make Moreton waves

desk verdict A genuinely new, clearly explained attempt to unite sunquakes, Moreton waves, and EUV fronts under one beam-driven acoustic model, but the quantitative Moreton result rests on a linear model doing nonlinear work. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06848 v1 pith:YV2QWZXC submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.SR

John Stefan , Alexander Kosovichev This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solaroscillationssunquakesMoretonwavescoronalpropagatingfrontsparticlebeamheatingtransitionregionrefractionflareseismology
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

The paper establishes that a single flare-particle-beam event can simultaneously excite three classes of waves that are usually studied separately: sunquakes in the solar interior, large-scale propagating fronts in the corona, and Moreton waves in the chromosphere. To do this it pushes a semi-spectral 3D acoustic model of the whole Sun up into the transition region and lower corona, and drives the model with height-dependent heating and pressure-perturbation profiles taken from radiative-hydrodynamic flare simulations. The load-bearing result is an acoustic mechanism for the Moreton wave's long-known puzzle: the fast coronal wavefront refracts across the transition region, and every point it touches acts as a new source of a downward chromospheric wave; because the coronal front travels at about 75 km/s while the chromospheric sound speed is about 7 km/s, the chain of downward waves appears to sweep horizontally at roughly 117 km/s. If the mechanism holds, apparent supersonic Moreton waves need no true supersonic chromospheric motion, and Moreton/EUV waves without coronal mass ejections can be explained by beam heating alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is a semi-spectral 3D acoustic model of the Sun whose domain is extended upward through the transition region and lower corona. It couples a standard solar interior model to a semi-empirical chromosphere-corona atmosphere model, solves the linear adiabatic wave equations spectrally in horizontal angle and with a fourth-order finite difference in radius, and expands solutions in spherical harmonics up to angular degree 6000 over 1378 radial grid points. The model is driven by two source prescriptions derived from radiative-hydrodynamic flare simulations: an acceleration method using pressure perturbations and a heating method converting volumetric heating into pressure pert

What would settle it

Run the same beam-heating profiles in a nonlinear magnetohydrodynamic model with a realistic magnetic field: the paper's refraction chain predicts a downward vertical wavefront just below the transition region whose arrival time is set by the coronal sound speed. If the wave instead propagates as a fast magnetosonic shock at the local magnetosonic speed, with no refraction delay, the mechanism is falsified. Observationally, high-cadence H-alpha and EUV Doppler data across a Moreton event should show the chromospheric front's onset delay growing with distance from the source at the coronal-fron

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a linear adiabatic acoustic model whose domain extends from the solar interior through the transition region and lower corona, the authors simulate the response to particle-beam energy deposition prescribed by radiative-hydrodynamic flare simulations. For proton and electron beams with a power-law energy distribution, the model produces a sunquake wavefront in the photosphere, a fast outward coronal wavefront, and a chromospheric wavefront whose horizontal track moves at about 117 km/s while the local sound speed in the chromosphere is only about 7 km/s. The apparent supersonic speed is not a chromospheric propagation speed: the coronal wave, traveling at about 75 km/s in the low coron

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chromosphere and corona behave as a linear, adiabatic, non-magnetic acoustic gas; in the real low-beta solar atmosphere the waves are fast magnetosonic and shock-forming, so the transition-region refraction chain and the 117 km/s apparent speed could differ or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single particle-beam source can excite all three wave classes, so Moreton waves and coronal fronts observed without a coronal mass ejection need not require a different driver.
  • The Moreton wave's apparent supersonic speed is a projection of the fast coronal wave's horizontal travel, not a real supersonic disturbance moving through the chromosphere.
  • Electron beams, which in the simulations give weak sunquake signals but strong Moreton-like fronts, predict Moreton/EUV waves unaccompanied by detectable sunquakes; proton beams predict the opposite, offering an observational discriminator.
  • The sign of the initial photospheric radial velocity beneath the source differs between proton and electron beams, so Doppler observations of sunquake sources could diagnose the beam composition.
  • The simulated Moreton-analogue wave has a downflow at its leading edge, matching the observed H-alpha red-wing absorption and blue-wing enhancement signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to rerun the same beam-heated source profiles in nonlinear magnetohydrodynamic simulations with a background magnetic field; the refraction chain would survive where the fast magnetosonic speed stratification follows the sound-speed profile and break where it does not.
  • The electron-beam amplitude ratios imply a specific observational census: events with clear Moreton/EUV fronts but no detectable sunquake should be electron-beam dominated, while strong sunquake events with weak or absent Moreton fronts would point to proton beams.
  • Because the apparent horizontal speed equals the coronal sound speed at the height where the wave crosses the transition region, the model predicts a measurable correlation between coronal temperature and observed Moreton-wave speed variations across events.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the semi-spectral 3D acoustic model of Stefan & Kosovichev (2020) upward through the chromosphere and lower corona, and excites it with RADYN-derived heating profiles for power-law proton and electron beams. Two source prescriptions are compared: an acceleration source from RADYN pressure perturbations and a pressure-rate source from volumetric heating. The simulations produce a sunquake, a chromospheric Moreton-like wavefront, and a coronal wavefront. The central interpretation is that the chromospheric wavefront is not truly supersonic; it is a local-sound-speed response to a coronal wave sweeping along the transition region, yielding an apparent horizontal speed of 117 km/s. The paper also reports species-dependent amplitude ratios and photospheric velocity signs, and proposes electron beams as a source of Moreton waves without detectable sunquakes.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a single beam-driven mechanism that simultaneously produces sunquake, Moreton-like, and LCPF-like waves, and a geometric/sweeping explanation for the apparent supersonic Moreton speed without imposing that speed. The agreement between the two source-injection methods on the main wave pattern is a strength, as is the emergence of the Moreton-like speed from prescribed heating and background stratification. The paper also yields falsifiable, if preliminary, predictions: relative Moreton-to-sunquake amplitudes depend on beam species, and photospheric velocity sign depends on beam species. The main caveat is that the atmospheric conclusions rest on a linear, adiabatic, non-magnetic model whose limitations the authors explicitly acknowledge (Section 4); the significance is therefore conditional on those limitations being quantified or tested with nonlinear MHD simulations.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 (seed-wave formation) vs Section 2.1] Section 3 describes the coronal seed wave as produced by an 'expanding region of over-pressure', by outflows that 'collide with the surrounding stationary plasma, increasing the local density', and by overdense plasma that 'falls since hydrostatic equilibrium is lost'. These are nonlinear advective and gravitational descriptions, but Section 2.1 states that 'non-linear perturbations are removed' from Equations (1)-(3). Convergent flows and acoustic-gravity oscillations can be represented linearly, but 'collisions' and the loss of hydrostatic equilibrium as described are not mechanisms available to the linearized system. Since the apparent Moreton speed in Figure 4 is set by this seed wave's travel time, the paper should show that the seed wave is a small-amplitude linear wave of the model, or provide a nonlinear calculation. Section 4's statement that the atmospheric wavefronts have 'sup
  2. [Section 4 (non-magnetic approximation)] The atmospheric and Moreton conclusions are drawn from a purely acoustic model, while observed Moreton and EUV waves are generally understood as fast magnetosonic disturbances in a low-beta corona. The paper itself says the analogies are 'purely qualitative', yet the abstract and Section 4 claim to explain the apparent supersonic nature of Moreton waves. In a magnetized plasma the relevant speed is sqrt(c_s^2 + v_A^2), the transition-region refraction depends on field orientation, and mode conversion changes the wave that reaches the chromosphere. The 117 km/s sweeping mechanism could change or disappear. I request a quantitative estimate of the fast-mode speed stratification for representative coronal field strengths and a discussion of whether the sweeping geometry survives oblique fields, or a clear downgrade of the Moreton claim to a purely acoustic analogue.
  3. [Section 4/Figure 4 (boundary reflections)] Section 4 notes that the coronal wave reflects at the upper boundary despite non-reflecting conditions, and that the Moreton-like wave reflects at the photosphere, exciting additional coronal waves. The time-distance data in Figure 4 extend to 700 s, and the amplitude ratios in Section 3 are measured after the first reflected signals may re-enter the region. The damping scheme was designed for p-modes, not atmospheric waves, so these reflections may contaminate the quoted 117 km/s speed and the Moreton-to-sunquake amplitude ratios. Please mark reflected arrival times on the time-distance diagrams, or perform a sensitivity test with a larger/absorbing domain.
  4. [Section 3 (apparent speed scaling)] The quoted apparent speed is 117 km/s, but the model's coronal sound speed just above the transition region is 75 km/s and the chromospheric sound speed is 7 km/s; observed Moreton speeds are typically several hundred km/s. The mechanism may scale with the background sound-speed and density stratification, but the paper does not give a scaling law or dimensionless relation. Without this, it is difficult to assess whether the sweeping/refraction explanation is quantitatively relevant to real Moreton waves, whose speeds are set by coronal fast-mode speeds of order 500-1000 km/s. Please provide a scaling estimate in terms of coronal sound speed, transition-region height, and source geometry.
  5. [Section 3 (amplitude ratios)] The Moreton-analog-to-sunquake amplitude ratios differ substantially between source prescriptions for the same beam species: for protons, 2.3 (acceleration method) versus 10.1 (heating method); for electrons, 12.3 versus 21.1. The conclusion that electron beams may be primarily responsible for Moreton waves without a detectable sunquake is therefore sensitive to the source-injection method, with a factor-of-four spread in the proton case. The paper does not explain which method is more realistic. Please address this sensitivity before using the ratios as observational discriminants.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (4)] Units in the sentence following Eq. (4) are inconsistent: '10^11 cm^-2 s^-1' should read '10^11 erg cm^-2 s^-1' (or be explicitly identified as number flux N0).
  2. [Eq. (5)] Typo: 'rho0' should be '\rho_0'.
  3. [Figure 3] Text refers to 'the left panel of Figure 3', but the figure caption describes a single panel; if there are multiple panels, label them; otherwise remove 'left panel'.
  4. [Abstract / Section 3] The abstract says the domain is extended 'several 10's of Mm above the photosphere', but Section 3 says the top boundary is at 1.5 R_sun. Please state the actual upper boundary in Mm relative to the photosphere and reconcile the two descriptions.
  5. [Figure 4] Specify how the 117 km/s speed was obtained from the time-distance diagram (least-squares fit to the leading edge? a specified time window?).
  6. [Section 4] The statement that the fast magnetosonic speed 'changes with height in a similar fashion to the sound speed in the presence of a uniform magnetic field' is not generally true because v_A depends on density stratification and field geometry. Reword or justify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Moreton-analogue speed is an emergent output of prescribed beam heating and background sound-speed stratification, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: beam parameters (Eq. 4) feed RADYN; RADYN pressure/heating perturbations are converted by Eqs. (5)-(6) into source terms for the previously published linear acoustic model (Eqs. 1-3); the apparent Moreton-analogue speed (~117 km/s) is then read off a time-distance diagram, not imposed. The background sound-speed jump across the transition region (75 vs 7 km/s) is taken from standard independent atmospheric models (VAL-C, SSM), and the 'each TR point acts as a wave generator' mechanism is explicitly tied to the external Uchida (1968) coronal-wave picture. Although the authors cite their own acoustic model (Stefan & Kosovichev 2020), the governing equations and source construction are reproduced in this paper, so the citation supplies infrastructure rather than the result. The admitted neglect of magnetic fields and nonlinear/shock physics (Section 4) undermines realism but does not make the argument circular; a linear wave model can still produce a qualitative refraction-induced apparent speed. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from self-citations. Score 1 reflects only the minor reliance on the authors' own RADYN/acoustic-model pipeline, which is not load-bearing for the central claim.

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

The 3D wave results rest on background models (SSM, VAL-C), the RADYN-computed beam response, and the linear non-magnetic acoustic approximation. The free parameters are chosen beam properties and the horizontal source width; none are fitted to the target wave speeds. The most fragile inputs are the atmospheric background and the neglect of MHD effects.

free parameters (5)
  • Beam spectral index delta = 5
    Chosen in Sec. 2.2; controls energy distribution of beam particles and stopping profile.
  • Beam energy cutoff Ec = 50 keV protons, 14 keV electrons
    Chosen as a modest cutoff so the power-law beam has finite flux; affects depth and amount of heating.
  • Total beam energy flux = 10^11 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Assumed representative flare input, not fitted to the target wave amplitudes.
  • Horizontal source FWHM = ~1.5 Mm
    Ad hoc azimuthally symmetric Gaussian extent of the beam heating and acceleration source.
  • Wave damping timescales = quiet-Sun p-mode power-spectrum timescales
    Borrowed from Stefan and Kosovichev 2020; designed for internal waves, affects atmospheric wave amplitudes and the Moreton/sunquake ratio.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard solar model plus VAL-C atmosphere stratification joined at equal density
    Sets background sound-speed and density; transition region sharpness determines refraction geometry (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Linear, adiabatic, non-magnetic wave propagation
    Equations (1)-(3) omit nonlinear terms, radiation, and Lorentz force; authors acknowledge this is invalid where supersonic amplitudes occur (Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption RADYN 1D beam response can be extrapolated to 3D with azimuthal symmetry
    Sec. 2.2 assumes Gaussian decay about beam center; real flare sources are 3D and structured.
  • domain assumption Initial hydrostatic equilibrium of the background
    Sec. 2.1 expands around equilibrium and removes nonlinear perturbations; deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium in the flare region are the source.
  • standard math Ideal-gas relation dP'/dt = Q'_vol (gamma-1)
    Eq. (6) converts volumetric heating to pressure perturbation; standard thermodynamics under an isochoric assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Acoustic Model for Sunquakes Unifying the Solar Interior and Atmosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YV2QWZXC

@misc{pith2026250906848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Acoustic Model for Sunquakes Unifying the Solar Interior and Atmosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YV2QWZXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06848}
}
read the original abstract

One of the leading hypotheses for sunquake generation suggests that flare-accelerated particles originating from the reconnection site in the corona travel down to the chromosphere and photosphere, where they deposit energy through collisions and subsequently drive acoustic oscillations. To properly encompass this top-down excitation mechanism, we extend the domain of a semi-spectral 3D acoustic model of the global Sun up to several 10's of Mm above the photosphere, where the transition region and lower corona are resolved. We then use the radially-dependent heating rates derived from the flare radiative hydrodynamic (RADYN) simulations -- extrapolated to a 3D profile -- to realistically excite sunquakes. In addition to the usual sunquake wavefronts, we also observe waves that propagate through the chromosphere and corona in a similar fashion to Moreton-Ramsey waves and large-scale coronal propagating fronts (LCPFs). We examine the dynamics of these waves and discuss how they may be used to constrain models of sunquake excitation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A cut-through of the acceleration method simulation at t=2500 seconds showing the scaled radial velocity. The inset figure shows the same simulation at an earlier time (t=200 seconds), which demonstrates the scale at which the local results in this work are presented. An animation of this figure is available. (upflow) at the beam core. The generation of a coronal wave follows shortly after the simulation initiates, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A cut-through of the proton beam acceleration method simulation at t=200 seconds showing the radial velocity (top-left), θ-component of velocity (top-right), pressure perturbation (bottom-left), and density perturbation (bottom-right). The light and dark colors indicate positive and negative quantities, respectively. The simulation reveals the propagation of a coronal wave that intersects the transition region (dash… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-height diagrams of the scaled density perturbation at a point 20 Mm from the beam core, showing the vertical propagation of the initial wavefront in the simulation treated with the acceleration method. arrows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-distance diagram of the radial velocity at z=500 km (the mid-chromosphere). The black arrow denotes the apparent mean propagation speed (117 km s−1 ) of the Moreton-wave analogue. sufficient to overcome the upflows driven by chromospheric evaporation such that the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-distance diagrams at z = 100 km for the proton beam simulations (left column) and electron beam simulations (right column), using the acceleration method (top row) and heating method (bottom row). The Moreton-analogue wave appears around t = 5 minutes and is stron…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Origin of Coronal Extreme Ultraviolet Shockwaves without a Coronal Mass Ejection Event

    astro-ph.SR 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coronal waves without a CME are slower, more impulsive, and less energetic than CME-associated waves, suggesting a distinct particle-driven generation path.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab665f

    Abbasvand, V., Sobotka, M., Heinzel, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab665f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab665f 2020

  2. [2]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/104 2015

  3. [3]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485, doi: 10.1086/306563

    doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  4. [4]

    D., Longbottom, A

    Arber, T. D., Longbottom, A. W., Gerrard, C. L., & Milne, A. M. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 171, 151, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6780

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    P., Long, D

    Byrne, J. P., Long, D. M., Gallagher, P. T., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321223

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321223 2013

  6. [6]

    P., Asai, A., Ichimoto, K., et al

    Cabezas, D. P., Asai, A., Ichimoto, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a35 2019

  7. [7]

    F., Wu, S

    Chen, P. F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., & Fang, C. 2002, ApJL, 572, L99, doi: 10.1086/341486

    doi:10.1086/341486 2002

  8. [8]

    2019, PhD thesis, Stanford University

    Chen, R. 2019, PhD thesis, Stanford University

    work page 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    V., et al

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Dappen, W., Ajukov, S. V., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1286, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1286

    1996

  2. [10]

    K., Schmieder, B., & Joshi, R

    Devi, P., Chandra, R., Awasthi, A. K., Schmieder, B., & Joshi, R. 2022, SoPh, 297, 153, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-02082-6

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al

    Downs, C., Warmuth, A., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea78

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.09939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.09939

    Druett, M., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.09939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.09939

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hudson, H. S. 2012, Solar Physics, 277, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9907-2

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Canfield, R

    Fisher, G. H., Canfield, R. C., & McClymont, A. N. 1985, ApJ, 289, 414, doi: 10.1086/162901

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590d

    Hou, Z., Tian, H., Wang, J.-S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590d

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Klassen, A., Aurass, H., Mann, G., & Thompson, B. J. 2000, A&AS, 141, 357, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000125 13

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, SoPh, 50, 85, doi: 10.1007/BF00206193

    1976 doi

  10. [18]

    Kosovichev, A. G. 2015, in Extraterrestrial Seismology, 306–322, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107300668.025

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Sadykov, V

    Kosovichev, A. G., Sadykov, V. M., & Stefan, J. T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9eb

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    G., & Zharkova, V

    Kosovichev, A. G., & Zharkova, V. V. 1995, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 376, Helioseismology, 341

    1995

  13. [21]

    G., & Zharkova, V

    Kosovichev, A. G., & Zharkova, V. V. 1998, Nature, 393, 317, doi: 10.1038/30629

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, A&A, 619, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832896

    Macrae, C., Zharkov, S., Zharkova, V., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832896

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2000, AcA, 50, 405

    Medrek, M., Murawski, K., & Nakariakov, V. 2000, AcA, 50, 405

    2000

  16. [24]

    Moreton, G. E. 1960, The Astronomical Journal, 65, 494, doi: 10.1086/108346

    1960 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Ramsey, H

    Moreton, G. E., & Ramsey, H. E. 1960, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 72, 357, doi: 10.1086/127549

    1960 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Kienreich, I

    Muhr, N., Veronig, A. M., Kienreich, I. W., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 4563, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0594-7

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    V., Schrijver, C

    Nitta, N. V., Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., & Liu, W. 2013, ApJ, 776, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/58

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Pedram, E., & Matthews, S. A. 2012, SoPh, 277, 317, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9922-3

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7f

    Piantschitsch, I., Vršnak, B., Hanslmeier, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7f

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Podesta, J. J. 2005, SoPh, 232, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-8774-0

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    Hudson, H. S. 2016, ApJ, 831, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/42

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.13162, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13162

    Sadykov, V., Stefan, J., Kosovichev, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.13162, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13162

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    N., & Kosovichev, A

    Sharykin, I. N., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88d1

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    N., Kosovichev, A

    Sharykin, I. N., Kosovichev, A. G., Sadykov, V. M., Zimovets, I. V., & Myshyakov, I. I. 2017, ApJ, 843, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f1

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    T., & Kosovichev, A

    Stefan, J. T., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2020, ApJ, 895, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ae

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Gurman, J

    Thompson, B. J., Gurman, J. B., Neupert, W. M., et al. 1999, ApJL, 517, L151, doi: 10.1086/312030

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    1968, SoPh, 4, 30, doi: 10.1007/BF00146996

    Uchida, Y. 1968, SoPh, 4, 30, doi: 10.1007/BF00146996

    1968 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Gömöry, P., Kienreich, I

    Veronig, A. M., Gömöry, P., Kienreich, I. W., et al. 2011, ApJL, 743, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L10 Vršnak, B., Žic, T., Lulić, S., Temmer, M., &

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Veronig, A. M. 2016, SoPh, 291, 89, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0822-9

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 3163, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0813-x

    Zharkova, V., & Zharkov, S. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3163, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0813-x

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd0ac

    Zheng, R., Liu, Y., Liu, W., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd0ac

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.