pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.12164 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-15 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.SR

Laboratory measurements of energy partitioning and anomalous electron heating in magnetized, perpendicular collisionless shocks

V. Valenzuela-Villaseca , S. Totorica , J. Griff-McMahon , L.-J. Chen , S. Malko , P. V. Heuer , P. Pongkitiwanichakul , W. Fox
show 1 more author
D. B. Schaeffer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 16:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords collisionless shocksanomalous electron heatingmagnetized plasmasThomson scatteringenergy partitioningperpendicular shockslaboratory plasma experiments
0
0 comments X

The pith

Laboratory shocks show downstream electron temperatures 30% above adiabatic and collisional expectations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reports controlled laboratory experiments creating supercritical magnetized perpendicular collisionless shocks that persist long enough for the downstream region to fully develop. Thomson scattering diagnostics directly measure a compression ratio matching theoretical jump conditions along with electron and ion temperatures. The downstream electrons exhibit an approximately 30% temperature excess that cannot be accounted for by adiabatic compression or electron-ion collisions, which the authors interpret as evidence for collisionless anomalous heating. The resulting electron-to-ion temperature ratio of 0.8 aligns with spacecraft data from space plasmas but lies outside the range produced by existing theory and simulations. These measurements therefore supply a new laboratory benchmark for how energy is partitioned between electrons and ions in such shocks.

Core claim

We present laboratory results on energy partitioning from supercritical, magnetized collisionless shock experiments (M_A ~ 8, M_ms ~ 4). We report the first observation of fully-developed laboratory shocks that evolve for more than seven upstream ion gyration periods and have a downstream region that extends more than four shocked ion gyroperiods. Thomson scattering measurements are used to measure electron and ion temperatures, plasma density, and flow speeds. We directly measure a compression ratio of 3.6±0.3, consistent with shock jump conditions. A foot ahead of the shock exhibits super-adiabatic electron and ion heating. The downstream electron temperature has an ≈30% excess above adi

What carries the argument

Thomson scattering measurements that simultaneously determine electron temperature, ion temperature, density, and flow velocity across the shock transition and downstream region.

If this is right

  • Collisionless anomalous heating must be included when modeling electron energization in magnetized perpendicular shocks.
  • The observed downstream temperature ratio supplies a concrete target for kinetic simulations to reproduce.
  • Long-lived laboratory shocks now allow direct study of energy partitioning after the shock has evolved for many ion gyroperiods.
  • Super-adiabatic heating observed in the shock foot indicates additional pre-heating mechanisms operate ahead of the main ramp.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These controlled conditions may enable isolation of specific wave-particle or instability-driven heating channels that remain entangled in spacecraft observations.
  • If the same anomalous heating operates at astrophysical scales, it would alter the predicted electron contribution to shock dissipation and particle acceleration.
  • The mismatch with current simulations points to missing kinetic physics that laboratory data can help identify and test.

Load-bearing premise

The measured 30% electron temperature excess is produced by collisionless anomalous heating rather than unaccounted experimental systematics, incomplete collisional modeling, or biases in the Thomson scattering data.

What would settle it

A follow-up measurement that accounts for all collisional processes and uses an independent temperature diagnostic finds no temperature excess above adiabatic compression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12164 by D. B. Schaeffer, J. Griff-McMahon, L.-J. Chen, P. Pongkitiwanichakul, P. V. Heuer, S. Malko, S. Totorica, V. Valenzuela-Villaseca, W. Fox.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Experimental setup and data from experiments with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. OTS spectra and plasma evolution in shock and null [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Parameterized electron density and data. b) Pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present laboratory results on energy partitioning from supercritical, magnetized collisionless shock experiments ($\rm{M_A} \sim 8$, $\rm{M_{ms}}\sim 4$). We report the first observation of fully-developed laboratory shocks that evolve for more than seven upstream ion gyration periods and have a downstream region that extends more than four shocked ion gyroperiods. Thomson scattering measurements are used to measure electron and ion temperatures, plasma density, and flow speeds. We directly measure a compression ratio of $3.6\pm0.3$, consistent with shock jump conditions. A foot ahead of the shock exhibits super-adiabatic electron and ion heating. The downstream electron temperature has an $\approx 30\%$ excess above adiabatic and collisional electron-ion heating, implying significant collisionless anomalous electron heating. We find a downstream electron-ion temperature ratio $T_e^{(d)}/T_i^{(d)} = 0.8 \pm 0.3$, consistent with spacecraft observations but outside the range of predictions from theory and numerical simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports laboratory experiments on supercritical magnetized perpendicular collisionless shocks (MA ~8, Mms ~4) that evolve for more than seven upstream ion gyroperiods with a downstream region extending more than four shocked ion gyroperiods. Thomson scattering is used to directly measure electron and ion temperatures, density, and flow speeds, yielding a compression ratio of 3.6 ± 0.3 consistent with shock jump conditions. A shock foot shows super-adiabatic heating, while the downstream electron temperature exhibits an ≈30% excess above adiabatic compression plus collisional electron-ion equilibration, implying anomalous collisionless electron heating. The measured downstream Te(d)/Ti(d) = 0.8 ± 0.3 matches spacecraft observations but lies outside the range of current theory and simulations.

Significance. If the anomalous heating interpretation holds after rigorous accounting for all baseline contributions, the work would provide a valuable controlled laboratory benchmark for collisionless shock energy partitioning, directly linking to in-situ spacecraft data on Te/Ti ratios. Strengths include the direct Thomson scattering diagnostics, the long evolution time allowing fully developed shocks, and the compression ratio matching theoretical expectations without free parameters.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results / Discussion of downstream temperatures] The ≈30% downstream Te excess (abstract and results) is load-bearing for the anomalous heating claim and requires subtracting modeled adiabatic plus collisional contributions. The manuscript does not detail the uncertainties or integration procedure for the collisional equilibration model (e.g., time history of measured density and flow, possible non-Maxwellian tails, or magnetic-field modifications to collision rates), leaving open whether the residual could be absorbed by modeling incompleteness rather than collisionless processes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Figure captions] Clarify in the methods or figure captions how the downstream region is defined relative to the >4 ion gyroperiod criterion and how Thomson scattering spectra are fitted to extract separate Te and Ti.
  2. [Discussion] Add a brief comparison table or plot overlaying the measured Te/Ti against specific simulation predictions cited in the discussion to make the 'outside the range' statement quantitative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the detailed and constructive major comment. We address the point below and agree that additional documentation will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The ≈30% downstream Te excess (abstract and results) is load-bearing for the anomalous heating claim and requires subtracting modeled adiabatic plus collisional contributions. The manuscript does not detail the uncertainties or integration procedure for the collisional equilibration model (e.g., time history of measured density and flow, possible non-Maxwellian tails, or magnetic-field modifications to collision rates), leaving open whether the residual could be absorbed by modeling incompleteness rather than collisionless processes.

    Authors: We agree that the collisional equilibration model requires more explicit documentation to support the anomalous-heating interpretation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that specifies the integration procedure. The electron-ion temperature equilibration is computed by integrating the Spitzer collision rate along the measured time history of density and flow velocity obtained from Thomson scattering, from the shock foot through the downstream region over the observed >4 shocked-ion-gyroperiod evolution. Measurement uncertainties (density ±8 %, temperature ±12 %, flow speed ±5 %) are propagated via Monte-Carlo sampling, yielding a residual excess of 28 ± 7 % above the combined adiabatic-plus-collisional prediction. The Thomson-scattering spectra are consistent with Maxwellian distributions to within the signal-to-noise ratio, so non-Maxwellian tails do not materially affect the collision rates. Magnetic-field modifications to the collision frequency are <3 % in our magnetization regime and are folded into the error budget. With these additions the 30 % excess remains statistically significant and cannot be absorbed by modeling incompleteness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results rest on direct measurements

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from Thomson scattering measurements of electron and ion temperatures, density, and flow speeds in laboratory shocks. The reported compression ratio of 3.6±0.3 is a direct measurement compared against standard shock jump conditions. The ≈30% downstream electron temperature excess is obtained by subtracting calculated adiabatic compression and collisional e-i equilibration (using established Spitzer-type rates) from the measured T_e. No step in the reported chain defines a quantity in terms of itself, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or relies on a self-citation chain whose validity is presupposed by the present work. The downstream T_e/T_i ratio is likewise a direct ratio of measured quantities. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard plasma-physics assumptions about shock structure and the accuracy of Thomson scattering as a temperature diagnostic; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Thomson scattering accurately measures electron and ion temperatures without significant contamination from other effects
    All temperature and heating claims depend on this diagnostic assumption.
  • domain assumption The observed shocks satisfy standard supercritical magnetized perpendicular collisionless shock jump conditions
    Used to interpret the measured compression ratio of 3.6.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5773 in / 1407 out tokens · 54603 ms · 2026-05-18T16:31:59.133951+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Laboratory measurements of energy partitioning and anomalous electron heating in magnetized, perpendicular collisionless shocks

    at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics. As shown in Fig. 1a, the experiment consists of irradiating a flat plas- tic (CH) foil by four laser beams (375 J/beam energy, arXiv:2509.12164v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 15 Sep 2025 2 FIG. 1. Experimental setup and data from experiments with background densityn 0 = 5×10 18 cm−3 and magnetic field B0 = 10.5 T. a) 3-D mode...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    E. J. Smith, L. D. Jr., D. E. Jones, P. C. Jr., D. S. Colburn, P. Dyal, and C. P. Sonett, Jupiter’s magnetic field, magnetosphere, and interaction with the solar wind: Pioneer 11, Science188, 475 (1975)

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    E. J. Smith, L. D. Jr., D. E. Jones, P. J. C. Jr., D. S. Colburn, P. Dyal, and C. P. Sonett, Saturn’s magnetic field and magnetosphere, Science207, 407 (1980)

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    A. H. Sulaiman, A. Masters, M. K. Dougherty, D. Burgess, M. Fujimoto, and G. B. Hospodarsky, Quasiperpendicular high mach number shocks, Physical Review Letters115, 125001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Lefebvre, S

    B. Lefebvre, S. J. Schwartz, A. F. Fazakerley, and P. De- creau, Electron dynamics and cross-shock potential at the quasi-perpendicular earth’s bow shock, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics112, A09212 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    L. B. Wilson III, D. G. Sibeck, D. L. Turner, A. Osmane, D. Caprioli, and V. Angelopoulos, Relativistic electrons produced by foreshock disturbances observed upstream of the Earth’s bow shock, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 215101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Johlander, M

    A. Johlander, M. Battarbee, A. Vaivads, L. Turc, Y. Pfau-Kempf, U. Ganse, M. Grandin, M. Dubart, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, D. Caprioli, C. Haggerty, S. J. Schwartz, B. L. Giles, and M. Palmroth, Ion Acceleration Efficiency at the Earth’s Bow Shock: Observations and Simulation Results, The Astrophysical Journalj914, 82 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Lalti, Y

    A. Lalti, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. P. Dimmock, A. Joh- lander, D. B. Graham, and V. Olshevsky, A database of mms bow shock crossings compiled using machine learn- ing, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics127, e2022JA030454 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    S. J. Schwartz, K. A. Goodrich, L. B. Wilson, D. L. Turner, K. J. Trattner, H. Kucharek, I. Gingell, S. A. Fuselier, I. J. Cohen, H. Madanian, R. E. Ergun, D. J. Gershman, and R. J. Strangeway, Energy Partition at Collisionless Supercritical Quasi-Perpendicular Shocks, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics127, 10.1029/2022JA030637 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030637 2022

  10. [10]

    P. J. Cargill and K. Papadopoulos, A mechanism for strong shock electron heating in supernova remnants, The Astrophysical Journal329, L29 (1987)

    work page 1987

  11. [11]

    D. S. Spicer, R. W. Clark, and S. P. Maran, A model of the pre-sedov expansion phase of supernova remnant- ambient plasma coupling and x-ray emission from sn 1987a, The Astrophysical Journal356, 549 (1989)

    work page 1989

  12. [12]

    Bamba, R

    A. Bamba, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueno, and K. Koyama, Small-scale structure of the sn 1006 shock with chandra observations, The Astrophysical Journal589, 827 (2003)

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    Rothenflug, J

    R. Rothenflug, J. Ballet, G. Dubner, E. Giacani, A. De- courchelle, and P. Ferrando, Geometry of the non- thermal emission in SN 1006. Azimuthal variations of cosmic-ray acceleration, Astronomy and Astrophysics 425, 121 (2004)

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Morphological evidence for azimuthal variations of the cosmic ray ion acceleration at the blast wave of SN 1006

    G. Cassam-Chena¨ ı, J. P. Hughes, E. M. Reynoso, C. Badenes, and D. Moffett, Morphological Evidence for Azimuthal Variations of the Cosmic-Ray Ion Accelera- tion at the Blast Wave of SN 1006, The Astrophysical Journalj680, 1180 (2008), arXiv:0803.0805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Acero, F

    F. Acero, F. Aharonian, A. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, U. B. De Almeida, A. Bazer-Bachi, Y. Becherini, B. Be- hera, M. Beilicke, K. Bernl¨ ohr,et al., First detection of VHEγ-rays from SN 1006 by HESS, Astronomy & As- trophysics516, A62+ (2010)

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Bocchino, S

    F. Bocchino, S. Orlando, M. Miceli, and O. Petruk, Constraints on the local interstellar magnetic field from non-thermal emission of SN1006, Astronomy and Astro- physics531, A129 (2011)

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Giuffrida, M

    R. Giuffrida, M. Miceli, D. Caprioli, A. Decourchelle, J. Vink, S. Orlando, F. Bocchino, E. Greco, and G. Peres, The supernova remnant SN 1006 as a Galactic particle accelerator, Nat. Comm.13, 5098 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Willson, Radio observations of the cluster of galaxies in Coma Berenices - the 5C4 survey., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society151, 1 (1970)

    M. Willson, Radio observations of the cluster of galaxies in Coma Berenices - the 5C4 survey., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society151, 1 (1970)

    work page 1970

  19. [19]

    Fujita and C

    Y. Fujita and C. L. Sarazin, Nonthermal emission from accreting and merging clusters of galaxies, The Astro- physical Journal563, 660–672 (2001). 6

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    Govoni, M

    F. Govoni, M. Markevitch, A. Vikhlinin, L. VanSpey- broeck, L. Feretti, and G. Giovannini, ChandraTemper- ature maps for galaxy clusters with radio halos, The As- trophysical Journal605, 695 (2004)

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    R. J. van Weeren, H. J. A. R¨ ottgering, M. Br¨ uggen, and M. Hoeft, Particle Acceleration on Megaparsec Scales in a Merging Galaxy Cluster, Science330, 347 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Brunetti and T

    G. Brunetti and T. W. Jones, Cosmic rays in galaxy clus- ters and their nonthermal emission, International Journal of Modern Physics D23, 1430007-98 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    R. R. Lindner, A. J. Baker, J. P. Hughes, N. Battaglia, N. Gupta, K. Knowles, T. A. Marriage, F. Menanteau, K. Moodley, E. D. Reese, and R. Srianand, The radio relics and halo of el gordo, a massive z= 0.870 cluster merger, The Astrophysical Journal786, 49 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    B. A and R. A. Treumann,Physics of Collisionless Shocks (Springer New York, NY, 2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Burgess and M

    D. Burgess and M. Scholer,Collisionless Shocks in Space Plasmas: Structure and Accelerated Particles(Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Marcowith, A

    A. Marcowith, A. Bret, A. Bykov, M. E. Dieckman, L. O. Drury, B. Lemb` ege, M. Lemoine, G. Morlino, G. Mur- phy, G. Pelletier, I. Plotnikov, B. Reville, M. Riquelme, L. Sironi, and A. S. Novo, The microphysics of colli- sionless shock waves, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/4/046901 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/4/046901 2016

  27. [27]

    Balikhin, M

    M. Balikhin, M. Gedalin, B. Gu, and A. Petrukovich, New mechanism for electron heating in shocks, Physical Review Letters70, 1259 (1993)

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    Lemb` ege, P

    B. Lemb` ege, P. Savoini, M. Balikhin, S. Walker, and V. Krasnoselskikh, Demagnetization of transmitted elec- trons through a quasi-perpendicular collisionless shock, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics108, 1256 (2003)

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    S. J. Schwartz, E. Henley, J. Mitchell, and V. Krasnosel- skikh, Electron temperature gradient scale at collisionless shocks, Physical Review Letters107, 215002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Stasiewicz and B

    K. Stasiewicz and B. Eliasson, Electron heating mech- anisms at quasi-perpendicular shocks – revisited with magnetospheric multiscale measurements, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society520, 3238 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    S. J. Schwartz, M. F. Thomsen, S. J. Bame, and J. Stans- berry, Electron heating and the potential jump across fast mode shocks, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics93, 12923 (1988)

    work page 1988

  32. [33]

    Tran and L

    A. Tran and L. Sironi, Electron heating in perpendicular low-beta shocks, The Astrophysical Journal Letters900, L36 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [34]

    J. C. Raymond, P. Ghavamian, A. Bohdan, D. Ryu, J. Niemiec, L. Sironi, A. Tran, E. Amato, M. Hoshino, M. Pohl, T. Amano, and F. Fiuza, Electron–ion tem- perature ratio in astrophysical shocks, The Astrophysical Journal949, 50 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [35]

    H. S. Park, C. M. Huntington, F. Fiuza, R. P. Drake, D. H. Froula, G. Gregori, M. Koenig, N. L. Kugland, C. C. Kuranz, D. Q. Lamb, M. C. Levy, C. K. Li, J. Mei- necke, T. Morita, R. D. Petrasso, B. B. Pollock, B. A. Remington, H. G. Rinderknecht, M. Rosenberg, J. S. Ross, D. D. Ryutov, Y. Sakawa, A. Spitkovsky, H. Tak- abe, D. P. Turnbull, P. Tzeferacos, ...

    work page 2015

  35. [36]

    W. Fox, J. Matteucci, C. Moissard, D. B. Schaeffer, A. Bhattacharjee, K. Germaschewski, and S. X. Hu, Ki- netic simulation of magnetic field generation and colli- sionless shock formation in expanding laboratory plas- mas, Physics of Plasmas25, 10.1063/1.5050813 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5050813 2018

  36. [37]

    Bruulsema, W

    C. Bruulsema, W. Rozmus, G. F. Swadling, S. Glenzer, H. S. Park, J. S. Ross, and F. Fiuza, On the local mea- surement of electric currents and magnetic fields using Thomson scattering in Weibel-unstable plasmas, Physics of Plasmas27, 10.1063/1.5140674 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5140674 2020

  37. [38]

    G. F. Swadling, C. Bruulsema, F. Fiuza, D. P. Hig- ginson, C. M. Huntington, H.-s. Park, B. B. Pollock, W. Rozmus, H. G. Rinderknecht, J. Katz, A. Birkel, and J. S. Ross, Measurement of Kinetic-Scale Current Fila- mentation Dynamics and Associated Magnetic Fields in Interpenetrating Plasmas, Physical Review Letters124, 215001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [39]

    Fiuza, G

    F. Fiuza, G. F. Swadling, A. Grassi, H. G. Rinderknecht, D. P. Higginson, D. D. Ryutov, C. Bruulsema, R. P. Drake, S. Funk, S. Glenzer, G. Gregori, C. K. Li, B. B. Pollock, B. A. Remington, J. S. Ross, W. Rozmus, Y. Sakawa, A. Spitkovsky, S. Wilks, and H. S. Park, Electron acceleration in laboratory-produced turbulent collisionless shocks, Nature Physics1...

    work page 2020

  39. [40]

    T. M. Johnson, G. D. Sutcliffe, J. A. Pearcy, A. Birkel, G. Rigon, N. V. Kabadi, B. Lahmann, P. J. Adrian, B. L. Reichelt, J. H. Kunimune, S. G. Dannhoff, M. Cufari, C. K. Li, F. Tsung, H. Chen, J. Katz, and V. T. Tikhonchuk, Biermann-battery-driven mag- netized collisionless shock precursors in laser-produced plasmas, Physical Review Letters134, 10.1103/...

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2025

  40. [41]

    D. B. Schaeffer, W. Fox, D. Haberberger, G. Fiksel, A. Bhattacharjee, D. H. Barnak, S. X. Hu, and K. Ger- maschewski, Generation and Evolution of High-Mach- Number Laser-Driven Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in the Laboratory, Physical Review Letters119, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [42]

    D. B. Schaeffer, W. Fox, R. K. Follett, G. Fiksel, C. K. Li, J. Matteucci, A. Bhattacharjee, and K. Germaschewski, Direct Observations of Particle Dynamics in Magnetized Collisionless Shock Precursors in Laser-Produced Plas- mas, Physical Review Letters122, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [43]

    Matsukiyo, R

    S. Matsukiyo, R. Yamazaki, T. Morita, K. Tomita, Y. Kuramitsu, T. Sano, S. J. Tanaka, T. Takezaki, S. Isayama, T. Higuchi, H. Murakami, Y. Horie, N. Kat- suki, R. Hatsuyama, M. Edamoto, H. Nishioka, M. Tak- agi, T. Kojima, S. Tomita, N. Ishizaka, S. Kakuchi, S. Sei, K. Sugiyama, K. Aihara, S. Kambayashi, M. Ota, S. Egashira, T. Izumi, T. Minami, Y. Nakaga...

    work page 2022

  43. [44]

    Bola˜ nos, M

    S. Bola˜ nos, M. J. Manuel, M. Bailly-Grandvaux, A. S. 7 Bogale, D. Caprioli, S. R. Klein, D. Michta, P. Tzefera- cos, and F. N. Beg, Laboratory evidence of the nonreso- nant streaming instability in the formation of quasipar- allel collisionless shocks at high Alfv´ enic Mach number, Physical Review E110, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    Zhang, P

    Y. Zhang, P. V. Heuer, J. R. Davies, D. B. Schaeffer, H. Wen, F. Garc´ ıa-Rubio, and C. Ren, Kinetic study of shock formation and particle acceleration in laser-driven quasi-parallel magnetized collisionless shocks, Physics of Plasmas31, 10.1063/5.0210050 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0210050 2024

  45. [46]

    W. Yao, A. Fazzini, S. N. Chen, K. Burdonov, P. Antici, J. Beard, S. Bola˜ nos, A. Ciardi, R. Diab, E. D. Filippov, S. Kisyov, V. Lelasseux, M. Miceli, Q. Moreno, V. Nas- tasa, S. Orlando, S. Pikuz, D. C. Popescu, G. Revet, X. Ribeyre, E. d’Humieres, and J. Fuchs, Laboratory ev- idence for proton energization by collisionless shock surf- ing, Nature Physi...

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    T. R. Boehly, R. S. Craxton, T. H. Hinterman, J. H. Kelly, T. J. Kessler, S. A. Kumpan, S. A. Letzring, R. L. McCrory, S. F. B. Morse, W. Seka, S. Skupsky, J. M. Soures, and C. P. Verdon, The upgrade to the omega laser system, Review of Scientific Instruments66, 508 (1995)

    work page 1995

  47. [48]

    Fiksel, A

    G. Fiksel, A. Agliata, D. Barnak, G. Brent, P. Y. Chang, L. Folnsbee, G. Gates, D. Hasset, D. Lonobile, J. Ma- goon, D. Mastrosimone, M. J. Shoup, and R. Betti, Note: Experimental platform for magnetized high- energy-density plasma studies at the omega laser facility, Review of Scientific Instruments86, 10.1063/1.4905625 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4905625 2015

  48. [49]

    D. H. Froula, S. H. Glenzer, N. C. L. Jr., and J. Sheffield, Plasma scattering of electromagnetic radiation, 2nd ed. (Elsevier Inc., 2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [50]

    Community, N

    P. Community, N. A. Murphy, E. Everson, D. Sta´ nczak-Marikin, P. Heuer, P. M. Kozlowski, J. Addison, A. F. Ahamed, C. Arran, H. Bagheri- anlemraski, J. Beckers, M. Bedmutha, J. Bergeron, L. Bessi, K. Bryant, S. Carroll, C. Cartagena-Sanchez, S. Chambers, A. Chattopadhyay, A. Choubey, S. Choud- hary, C. Clauss, J. Deal, G. Decristoforo, D. A. Diaz Riega, ...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10613904 2024

  50. [51]

    See Supplemental Material for additional details (meth- ods, derivations, extra figures, data)

    work page

  51. [52]

    L. G. Suttle, J. D. Hare, J. W. Halliday, S. Merlini, D. R. Russell, E. R. Tubman, V. Valenzuela-Villaseca, W. Roz- mus, C. Bruulsema, and S. V. Lebedev, Collective optical thomson scattering in pulsed-power driven high energy density physics experiments (invited), Review of Scien- tific Instruments92, 033542 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [53]

    Valenzuela-Villaseca, L

    V. Valenzuela-Villaseca, L. G. Suttle, F. Suzuki-Vidal, J. W. D. Halliday, S. Merlini, D. R. Russell, E. R. Tubman, J. D. Hare, J. P. Chittenden, M. E. Koepke, E. G. Blackman, and S. V. Lebedev, Characterization of quasi-keplerian, differentially rotating, free-boundary laboratory plasmas, Physical Review Letters130, 195101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [54]

    Carbon is fully ionized forT e ≥100 eV at these densities [59]

    work page

  54. [55]

    J. D. Huba,NRL Plasma Formulary, Tech. Rep. (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., 2016) beam Physics Branch, Plasma Physics Division; Supported by the Office of Naval Research

    work page 2016

  55. [56]

    A more general analysis for a multi-ion species plasma is presented in the Supplemental Material

    work page

  56. [57]

    D. D. Ryutov, N. L. Kugland, H. S. Park, S. M. Pollaine, B. A. Remington, and J. S. Ross, Collisional current drive in two interpenetrating plasma jets, Physics of Plasmas 18, 10.1063/1.3646325 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3646325 2011

  57. [58]

    J. S. Ross, S. H. Glenzer, P. Amendt, R. Berger, L. Divol, N. L. Kugland, O. L. Landen, C. Plechaty, B. Remington, D. Ryutov, W. Rozmus, D. H. Froula, G. Fiksel, C. Sorce, Y. Kuramitsu, T. Morita, Y. Sakawa, H. Takabe, R. P. Drake, M. Grosskopf, C. Kuranz, G. Gregori, J. Mei- necke, C. D. Murphy, M. Koenig, A. Pelka, A. Ravasio, T. Vinci, E. Liang, R. Pre...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3694124 2012

  58. [59]

    Valenzuela-Villaseca, J

    V. Valenzuela-Villaseca, J. M. Molina, D. B. Schaeffer, S. Malko, J. Griff-McMahon, K. Lezhnin, M. J. Rosen- berg, S. X. Hu, D. Kalantar, C. Trosseille, H. S. Park, B. A. Remington, G. Fiksel, D. Uzdensky, A. Bhattachar- jee, and W. Fox, X-ray imaging and electron temperature evolution in laser-driven magnetic reconnection experi- ments at the national ig...

    work page 2024

  59. [60]

    differential method

    H. K. Chung, M. H. Chen, W. L. Morgan, Y. Ralchenko, and R. W. Lee, Flychk: Generalized population kinetics and spectral model for rapid spectroscopic analysis for all elements, High Energy Density Physics1, 3 (2005). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Optical Thomson Scattering Data Processing:TSWiFT The data from Omega was processed using the Thomson Scattering ...

    work page 2005