Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Kinetic theory of the electron strahl in the solar wind

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper derives a kinetic theory of the electron strahl that yields a complete Coulomb distribution function and identifies an energy threshold near 200 eV at 1 AU above which oblique whistler turbulence broadens and isotropizes the…

desk verdict A useful but conditional extension of strahl kinetic theory: the Coulomb solution has a non-rigorous matching step, and the whistler threshold rests on model parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01902 v1 pith:4VJA6D26 submitted 2019-08-05 physics.plasm-ph physics.space-ph

Stanislav Boldyrev , Konstantinos Horaites This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords electronstrahlsolarwindkinetictheoryCoulombcollisionswhistlerturbulencepitch-anglescatteringhaloheliosphere
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 derives a kinetic theory of the electron strahl, the narrow beam of suprathermal electrons streaming away from the Sun along Parker-spiral magnetic field lines. Starting from a Maxwellian distribution in the hot, collisional inner corona, it solves the drift-kinetic equation for the strahl distribution at larger heliospheric distances and obtains a complete Coulomb solution (Eq. 16) for its width and amplitude. It then adds quasilinear scattering by oblique whistler turbulence and shows that the two broadening mechanisms dominate in different energy ranges: below a threshold $E_c\sim 200$ eV at 1 AU Coulomb collisions set the width, while above $E_c$ whistler scattering broadens the beam and can isotropize energetic electrons into the halo. A sympathetic reader would care because if the theory is right, one analytic formula connects the inner-coronal electron distribution to the observed strahl and halo structure across the heliosphere.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gyrotropic electron distribution $f(x,E,M)$ evolved by the drift-kinetic equation along a Parker-spiral field line, with $x$ the distance along the field, $E$ the total energy, and $M = m_e v_\perp^2/(2B)$ the magnetic moment. In these variables the collisionless motion reduces to $\partial f/\partial x = 0$, so magnetic-moment conservation alone would keep the strahl collimated; Coulomb pitch-angle scattering appears as a diffusion in $M$ that, after the field-line coordinate change $dy = (4\pi e^4 \Lambda \beta/E)(n/B)\,dx$, becomes $\partial f/\partial y = \partial/\partial M(M\,\partial f/\partial M)$. The paper solves this diffusion and matches it to the inner Maxwellian by equating width and amplitude at $y_m \sim E/B_0$, producing Eq. (16). The anomalous mechanism is a second pitch-angle diffusion coefficient obtained from quasilinear theory of oblique whistlers with dispersion $\omega = k_\parallel k_\perp v_A d_i$, the potential-to-magnetic-fluctuation relation (24), and the parallel magnetic spectrum $D k_\parallel^{-6}$; the ratio of this term to Coulomb scattering is what yields the sharp $(E/E_c)^4$ energy dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the strahl angular width as a function of electron kinetic energy at 1 AU with sufficient resolution around 100–1000 eV: the theory predicts a minimum width near $E_c \approx 200$ eV, with width decreasing with energy below that and increasing roughly as $(E/E_c)^4$ above; observing no upward turn, or a turn at a substantially different energy, would falsify the oblique-whistler scattering model. A second check is to compare the measured magnetic fluctuation spectrum at $k_\parallel = \Omega_e/v$: the predicted threshold depends on its amplitude and spectral index, so independent measurement of that spectrum would confirm or rule out the parameter choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that both classical and anomalous strahl broadening follow from a single drift-kinetic description. With only Coulomb pitch-angle scattering, the strahl distribution function at distance $r$ is Eq. (16), whose angular width is $\sin^2 \theta \approx (T_0^2/(E\,\Delta E))(R(r)/\lambda_0)(B(r)/B_0)$ and whose amplitude falls as $(E/T_0)\exp(-E/T_0)$; the width saturates beyond the distance where the Parker spiral makes a 45-degree angle rather than decreasing indefinitely. When oblique whistler turbulence is included through a quasilinear diffusion coefficient, the combined pitch-angle scattering rate becomes $S = (4\pi n e^4 \Lambda/m_e^2 v^3)[1 + (E/E_c)^4]$, so the two mechanisms are separated by an energy threshold $E_c$. At 1 AU, using a $k_\perp^{-8/3}$ turbulent spectrum with critical-balance anisotropy, $(\delta B/B)^2 \approx 10^{-2}$, and $\beta_e \sim 1$, the threshold is $E_c \approx 200$ eV. Because $E_c$ scales as $r^{-5/3}$ in the inner heliosphere and $r^{-1/6}$ beyond 1 AU, whistler scattering becomes progressively more important at large distance, and the most energetic strahl electrons can be isotropized into the halo.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the assumed model of oblique whistler turbulence—the dispersion relation $\omega = k_\parallel k_\perp v_A d_i$, the potential-to-magnetic-fluctuation relation (24), the $k_\parallel^{-6}$ parallel spectrum, and the intensity $(\delta B/B)^2 \approx 10^{-2}$—and on matching the Coulomb solution to the collisionless one by width and amplitude at $y_m \approx E/B_0$ rather than solving a true initial-value problem; if the real whistler population is weaker, less oblique, or differently distributed, the 200 eV threshold shifts and the anomalous broadening can become negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The strahl angular width (Eq. 18) and strahl fraction (Eq. 20) become testable predictions in the Coulomb-dominated regime: the width saturates beyond the 45-degree Parker-spiral distance, and the strahl fraction declines slowly in the inner heliosphere.
  • Above the threshold, the theory predicts strahl width that increases with electron energy rather than decreases, with scattering rate growing as $(E/E_c)^4$, so a pronounced broadening should appear above several hundred eV at 1 AU.
  • Because the threshold drops with heliospheric distance, anomalous broadening and halo formation become increasingly important in the outer heliosphere.
  • The complete solution ties the strahl amplitude to the inner-coronal temperature $T_0$: the amplitude should fall exponentially on the ~100 eV scale, matching the observed exponential falloff of the strahl.
  • If whistler scattering is the dominant high-energy mechanism, the halo can be generated locally from strahl electrons, reducing the need for large-scale magnetic trapping and reflection to explain halo isotropy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would map strahl width versus energy at several radial distances simultaneously; if the threshold moves with distance as $E_c \propto [(\delta B)^{-2} B(r)^6 n(r)^{-3/2}]^{1/4}$, the same whistler model should fit the whole radial profile.
  • The paper's free parameters—whistler intensity, spectral index, and ion beta—could be calibrated by joint measurements of strahl width and magnetic fluctuation spectra, turning the order-of-magnitude threshold into a quantitative diagnostic of whistler turbulence.
  • The same drift-kinetic framework could be applied to other stellar winds or to different phases of the solar cycle; the threshold formula predicts when a strahl/halo dichotomy should appear and when electron heat flux will be suppressed.
  • Because the Coulomb solution is matched by width and amplitude at $y_m \approx E/B_0$ rather than obtained from a true initial-value problem, numerically integrating the drift-kinetic equation from an explicit coronal boundary distribution would show whether the low-energy tail of the predicted strahl survives unchanged.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops an analytic kinetic theory for the strahl component of the solar-wind electron distribution. Starting from a Maxwellian boundary condition at r0 ≈ 5–10 R☉, the authors solve a drift-kinetic equation with Coulomb pitch-angle scattering (Eq. 7) in magnetic-moment space, obtaining the fundamental solution (13) and a matched expression (16) for the strahl distribution. They then add quasilinear diffusion by oblique whistlers (Eqs. 21–29), derive the anomalous scattering coefficient (29), and propose an energy threshold Ec separating Coulomb-dominated from whistler-dominated broadening, estimated as Ec ≈ 200 eV at 1 AU. The paper also gives analytic predictions for strahl width (18) and strahl fraction (20), and compares them with observations.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a complete analytic description of strahl broadening from the corona to the outer heliosphere, with a falsifiable prediction for the energy-dependent transition to halo formation. Strengths include the closed-form Coulomb solution, the explicit quasilinear derivation, and the use of observationally motivated parameters. The main caveats are the uncontrolled matching approximation in the Coulomb solution and the sensitivity of the threshold to the assumed whistler model; these are correctable but affect the central quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (13)–(16)] The matched solution is not the solution of the stated initial-value problem. The boundary condition (3) is a step in M for 0 ≤ M ≤ M_c = E/B0, whereas Eq. (13) is the Green's function for an initial delta at M = 0. For fixed energy, the exact solution of Eq. (12) is an integral of the transition density (1/y) exp(−(M+M0)/y) I0(2√(M M0)/y) over M0 ∈ [0, M_c]; the asymptotic form (13) is valid only for y ≫ M_c. At the matching point y_m ∼ E/B0 the ratio M_c/y_m is order one, so the amplitude error in Eq. (14) is of order e^{M_c/y_m} − 1 (approximately 1.7 at M = 0 when y_m = M_c), and the M-profile is not reproduced. Because Eq. (16) and the density (20) inherit this normalization, the Coulomb baseline of the paper contains an uncontrolled O(1) error; the authors should either use the exact step-initial-condition solution or quantify the matching error.
  2. [§2, Eq. (16)] The displayed formula does not follow algebraically from Eq. (14) with the definitions of y and λ0. Substituting y = (T0^2/(λ0 B0 ΔE))R and E = ΔE + eφ∞ into Eq. (14) yields a prefactor proportional to ΔE(ΔE + eφ∞)/(T0 eφ∞), not [(ΔE + eφ∞)/eφ∞]^{ΔE/T0}. The two expressions agree only near ΔE ≈ T0; for ΔE ≈ 0.5 T0 they differ by nearly a factor of two. This affects the predicted strahl number density (20) and should be corrected or explicitly stated as an approximation.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (29)–(30)] The quantitative threshold Ec ≈ 200 eV depends on the model whistler spectrum (α = 6), the dispersion relation (21), the electric-to-magnetic fluctuation relation (24), and the adopted intensity (δB/B)^2 ≈ 10^-2. No sensitivity analysis is provided, so the reader cannot judge how robust the energy threshold is to plausible variations in these parameters. Adding a short parameter scan or an explicit formula for Ec(α, δB/B, β_e) would materially strengthen the central claim, even though the paper already notes that the adopted intensity is a conservative upper bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation] E is used for the total energy in Eqs. (2)–(5) and for the kinetic energy after Eq. (16); please unify or define explicitly.
  2. [Eqs. (19), (23)–(25)] The LaTeX artifacts such as 'radicaltp' in Eq. (19) and the integral-symbol encoding in Eqs. (23)–(25) should be fixed.
  3. [References] The reference to Verscharen et al. (2019) is incomplete (arXiv number only); please add the journal, volume, and page information.
  4. [After Eq. (17)] A sentence explaining how the estimate Ti,0/T0 ≈ 10 is used would improve readability, since it is cited to Chandran et al. (2011) without further derivation.
  5. [Section 3] The claim that the strahl width (18) is independent of source parameters T0 and B0 is correct only because T0^2/λ0 and B(r)/B0 cancel; it would help to state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (16) follows from the stated boundary-value matching and Eq. (30) from quasilinear model spectra; Ec is a derived energy-balance quantity, not a fit to strahl data.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The Coulomb solution is obtained by solving Eq. (12) and fixing the arbitrary function C(E) in the fundamental solution (13) by matching width and amplitude to the collisionless boundary distribution (4) at y_m ~ E/B0. The matching is an explicit approximation, and one could question its accuracy because the match occurs when y ~ E/B0 rather than in a deep asymptotic regime, but that is a correctness or accuracy concern, not a circular reduction: the boundary data are assumed inputs, and the width law (18) and strahl density (20) are consequences of the evolved profile rather than inputs. The anomalous coefficient in Eq. (29) is assembled from quasilinear theory, the stated oblique-whistler dispersion (21), the potential-to-magnetic relation (24) cited to Chen & Boldyrev (2017), and an assumed spectrum (26) with intensity (δB/B)^2 ~ 1e-2; Ec ≈ 200 eV is then the algebraic energy at which the Coulomb and anomalous terms in Eq. (29) balance, not a parameter fitted to the strahl data the threshold is meant to explain. Self-citations (Horaites et al. 2015, 2018a,b, 2019; Chen & Boldyrev 2017) support components that are either standard, independently checkable from the paper's own equations, or based on external observations, so none is load-bearing in a circular way.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a boundary Maxwellian, ambipolar potential balance, Parker spiral geometry, an uncontrolled matching step, and a specific oblique-whistler turbulence model. The first three are standard; the last two are ad hoc and directly control the headline threshold.

free parameters (5)
  • Source temperature T0 = ~100 eV
    Adopted from coronal and solar wind observations; sets the normalization and exponential cutoff in Eq. (16).
  • Ambipolar potential ratio e*phi_infinity/T0 = ~4
    From Eq. (17) using assumed Ti,0/T0 about 10; exponentially controls the strahl fraction through F0.
  • Whistler spectral index alpha = 6
    Derived from an assumed k_perp^(-8/3) spectrum and k_parallel proportional to k_perp^(1/3); determines the energy dependence (E/Ec)^4.
  • Whistler fluctuation intensity (deltaB/B)^2 = ~1e-2 at 1 AU
    Taken as an upper bound from observations; directly sets Ec approximately 200 eV in Eq. (30).
  • Plasma parameters at 1 AU = di=1e7 cm, lambda_e=1e13 cm, vA=7e6 cm/s, vTe=2e8 cm/s, beta_e=1
    Typical values used to evaluate Eq. (29) and obtain the numerical threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The electron distribution is gyrotropic and obeys the drift-kinetic Fokker-Planck equation (1) with only pitch-angle scattering retained in the collision operator (6).
    Valid for v^2 much larger than vTe^2 and collision frequency much smaller than gyrofrequency; introduced in Section 2.
  • domain assumption At the inner boundary r0 about 5-10 solar radii, the electron distribution is a Maxwellian at T0 about 100 eV (Eq. 3).
    The authors state this is plausible but not essential for the kinetic derivation; it sets the amplitude of Eq. (16).
  • domain assumption The ambipolar potential e*phi_infinity is set by equal proton and electron escape fluxes, giving e*phi_infinity/T0 about 4 (Eq. 17).
    Derived from a kinetic equal-flux condition with Ti,0/T0 about 10; exponentially affects F0 and the strahl fraction.
  • domain assumption The Parker-spiral field and constant solar-wind speed allow the invariant dx n/B to be evaluated at r0 (Eqs. 8-9 and 19).
    Standard solar wind model used to convert the distance variable y into radial distance.
  • ad hoc to paper The collisional solution (13) can be matched to the collisionless solution (4) by equating width and amplitude at ym approximately E/B0.
    This matching is not a solution of an initial-value problem; it is an uncontrolled approximation used to fix the arbitrary function C(E).
  • ad hoc to paper Whistler turbulence is oblique with dispersion omega = k_parallel k_perp vA di, quasilinear diffusion applies, and the parallel magnetic spectrum is D k_parallel^(-6) with (deltaB/B)^2 about 1e-2 at 1 AU (Eqs. 21, 26, 28-30).
    These modeling choices directly produce the predicted Ec about 200 eV; alternate spectra or intensities change the threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic theory of the electron strahl in the solar wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VJA6D26

@misc{pith2026190801902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic theory of the electron strahl in the solar wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VJA6D26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01902}
}
abstract

We develop a kinetic theory for {the electron strahl, a beam of energetic electrons which propagate} from the sun along the Parker-spiral-shaped magnetic field lines. By assuming a Maxwellian electron distribution function in the near-sun region where the plasma is collisional, we derive the strahl distribution function at larger heliospheric distances. We consider the two most important mechanisms that broaden the strahl: Coulomb collisions and interactions with oblique ambient whistler turbulence (anomalous diffusion). We propose that the energy regimes where these mechanisms are important are separated by an approximate threshold, ${\cal E}_c$; for the electron kinetic energies ${\cal E}<{\cal E}_c$ the strahl width is mostly governed by Coulomb collisions, while for ${\cal E}>{\cal E}_c$ by interactions with the whistlers. The Coulomb broadening decreases as the electron energy increases; the whistler-dominated broadening, on the contrary, increases with energy and it can lead to efficient isotropization of energetic electrons and to formation of the electron halo. The threshold energy ${\cal E}_c$ is relatively high in the regions closer to the sun, and it gradually decreases with the distance, implying that the anomalous diffusion becomes progressively more important at large heliospheric distances. At $1$ AU, we estimate the energy threshold to be about ${\cal E}_c\sim 200\,{\rm eV}$.

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. Scattering of energetic electrons by heat-flux-driven whistlers in flares

    physics.space-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a flare-like 2D particle-in-cell simulation, heat-flux-driven oblique whistler waves pitch-angle scatter energetic electrons on a timescale of about 100 cyclotron periods, suppressing their heat flux.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Robert P., 2009, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.165003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.103p5003A 103, 165003

    Alexandrova O., Saur J., Lacombe C., Mangeney A., Mitchell J., Schwartz S. J., Robert P., 2009, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.165003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.103p5003A 103, 165003

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.165003 2009

  2. [2]

    R., Skoug R

    Anderson B. R., Skoug R. M., Steinberg J. T., McComas D. J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2011JA017269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JGRA..117.4107A 117, A04107

    doi:10.1029/2011ja017269 2012

  3. [3]

    D., et al., 2016, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SSRv..204...49B 204, 49

    Bale S. D., et al., 2016, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SSRv..204...49B 204, 49

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  4. [4]

    Ber c i c L., Maksimovi \'c M., Land i S., Matteini L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3404B 486, 3404

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1007 2019

  5. [5]

    C., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L44 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758L..44B 758, L44

    Boldyrev S., Perez J. C., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L44 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758L..44B 758, L44

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/l44 2012

  6. [6]

    Bruno R., Carbone V., 2013, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013LRSP...10....2B 10, 2

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 2013

  7. [7]

    Chandran B. D. G., Dennis T. J., Quataert E., Bale S. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/197 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..197C 743, 197

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/197 2011

  8. [8]

    Chen C. H. K., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816001124 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JPlPh..82f5302C 82, 535820602

    doi:10.1017/s0022377816001124 2016

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Chen C. H. K., Boldyrev S., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e0 , 842, 122

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen C. H. K., Horbury T. S., Schekochihin A. A., Wicks R. T., Alexandrova O., Mitchell J., 2010, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.255002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvL.104y5002C 104, 255002

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen C. H. K., Salem C. S., Bonnell J. W., Mozer F. S., Bale S. D., 2012, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.035001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.109c5001C 109, 035001

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Chen C. H. K., Boldyrev S., Xia Q., Perez J. C., 2013, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.225002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110v5002C 110, 225002

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Cho J., Lazarian A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/236 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701..236C 701, 236

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Matthaeus W

    Cranmer S. R., Matthaeus W. H., Breech B. A., Kasper J. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1604 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702.1604C 702, 1604

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Asbridge J

    Feldman W. C., Asbridge J. R., Bame S. J., Montgomery M. D., Gary S. P., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA080i031p04181 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975JGR....80.4181F 80, 4181

    1975 doi

  8. [16]

    W., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA075i001p00017 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970JGR....75...17F 75, 17

    Forslund D. W., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA075i001p00017 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970JGR....75...17F 75, 17

    1970 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Feldman W

    Gary S. P., Feldman W. C., Forslund D. W., Montgomery M. D., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA080i031p04197 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975JGR....80.4197G 80, 4197

    1975 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Scime E

    Gary S. P., Scime E. E., Phillips J. L., Feldman W. C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1029/94JA02067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JGR....9923391G 99, 23391

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    Goldreich P., Sridhar S., 1995, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/175121 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438..763G 438, 763

    1995 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Bame S

    Gosling J. T., Bame S. J., Feldman W. C., McComas D. J., Phillips J. L., Goldstein B. E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1029/93GL02489 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993GeoRL..20.2335G 20, 2335

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Skoug R

    Gosling J. T., Skoug R. M., Feldman W. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2001GL013758 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001GeoRL..28.4155G 28, 4155

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2016JA023656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.3858G 122, 3858

    Graham G. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2016JA023656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.3858G 122, 3858

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Rae I

    Graham G. A., Rae I. J., Owen C. J., Walsh A. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf1b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...40G 855, 40

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Jenko F., 2018, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.105101 , 120, 1

    Gro s elj D., Mallet A., Loureiro N. F., Jenko F., 2018, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.105101 , 120, 1

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J., 2002, Collisional transport in magnetized plasmas

    Helander P., Sigmar D. J., 2002, Collisional transport in magnetized plasmas. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge monographs on plasma physics; 4)

    2002

  18. [26]

    I., Salem C., Bale S

    Horaites K., Boldyrev S., Krasheninnikov S. I., Salem C., Bale S. D., Pulupa M., 2015, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.245003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvL.114x5003H 114, 245003

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Vi \ n as A

    Horaites K., Boldyrev S., Wilson III L. B., Vi \ n as A. F., Merka J., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2555 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..115H 474, 115

    doi

  20. [28]

    Horaites K., Astfalk P., Boldyrev S., Jenko F., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1808 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1499H 480, 1499

    doi

  21. [29]

    V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3504 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.2474H 484, 2474

    Horaites K., Boldyrev S., Medvedev M. V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3504 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.2474H 484, 2474

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Balogh A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2000JA000108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10615929H 106, 15929

    Horbury T. S., Balogh A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2000JA000108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10615929H 106, 15929

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Balogh A., Forsyth R

    Horbury T. S., Balogh A., Forsyth R. J., Smith E. J., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  24. [32]

    G., Cowley S

    Howes G. G., Cowley S. C., Dorland W., Hammett G. W., Quataert E., Schekochihin A. A., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/506172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651..590H 651, 590

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..172K 833, 172

    Kajdi c P., Alexandrova O., Maksimovic M., Lacombe C., Fazakerley A. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..172K 833, 172

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    H., Chapman S

    Kiyani K. H., Chapman S. C., Khotyaintsev Y. V., Dunlop M. W., Sahraoui F., 2009, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.075006 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.103g5006K 103, 075006

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    K \"o hnlein W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00153841 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SoPh..169..209K 169, 209

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics

    Kulsrud R. M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics. Princeton University Press (Princeton series in astrophysics)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Lacombe C., Alexandrova O., Matteini L., Santol \' k O., Cornilleau-Wehrlin N., Mangeney A., de Conchy Y., Maksimovic M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796....5L 796, 5

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Meyrand R., Galtier S., 2013, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.264501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.111z4501M 111, 264501

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Narita Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L...8N 827, L8

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    W., Fitzenreiter R., Desch M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2000JA000131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JGR...10527277O 105, 27277

    Ogilvie K. W., Fitzenreiter R., Desch M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2000JA000131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JGR...10527277O 105, 27277

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    P., de Koning C

    Pagel C., Gary S. P., de Koning C. A., Skoug R. M., Steinberg J. T., 2007, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2006JA011967 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007JGRA..112.4103P 112, A04103

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Pierrard V., Maksimovic M., Lemaire J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2001JA900133 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10629305P 106, 29305

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Pierrard V., Lazar M., Schlickeiser R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-010-9700-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SoPh..269..421P 269, 421

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-016-0961-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SoPh..291.2165P 291, 2165

    Pierrard V., Lazar M., Poedts S., S tver \'a k S ., Maksimovic M., Tr \'a vn \' c ek P. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-016-0961-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SoPh..291.2165P 291, 2165

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Muehlhaeuser K.-H., Miggenrieder H., Montgomery M

    Pilipp W. G., Muehlhaeuser K.-H., Miggenrieder H., Montgomery M. D., Rosenbauer H., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA092iA02p01075 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JGR....92.1075P 92, 1075

    1987 doi

  38. [46]

    L., Chen C

    Roytershteyn V., Boldyrev S., Delzanno G. L., Chen C. H. K., Gro s elj D., Loureiro N. F., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf288 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..103R 870, 103

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Y., Belmont G., Goldstein M

    Sahraoui F., Huang S. Y., Belmont G., Goldstein M. L., R \'e tino A., Robert P., De Patoul J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...15S 777, 15

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2006GL028173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeoRL..34.1102S 34, L01102

    Saito S., Gary S. P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2006GL028173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeoRL..34.1102S 34, L01102

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Olbert S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA084iA11p06603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JGR....84.6603S 84, 6603

    Scudder J. D., Olbert S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA084iA11p06603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JGR....84.6603S 84, 6603

    1979 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Chen C

    Stansby D., Horbury T. S., Chen C. H. K., Matteini L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L16 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829L..16S 829, L16

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    H., 1992, Waves in plasmas

    Stix T. H., 1992, Waves in plasmas. New York : American Institute of Physics

    1992

  44. [52]

    P., Kolobov V., 2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series

    Tang B., Zank G. P., Kolobov V., 2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012025, @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/1100/1/012025

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Howes G

    TenBarge J. M., Howes G. G., 2012, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.3693974 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhPl...19e5901T 19, 055901

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    G., Maruca B

    Verscharen D., Klein K. G., Maruca B. A., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190203448V

    2019

  47. [55]

    Vocks C., Mann G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376682 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593.1134V 593, 1134

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    P., Mann G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627..540V 627, 540

    Vocks C., Salem C., Lin R. P., Mann G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627..540V 627, 540

    2005 doi

  49. [57]

    B., et al., 2013, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2012JA018167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JGRA..118....5W 118, 5

    Wilson L. B., et al., 2013, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2012JA018167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JGRA..118....5W 118, 5

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Marsch E., Fazakerley A

    S tver \'a k S ., Maksimovic M., Tr \'a vn \' c ek P. M., Marsch E., Fazakerley A. N., Scime E. E., 2009, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2008JA013883 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRA..11405104S 114, 5104

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Hellinger P., 2015, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JGRA..120.8177A 120, 8177

    S tver \'a k S ., Tr \'a vn \' c ek P. M., Hellinger P., 2015, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JGRA..120.8177A 120, 8177

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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