Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Turbulence vs. fire hose instabilities: 3-D hybrid expanding box simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 In a 3-D hybrid expanding-box plasma simulation, expansion-driven perpendicular cooling dominates turbulent heating and drives parallel and oblique fire hose instabilities that reduce proton temperature anisotropy.

desk verdict A careful 3D extension of the 2D fire-hose/turbulence result; the mode identification is qualitative but the evidence is convergent, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07760 v1 pith:7DD7T4E7 submitted 2019-08-21 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

P. Hellinger , L. Matteini , S. Landi , L. Franci , A. Verdini , E. Papini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords solarwindprotontemperatureanisotropyfirehoseinstabilityplasmaturbulenceexpandingboxsimulationhybridintermittencypermutationentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses a three-dimensional hybrid expanding-box simulation to settle how solar-wind expansion and plasma turbulence compete to shape proton temperature anisotropy. It finds that the turbulent cascade, though well developed, heats protons too weakly to offset the perpendicular cooling caused by expansion. The plasma therefore crosses the instability threshold and drives the parallel and oblique fire hose instabilities, which generate quasi-monochromatic wave packets that scatter protons and reduce $T_\perp/T_\parallel$. A sympathetic reader should care because this identifies a mechanism by which kinetic instabilities coexist with turbulence and can regulate observable solar-wind temperatures without needing large wave amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a 3-D hybrid expanding-box simulation: protons are treated kinetically as particles, electrons as a massless fluid, and the simulation box co-expands with a model solar-wind flow so that transverse scales grow with radial distance $R$ while the radial scale stays fixed. This expansion enforces double-adiabatic perpendicular cooling ($T_\perp \propto R^{-2}$, with $T_\parallel$ roughly constant), which drives the $\beta_\parallel$ vs. $T_\perp/T_\parallel$ trajectory across the linear fire hose thresholds. The fire hose modes themselves are the mechanism that transfers free energy back out of the anisotropic proton distribution: the oblique fire hose in particular grows as non-propagating modes that then convert to damped propagating modes, scattering protons and reducing the anisotropy that feeds the instability.

What would settle it

Run the same 3-D setup with identical initial turbulence but without expansion: if quasi-monochromatic wave packets near $k_\parallel d_i \approx 0.5$ still appear around $t \approx 0.14\,t_{\rm exp}$, the claim that expansion-driven cooling is the driver would be refuted. Alternatively, compute local linear growth rates from the simulated, agyrotropic proton distributions just before $t \approx 0.14\,t_{\rm exp}$ and compare the observed mode frequencies in the $(k_\parallel,\omega)$ spectrum with the predicted fire hose branches; a mismatch would call the instability identification into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in a slowly expanding plasma that starts stable with $\beta_\parallel = 2.4$ and $T_\perp/T_\parallel = 0.75$, expansion-driven perpendicular cooling overcomes turbulent proton heating and pushes the system unstable to the parallel and oblique fire hose instabilities. Around $t \approx 0.14\,t_{\rm exp}$ the instabilities generate quasi-monochromatic, low-amplitude wave packets with wave vectors quasi-parallel/oblique to the ambient magnetic field, lying outside the region in $(k_\perp,k_\parallel)$ space dominated by the turbulent cascade and visible only in reduced 1-D power spectra at angles below about $40^\circ$ to the field. These waves reduce the proton temperature anisotropy, are partly reabsorbed by protons through cyclotron resonances, and partly couple back into the turbulent cascade. The instability wave activity also produces weak and anisotropic changes in the kurtosis, Shannon entropy, and Jensen-Shannon complexity of the magnetic fluctuations, with the paper arguing that linear stability predictions for a uniform gyrotropic plasma remain in semi-quantitative agreement despite the turbulence, inhomogeneity, and proton agyrotropy.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the quasi-monochromatic wave packets as fire hose instabilities assumes that linear predictions for a uniform, homogeneous, gyrotropic plasma remain valid in the simulated system, which is turbulent, inhomogeneous, and has proton agyrotropy up to about 0.1; if those modes are partly turbulent or numerical artifacts, the central claim that fire hose instabilities reduce the proton temperature anisotropy weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the solar wind, instability-driven waves should be sought outside the turbulent-cascade region in wavenumber space, mainly at quasi-parallel/oblique angles, so 1-D spectra taken perpendicular to the magnetic field can miss them entirely.
  • Fire hose waves do not need to dominate the magnetic power spectrum to regulate proton temperature anisotropy: their resonant, quasi-coherent nature lets low-amplitude wave packets do the work.
  • The generated waves are partly recycled into the turbulent cascade and partly damped on protons, so kinetic instabilities and turbulence form a coupled loop rather than mutually exclusive channels.
  • Because the instability-driven changes in kurtosis, permutation entropy, and complexity are weak and angle-dependent, observational attempts to flag such waves with those diagnostics will require high-quality, angle-resolved measurements.
  • The 3-D results show that earlier 2-D expanding-box findings are geometry-limited: unstable modes are not forced into the cascade region, so conclusions drawn from 2-D runs need to be revisited.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' speculation that turbulence pushes unstable modes outside the cascade-dominated region suggests a testable prediction: increasing the initial fluctuation amplitude should move fire hose wave activity further into the quasi-parallel/oblique sector and may delay its onset.
  • If the identification holds, spacecraft measurements of magnetic coherence or helicity along quasi-parallel sampling directions could reveal fire hose wave packets even when they are hidden in total power spectra, since the simulation shows the packets are quasi-coherent.
  • A natural control experiment would be the same 3-D setup with the expansion switched off; if quasi-monochromatic packets near $k_\parallel d_i \approx 0.5$ still appear, the claim that expansion-driven cooling is the driver would be undercut, whereas their absence would confirm the expansion's role.
  • The results imply a practical caution for solar-wind surveys: anisotropy bounds fitted from 1-D spectra may miss the relevant wave activity unless sampling is aligned within roughly $40^\circ$ of the mean field, potentially biasing comparisons between observed and theoretical thresholds.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a three-dimensional hybrid expanding-box simulation of decaying Alfvénic turbulence in a slowly expanding plasma with the background magnetic field along the radial direction. The initial conditions (β∥=2.4, T⊥/T∥=0.75, δB/B0=0.24, texp=10^4/ωci) are chosen to be fire-hose stable. The simulation shows double-adiabatic perpendicular cooling, crossing of the parallel and oblique fire-hose thresholds in the (β∥, T⊥/T∥) plane, the appearance of quasi-monochromatic wave packets at t≈0.14texp with a narrow spectral peak at k∥≈0.5/di, and a subsequent reduction of the temperature anisotropy. The authors characterize the waves' spectral location outside the turbulent-cascade-dominated region, their partial reabsorption by protons, and their weak effects on kurtosis, Shannon permutation entropy, and Jensen-Shannon complexity. The paper concludes that fire-hose instabilities coexist with turbulence and that their signatures are visible only at quasi-parallel/oblique angles.

Significance. If the central identification is accepted, this is the first 3D hybrid simulation to demonstrate self-consistently that expansion-driven parallel/oblique fire-hose instabilities can grow in the presence of a developed turbulent cascade and occupy a distinct region of k-space, with implications for the interpretation of ion-scale wave activity in the solar wind. The work's strengths are that it is a forward simulation with parameters motivated by earlier 2D runs and stable initial conditions rather than fitted to the fire-hose outcome; the anisotropy evolution in Fig. 2 follows double-adiabatic cooling until threshold crossing; and the authors use multiple diagnostics (real-space cuts, 2D and 1D spectra, spatio-temporal spectra, VDFs, and statistical measures). The manuscript is candid about limitations (fast expansion, small box, particle noise). However, the quantitative identification of the observed wave band as the fire-hose instability is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3 / Fig. 7] The central claim that the quasi-monochromatic wave packets at t≈0.14texp are the parallel and oblique fire-hose instabilities is not supported by a quantitative linear-theory comparison. The text classifies the k∥≈0.5/di band by morphology ('fast-magnetosonic dispersive modes (ω ∝ ±k∥²)' at 0.2≲k∥≲0.4 and 'weakly or non propagating modes' at 0.3≲k∥≲0.6) and by the system's position relative to the linear instability thresholds in Fig. 2, but no growth-rate curves, unstable-k∥ intervals, frequencies, or polarization/helicity predictions from a Vlasov linear solver at the measured box-averaged (or local) parameters are overlaid on Figs. 2, 5, or 7. Given that the plasma is inhomogeneous and agyrotropic (A⌀ up to ~0.1, Eq. 1), the identification remains qualitative. I recommend adding a direct comparison, e.g., linear growth rates for the box-averaged β∥ and T⊥/T∥ at the relevant times, the predicted ω(k∥) branches overlaid on Fig. 7, and observed polarization/helicity in the k∥≈0.5/di band.
  2. [3.1 / Fig. 1] The causal statement that the fire-hose waves reduce T⊥/T∥ is inferred from temporal coincidence: the anisotropy stops decreasing and rises at t≈0.12–0.15texp while δBl peaks, and the VDF in Fig. 8 shows wings at t=0.14texp. This is suggestive but not quantitative. The reduction could in principle be partly due to turbulent heating or to the time-dependent expansion, and the additional 2D control run mentioned in §3.5 is used only for the H/C statistics, not for the anisotropy evolution. I recommend quantifying the anisotropy-reduction rate and comparing it with a quasi-linear estimate based on the measured wave spectrum, or adding a control run with the instability suppressed, so the causality is not solely based on correlation.
  3. [3.3 / Fig. 5] The claim that the fire-hose wave activity lies 'outside the region dominated by the turbulent cascade' is central to the paper's conclusion but is not quantified. No measure of cascade dominance (e.g., the ratio of the spectral power in the k∥≈0.5/di band to the local turbulent background in the same (k⊥, k∥) region) or a threshold is defined, and Fig. 5 is presented as a color-scale image only. I recommend computing and reporting a quantitative measure, such as the band-to-background ratio as a function of propagation angle, to support the spectral-separation conclusion.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4 (Discussion)] The statement that in the turbulence-only phase 'H increases and C increases with the time' contradicts the text and Fig. 10, where H increases while C decreases; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.1] There are small language errors: 'averated' should be 'averaged', and 'for for |k∥|di > 0.25' contains a duplicated 'for'.
  3. [Section 3.5] The sampling used for the permutation entropy and complexity is unclear: 'calculate H and C for each cut every 5 ωci'—please specify whether the series is taken along spatial cuts at a fixed time and what 'every 5 ωci' refers to.
  4. [Figure 4] The compressible component should be defined; the text calls it δBz while the total fluctuation is δB, so the notation is potentially confusing.
  5. [Abstract / body] The body text uses hedged phrasing ('fire hose-like', 'likely due to', 'semi-quantitative agreement') while the abstract states the identification as fact; please make the level of certainty consistent throughout.
  6. [Section 3.5] The statement that the H and C changes are 'somewhat larger than the corresponding standard deviations' is based on 64 cuts whose statistical independence is not established; please state the effective degrees of freedom or use a block/bootstrap estimate.
  7. [General] Please add a data/code availability statement or specify that the simulation data are available on request.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fire hose activity is an emergent simulation outcome; self-citations are methodological or interpretive, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central chain (expansion-driven perpendicular cooling overcomes turbulent heating; the plasma becomes fire-hose unstable; instability-generated waves reduce T_perp/T_par) is a forward hybrid simulation, not a derivation from fitted outputs. The initial parameters (beta_par = 2.4, T_perp/T_par = 0.75, deltaB = 0.24 B0) are chosen to be stable with respect to fire hose instabilities and to match earlier 2D runs, so the later instability and anisotropy reduction emerge from the dynamics. The frequent self-citations (expanding box model, CAMELIA, prior 2D HEB results, oblique fire hose nonlinear evolution) supply the numerical method and interpretive linear/nonlinear theory; they are not used to define the simulation output. The identification of the k_par approximately 0.5/d_i band with parallel/oblique fire hose modes is qualitative and rests on spectral morphology plus prior dispersion expectations, but that is an evidentiary weakness about mode identification, not circularity. No equation is fitted to the predicted quantity, and no claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to an input.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. It uses a standard simulation code and standard linear theory. The free parameters are chosen physical and numerical settings, not fitted to match the fire hose outcome. The main non-standard assumption is the applicability of homogeneous linear theory to a turbulent and agyrotropic simulation, which the authors themselves flag as only semi-quantitative.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial rms fluctuation amplitude δB/B0 = 0.24
    Chosen to be large relative to expansion but not fitted to an outcome; affects whether turbulent heating can compete with expansion cooling. Section 2.
  • Initial parallel proton beta β∥ and anisotropy T⊥/T∥ = 2.4 and 0.75
    Chosen so the initial plasma is stable against fire hose instabilities and comparable to the 2D run of Hellinger et al. (2015). Section 2.
  • Initial expansion time texp = 10^4 / ωci
    About ten times faster than the solar wind, but the ratio of expansion to turbulence timescales is comparable to observed values (see Section 4 limitations).
  • Resistivity η = 0.001 μ0 vA^2 / ωci
    Chosen to avoid accumulation of cascading energy at grid scales; affects the kurtosis saturation at small scales, as acknowledged in Section 3.5.
  • Box size, resolution, and particles per cell = 512x512x256, Δx=0.25di, Δz=0.5di, 400 particles/cell
    Numerical choices that set the accessible scale range and noise level; listed as limitations in Section 4.
  • Initial perturbation spectrum = isotropic, 0.02 ≤ kdi ≤ 0.2, flat 1D power spectrum, zero cross-helicity
    Chosen initial condition; the zero cross-helicity and random phases are standard for decaying turbulence studies and not fitted to the fire hose outcome.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Expanding box approximation: spherical solar wind expansion approximated by a Cartesian co-moving box with transverse scales proportional to R and constant radial scale.
    Invoked in Section 2, citing Hellinger & Trávníček (2005). The central results depend on this approximation of expansion geometry.
  • domain assumption Hybrid approximation: ions treated as particles, electrons as a massless, charge-neutralizing fluid.
    Standard for ion-scale simulations; stated in Section 2. Fire hose waves are ion-scale, so this model is appropriate but excludes electron kinetic effects.
  • domain assumption Linear fire hose stability theory for a uniform, homogeneous, gyrotropic bi-Maxwellian plasma applies to the turbulent, inhomogeneous, agyrotropic simulation.
    Used throughout Sections 3.1 and 3.3 to interpret the wave packets and the (β∥, T⊥/T∥) trajectory. The paper itself notes the simulation deviates from these idealizations and checks agreement only semi-quantitatively.
  • domain assumption The initial plasma is stable with respect to fire hose instabilities according to linear theory.
    Stated in Section 2: 'for these parameters the plasma system is stable with respect to the fire hose instabilities'. The simulation then relies on expansion to drive it unstable.
  • domain assumption Numerical resistivity and finite particle number do not qualitatively alter the instability-turbulence interplay.
    The paper discusses these as limitations in Section 4 (e.g., kurtosis saturation related to resistivity, numerical noise in velocity spectra), so the qualitative conclusions are assumed robust to them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbulence vs. fire hose instabilities: 3-D hybrid expanding box simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DD7T4E7

@misc{pith2026190807760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbulence vs. fire hose instabilities: 3-D hybrid expanding box simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DD7T4E7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07760}
}
read the original abstract

The relationship between a decaying plasma turbulence and proton fire hose instabilities in a slowly expanding plasma is investigated using three-dimensional (3-D) hybrid expanding box simulations. We impose an initial ambient magnetic field along the radial direction, and we start with an isotropic spectrum of large-scale, linearly-polarized, random-phase Alfvenic fluctuations with zero cross-helicity. A turbulent cascade rapidly develops and leads to a weak proton heating that is not sufficient to overcome the expansion-driven perpendicular cooling. The plasma system eventually drives the parallel and oblique fire hose instabilities that generate quasi-monochromatic wave packets that reduce the proton temperature anisotropy. The fire hose wave activity has a low amplitude with wave vectors quasi-parallel/oblique with respect to the ambient magnetic field outside of the region dominated by the turbulent cascade and is discernible in one-dimensional power spectra taken only in the direction quasi-parallel/oblique with respect to the ambient magnetic field; at quasi-perpendicular angles the wave activity is hidden by the turbulent background. These waves are partly reabsorbed by protons and partly couple to and participate in the turbulent cascade. Their presence reduces kurtosis, a measure of intermittency, and the Shannon entropy but increases the Jensen-Shannon complexity of magnetic fluctuations; these changes are weak and anisotropic with respect to the ambient magnetic field and it's not clear if they can be used to indirectly discern the presence of instability-driven waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07760 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the system in the (βk, T⊥/Tk) space (solid line). The empty circle denotes the initial condition whereas the full circle denotes the time t = 0.14texp; the dotted line shows the double adiabatic prediction for a cor￾responding system without turbulent fluctuations. Blue and red dashed contours show the maximum growth rate (nor￾malized to ωci) of the parallel and oblique fire hose instability (for a unif… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. 1-D cuts of the fluctuating magnetic field com￾ponents (black) Bx, (red) By, and (blue) δBz (normalized to B0) as functions of x (and y = z = 0, left) and z (and x = y = 0, right) for t = 0.10texp (top), t = 0.14texp (mid￾dle), and t = 0.20texp (bottom). 3.3. Spectral properties Let us now investigate the spectral properties of the fluctuations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Reduced 1D power spectral densities of (top) B and (bottom) u as functions of (left) k⊥ and (right) kk for (dash-dotted) t = 0.10texp, (dashed) t = 0.14texp, and (solid) t = 0.20texp. The dotted lines show (top left) a Kolmogorov￾like spectrum ∝ k −5/3 ⊥ and (bottom left) a spectrum ∝ k −3/2 ⊥ . analysis shows that only for angles between the ambient magnetic field and the wave vector below ∼ 40o the fire hose fluct… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color scale plots of the power spectral densities of the magnetic field B (left) and the proton bulk velocity field u (right) as functions of k⊥ and kk for t = 0.10texp (top), t = 0.14texp (middle), and t = 0.20texp (bottom). It is interesting to look at the reduced 1-…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatio-temporal spectral properties of magnetic fluctuations: reduced 2-D spectra of B as functions of (left) k⊥ and ω and (right) kk and ω for (top) t = 0 ÷ 0.1texp and (bottom) t = 0.1 ÷ 0.2texp. The wavevectors are normalized to the mean (over the given time interva…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gyro-averaged proton velocity distribution func￾tion f as a function of parallel and perpendicular veloci￾ties vk and v⊥ (with respect to the background magnetic field) for (top) t = 0.10te, (middle) t = 0.14te, and (bottom) t = 0.20te [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Color scale plots of the excess kurtosis K0 of the increment δBy as functions of the separation l⊥ and lk for (top) t = 0.10texp, (middle) t = 0.14texp, and (bottom) t = 0.20texp. a non-negligible noise level and a limited box size we take 8 × 8 1-D cuts (equidistantly…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

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. Solar Wind Proton Heating and its Effect on Temperature Anisotropy Evolution between 0.05 and 1 au

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Solar wind protons experience substantial perpendicular, but not parallel, heating from 0.05 to 1 au, reducing the expected adiabatic growth of temperature anisotropy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2008, ApJ, 674, 1153, doi:10.1086/524056

    Alexandrova, O., Carbone, V., Veltri, P., & Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2008, ApJ, 674, 1153, doi:10.1086/524056

    doi:10.1086/524056 2008

  2. [2]

    S., & Bale, S

    Horbury, T. S., & Bale, S. D. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 178, 101, doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0004-8

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0004-8 2013

  3. [3]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 53, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cc

    Quataert, E. 2019, ApJ, 879, 53, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cc 2019

  4. [4]

    2002, PhRvL, 88, 174102

    Bandt, C., & Pompe, P. 2002, PhRvL, 88, 174102

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Bandt, C., & Shiha, F. 2007, J. Time Ser. Analysis, 28, 646, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892.2007.00528.x

    work page arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    2013, LRSP, 10, 2, doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, LRSP, 10, 2, doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 2013

  7. [7]

    Kasper, J. C. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1604, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1604 Del Sarto, D., & Pegoraro, F. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 181, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3083

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/1604 2009

  8. [8]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 118, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/118

    Dong, Y., Verdini, A., & Grappin, R. 2014, ApJ, 793, 118, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/118 2014

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2018a, J

    Franci, L., Hellinger, P., Guarrasi, M., et al. 2018a, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1031, 012002, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1031/1/012002

    doi

  2. [10]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 21, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/21

    Franci, L., Landi, S., Matteini, L., Verdini, A., & Hellinger, P. 2015, ApJ, 812, 21, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/21

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2018b, ApJ, 1, 26, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e8

    Franci, L., Landi, S., Verdini, A., Matteini, L., & Hellinger, P. 2018b, ApJ, 1, 26, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e8

    doi

  4. [12]

    Gary, S. P. 1993, Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    1993

  5. [13]

    P., Goldstein, B

    Gary, S. P., Goldstein, B. E., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, JGR, 106, 24955

    2001

  6. [14]

    P., Jian, L

    Gary, S. P., Jian, L. K., Broiles, T. W., et al. 2016, JGR, 121, 30, doi:10.1002/2015JA021935

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Li, H., O’Rourke, S., & Winske, D

    Gary, S. P., Li, H., O’Rourke, S., & Winske, D. 1998, JGR, 103, 14567

    1998

  8. [16]

    1993, PhRvL, 70, 2190

    Grappin, R., Velli, M., & Mangeney, A. 1993, PhRvL, 70, 2190

    1993

  9. [17]

    2017, JPlPh, 83, 705830105, doi:10.1017/S0022377817000071

    Hellinger, P. 2017, JPlPh, 83, 705830105, doi:10.1017/S0022377817000071

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 158, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa67e0

    Hellinger, P., Landi, S., Matteini, L., Verdini, A., & Franci, L. 2017, ApJ, 838, 158, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa67e0

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2000, JGR, 105, 10519 —

    Hellinger, P., & Matsumoto, H. 2000, JGR, 105, 10519 —. 2001, JGR, 106, 13215

    2000

  12. [20]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L32, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L32

    Hellinger, P., Matteini, L., Landi, S., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L32, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L32

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2005, JGR, 110, A04210, doi:10.1029/2004JA010687 —

    Hellinger, P., & Tr´ avn´ ıˇ cek, P. 2005, JGR, 110, A04210, doi:10.1029/2004JA010687 —. 2008, JGR, 113, A10109, doi:10.1029/2008JA013416

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    C., & Lazarus, A

    Hellinger, P., Tr´ avn´ ıˇ cek, P., Kasper, J. C., & Lazarus, A. J. 2006, GeoRL, 33, L09101, doi:10.1029/2006GL025925

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, JGR, 118, 1351, doi:10.1002/jgra.50107

    Velli, M. 2013, JGR, 118, 1351, doi:10.1002/jgra.50107

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    K., Russell, C

    Jian, L. K., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., et al. 2009, ApJL, 701, L105, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L105

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Kasper, J. C. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 205102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.205102

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    G., & Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., & Howes, G. G. 2015, PhPl, 22, 032903, doi:10.1063/1.4914933

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Martin, M

    Lamberti, P. W., Martin, M. T., Plastino, A., & Rosso, O. A. 2004, Phys. A, 334, 119

    2004

  20. [28]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 47, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/47 L´ opez-Ruiz, R., Mancini, H

    Lion, S., Alexandrova, O., & Zaslavsky, A. 2016, ApJ, 824, 47, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/47 L´ opez-Ruiz, R., Mancini, H. L., & Calbet, X. 1995, Phys. Lett. A, 209, 321, doi:10.1016/0375-9601(95)00867-5

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Smith, C

    MacBride, B. T., Smith, C. W., & Forman, M. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1644, doi:10.1086/529575

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    E., & Morales, G

    Maggs, J. E., & Morales, G. J. 2013, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 55, 085015, doi:10.1088/0741-3335/55/8/085015 12

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Vasquez, B

    Markovskii, S. A., & Vasquez, B. J. 2011, ApJ, 739, 22, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/22

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Kasper, J

    Maruca, B. A., Kasper, J. C., & Gary, S. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 137, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/137

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    E., et al

    Matteini, L., Hellinger, P., Goldstein, B. E., et al. 2013, JGR, 118, 2771, doi:10.1002/jgra.50320

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, Space Sci

    Velli, M. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 172, 373, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9774-z

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2007, GeoRL, 34, L20105, doi:10.1029/2007GL030920

    Matteini, L., Landi, S., Hellinger, P., et al. 2007, GeoRL, 34, L20105, doi:10.1029/2007GL030920

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, JGR, 111, A10101, doi:10.1029/2006JA011667

    Matteini, L., Landi, S., Hellinger, P., & Velli, M. 2006, JGR, 111, A10101, doi:10.1029/2006JA011667

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    H., & Velli, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., & Velli, M. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 160, 145, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9793-9

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140154, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0154

    2015

  31. [39]

    1994, JCoPh, 112, 102

    Matthews, A. 1994, JCoPh, 112, 102

    1994

  32. [40]

    D., & Pouquet, A

    Mininni, P. D., & Pouquet, A. 2009, PhRvE, 80, 025401, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.80.025401

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 153, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1ea

    Montagud-Camps, V., Grappin, R., & Verdini, A. 2018, ApJ, 853, 153, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1ea

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, Sol

    Ofman, L. 2019, Sol. Phys., 294, 51, doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1440-8

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Engelbrecht, N

    Olivier, C. P., Engelbrecht, N. E., & Strauss, R. D. 2019, JGR, 124, 4, doi:10.1029/2018JA026102

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & Matthaeus, W

    Oughton, S., Priest, E. R., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1994, J. Fluid Mech., 280, 95, doi:10.1017/S0022112094002867

    1994 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 52, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf003

    Papini, E., Franci, L., Landi, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 52, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf003

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    N., Matthaeus, W

    Parashar, T. N., Matthaeus, W. H., & Shay, M. A. 2018, ApJL, 864, L21, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadb8b

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    N., Shay, M

    Parashar, T. N., Shay, M. A., Cassak, P. A., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2009, PhPl, 16, 032310, doi:10.1063/1.3094062

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    L., et al

    Petrosyan, A., Balogh, A., Goldstein, M. L., et al. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 156, 135, doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9694-3

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    2008, JGR, 113, A06222, doi:10.1029/2008JA013035

    Scudder, J., & Daughton, W. 2008, JGR, 113, A06222, doi:10.1029/2008JA013035

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    2015, JPlPh, 81, 325810107, doi:10.1017/S0022377814000841

    Servidio, S., Valentini, F., Perrone, D., et al. 2015, JPlPh, 81, 325810107, doi:10.1017/S0022377814000841

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    V., Matthaeus, W

    Shebalin, J. V., Matthaeus, W. H., & Montgomery, D. 1983, JPlPh, 29, 525

    1983

  44. [52]

    Salem, C. S. 2019, A&A, 623, L2, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834900 ˇStver´ ak,ˇS., Tr´ avn´ ıˇ cek, P. M., & Hellinger, P. 2015, JGR, 120, 8177, doi:10.1002/2015JA021368

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2014, PhPl, 21, 082307, doi:10.1063/1.4893301

    Valentini, F., Servidio, S., Perrone, D., et al. 2014, PhPl, 21, 082307, doi:10.1063/1.4893301

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, ApJL, 808, L34, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L34

    Verdini, A., & Grappin, R. 2015, ApJL, 808, L34, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L34

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Verdini, A., Grappin, R., Hellinger, P., Landi, S., & M¨ uller, W. C. 2015, ApJ, 804, 119, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/119

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Schaffner, D

    Weck, P. J., Schaffner, D. A., Brown, M. R., & Wicks, R. T. 2015, PhRvE, 91, 23101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.91.023101

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    M., & Kivelson, M

    Weygand, J. M., & Kivelson, M. G. 2019, ApJ, 872, 59, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafda4

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    T., Alexander, R

    Wicks, R. T., Alexander, R. L., Stevens, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 6, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/6

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, PhRvL, 111, 121105, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.121105

    Swisdak, M. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 121105, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.121105

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    G., Mart´ ın, M

    Zunino, L., P´ erez, D. G., Mart´ ın, M. T., et al. 2008, Phys. Lett. A, 372, 4768, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2008.05.026

    2008 doi

Pith tools

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