Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Observations of Electromagnetic Electron Holes and Evidence of Cherenkov Whistler Emission

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fast electron holes in the magnetotail radiate whistler waves.

desk verdict First serious attempt to decompose electromagnetic electron-hole fields; whistler claim is plausible but rests on a small, model-dependent sample. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11198 v2 pith:ZS6YMW5Y submitted 2019-08-29 physics.space-ph physics.plasm-ph

Konrad Steinvall , Yuri V. Khotyaintsev , Daniel B. Graham , Andris Vaivads , Olivier Le Contel , Christopher T. Russell This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords electronholeswhistlerwavesCherenkovemissionmagneticreconnectionmagnetotailplasmasheetboundarylayerfour-spacecraftmeasurementskineticdamping
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

Electron holes—localized, positively charged plasma structures that trap electrons—are usually treated as electrostatic, but this paper reports that some carry measurable magnetic fields and that the fastest ones emit whistler waves. Using four spacecraft flying in tight formation through Earth's magnetotail, the authors separate the measured magnetic field into three contributions: the Lorentz transform of the hole's electric field, the field of electrons drifting around the hole, and a residual perpendicular field. For slow holes, the first two explain the data; for holes moving near half the electron Alfvén speed, the residual field is right-hand polarized, below the electron cyclotron frequency, and matches the whistler mode predicted by the Cherenkov resonance condition. The paper concludes with the first observational evidence that fast electron holes Cherenkov-radiate whistler waves, which are strongly damped and usually stay confined inside the hole. This matters because the same mechanism may feed energy from electron holes into reconnection dynamics.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a Gaussian model of the hole potential, $\Phi(r,\theta,z)=\Phi_0 e^{-r^2/2l_\perp^2}e^{-z^2/2l_\parallel^2}$ (Eq. 1), whose parameters are fit to four-spacecraft electric-field data. This model feeds a Biot-Savart integral (Eq. 2) for the drift field $\delta\mathbf{B}_d$ produced by the $\delta\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}_0$ electron current, while the Lorentz contribution $\delta\mathbf{B}_L$ is computed from $\mp v_{\mathrm{EH}}\delta E/c^2$. The residual $\delta\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{Res},\perp}=\delta\mathbf{B}-\delta\mathbf{B}_L-\delta\mathbf{B}_d$ is then compared with whistler theory: the Cherenkov resonance condition $\omega/k_\parallel=v_{\mathrm{EH}}$ selects the emitted wave, and the kinetic dispersion relation gives its damping and ellipticity. The mechanism's characteristic signature is the $(v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae})^4$ scaling of the secular growth, which explains why only the fastest holes show detectable whistlers.

What would settle it

Observe a fast electron hole, moving near half the electron Alfvén speed, whose measured electric field matches the assumed Gaussian shape but whose leftover perpendicular magnetic field is absent or has left-hand polarization; the Cherenkov whistler claim would then fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the magnetic field of an electron hole is not a single effect but a sum of three: (1) the Lorentz transform of the electrostatic hole field, (2) the field generated by the electron drift current $\delta\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}_0$ flowing around the hole, and (3), for sufficiently fast holes, a whistler wave excited by the Cherenkov mechanism. For holes with speed $v_{\mathrm{EH}} \lesssim 0.1\,v_{Ae}$, contributions (1) and (2) reproduce the observed $\delta\mathbf{B}$. For holes approaching $v_{\mathrm{EH}} \approx v_{Ae}/2$, a residual perpendicular field $\delta B_{\mathrm{Res},\perp}$ appears that is right-hand polarized, has frequency $\omega \approx 0.7\Omega_{ce}<\omega_{pe}$, and satisfies the Cherenkov condition $\omega/k_\parallel = v_{\mathrm{EH}}$; its measured frequency and wavenumber sit close to the kinetic whistler dispersion surface. The observed $\delta B_\perp$ grows with hole speed, consistent with the predicted secular growth proportional to $(v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae})^4$. The authors read this as the first observational evidence of electron holes Cherenkov-radiating whistler waves, with strong kinetic damping explaining why the waves are typically confined within the holes.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the magnetic field left over after subtracting the modeled drift field is a genuine whistler wave emitted by the hole, rather than an error caused by the assumed Gaussian shape of the hole's electric potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For slow electron holes ($v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae}\lesssim0.1$), the observed parallel and perpendicular magnetic fields are fully accounted for by the drift current plus the Lorentz transform, so no additional wave mechanism is needed.
  • For fast holes, the perpendicular magnetic field contains a right-hand polarized component below $\Omega_{ce}$ that behaves as a Cherenkov-excited whistler, giving observers a way to identify such holes from magnetic data alone.
  • Because the predicted whistlers are strongly kinetically damped, the radiation is mostly a near-field signal localized inside the hole, explaining why only rare holes show a multi-cycle trailing tail.
  • The observed dependence of $\delta B_\perp$ on $v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae}$ is consistent with the $(v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae})^4$ growth rate, so hole speed relative to the electron Alfvén speed controls whether whistler emission is detectable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification holds, whistler emission gives a remote diagnostic: the frequency and wavenumber of the emitted whistler lets an observer infer the speed of an otherwise unresolved electron hole.
  • The same mechanism may transfer energy from electron holes to whistler waves in reconnection exhausts and boundary layers, a channel that could feed electron scattering and affect reconnection rates beyond what electrostatic treatment alone predicts.
  • A targeted particle-in-cell simulation with a single fast hole and controlled $v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae}$ could test the predicted $(v_{\mathrm{EH}}/v_{Ae})^4$ scaling and the localization of the radiated field, providing a clean numerical falsifier.
  • Statistical surveys with more four-spacecraft fits could check whether every sufficiently fast, well-fit hole shows the residual whistler, or whether the phenomenon requires additional conditions such as a specific temperature anisotropy.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes MMS multi-spacecraft observations of electron holes (EHs) in the magnetotail and quantifies the magnetic field contributions of three mechanisms: the Lorentz transform of the EH electric field, the magnetic field produced by δE×B0 drifting electrons, and Cherenkov emission of whistler waves. The authors show that for slow EHs, the Lorentz/drift contributions account for most of δB, while for fast EHs (vEH approaching vAe/2) a residual perpendicular magnetic field δBRes,⊥ remains. This residual is right-hand polarized with ω<Ωce and is interpreted as whistler waves Cherenkov-radiated by the EHs. The paper presents a statistical survey of 336 EHs, detailed fits for 19 EHs, and a quantitative Cherenkov resonance comparison for one EH, concluding that this is the first observational evidence of EHs Cherenkov-radiating whistler waves.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important advance: it would be the first direct observational identification of Cherenkov whistler emission from electron holes, with implications for EH-driven wave generation and possibly for magnetic reconnection dynamics. The paper's strengths include the use of four-spacecraft MMS data to determine EH velocities and scale lengths, the explicit calculation of δBd from Eq. (2) and comparison with measured δB‖, and the use of the kinetic WHAMP dispersion relation to place the observed wave properties in context. The slow-EH case in Fig. 3a–d provides a useful validation that the model-based δBd reproduces the magnetic field when the EH is well described by the assumed Gaussian potential. The central claim, however, rests on a small subset of events and on a residual whose interpretation is sensitive to model assumptions, so the paper needs additional robustness checks before the first-evidence claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (2) and Fig. 3] The residual δBRes,⊥ = δB − δBL − δBd is the load-bearing quantity for the whistler claim, but δBd is computed from the Gaussian potential model of Eq. (1) using parameters fitted to the measured δE, and no uncertainty in the fitted parameters is propagated into δBd. The paper itself notes for the slow EH that δBd,⊥ is initially overestimated because the EH has a steeper δE‖ rise than the model (Fig. 3b,d), demonstrating that model misfit can directly produce residual parallel/perpendicular magnetic field signatures. Because only 19 of 336 EHs could be fitted and EHs with qualitatively inconsistent δE were excluded, the residual may reflect systematic model misfit rather than a real wave. To support the whistler interpretation, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of δBRes,⊥ to the assumed potential shape and to fit uncertainties, for example by comparing results using alternative axisymmetric or non-Gaussian potentials and by reporting error bars on δBd.
  2. [§4, Fig. 2 and the (vEH/vAe)^4 scaling argument] The claim that the strong vEH/vAe dependence of δB⊥ confirms the Cherenkov growth rate relies on Fig. 2, but Fig. 2 is color-coded by the total peak δB⊥, which confounds velocity with EH potential Φm and with differing plasma conditions across the nine data intervals. The factor-of-250 growth estimate assumes all other parameters are equal, but the figure does not demonstrate this. A more direct test would be to plot the ratio δBRes,⊥/δBd,⊥ (or the residual amplitude normalized by Φ0) versus vEH/vAe for the fitted events, restricted to similar plasma parameters, or to show that the inferred growth rate scales as predicted when Φ0 and plasma parameters are held fixed.
  3. [§4, quantitative Cherenkov match] The quantitative comparison for the tail-like EH rests on a single event: the predicted point (ω/Ωce = 0.73, k‖de = 2.7) is compared with the observed (0.76, 3.2), but no uncertainties are given for the observed frequency and wavevector, which are derived from a four-spacecraft timing method on δB⊥. The agreement of about 20% in k‖ is presented as strong support, but with a single event and no error bars it cannot exclude other wave generation mechanisms or non-Cherenkov interpretations. The authors should provide uncertainties for the wave parameters and ideally apply the same analysis to all events with detectable δBRes,⊥, even if only upper limits can be given for most.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract claims 'first observational evidence' of EHs Cherenkov radiating whistler waves; given the small number of quantitative events, it would be more precise to phrase this as 'evidence consistent with' Cherenkov emission, or to explicitly state the sample size in the abstract.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3] The notation for the field-aligned coordinate system (subscripts ∥, ⊥1, ⊥2) is used without an explicit definition in the text; readers would benefit from a sentence defining the basis vectors relative to B0.
  3. [Fig. 4] In Fig. 4(a,b), the kinetic dispersion curves are shown only for k⊥=0, but the text states that k⊥>0 is needed for the full comparison; it would help to state explicitly which panels use which k⊥ and to clarify the extrapolation method for the dotted lines.
  4. [General] The phrase 'ζBRes,⊥' is used in the text but not defined; it should be defined as the residual perpendicular magnetic field after subtracting δBL and δBd.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Cherenkov identification is an independent resonance test, and δBd is a forward model from δE fits rather than a fit to δB.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing decomposition is δBRes = δB − δBL − δBd. δBd is computed from Eq. (2) using the Gaussian potential of Eq. (1) with parameters fitted to measured δE, not to δB. Therefore subtracting δBd from δB and interpreting the residual as an additional field is a forward-model test, not a circular fit to the target. The whistler/Cherenkov identification relies on independently determined quantities: vEH from four-spacecraft timing of δE∥, the cold/kinetic whistler dispersion relation from WHAMP, and the frequency, wave normal angle, and ellipticity of the residual from multipoint δB measurements. The quantitative comparison (predicted ω/Ωce = 0.73, k∥de = 2.7 vs observed 0.76, 3.2) uses the resonance condition ω/k∥ = vEH, where vEH is measured, and observed wave properties, so it does not reduce to an input. The (vEH/vAe)^4 scaling argument is qualitative and not used as a fit. The only self-citations (Ref. 27 for timing, Ref. 10 for four-spacecraft wave analysis, and Refs. 21–23 for the EH magnetic-field model) are methodological and do not presuppose the Cherenkov emission result. Model misfit of the assumed Gaussian potential could affect δBd and hence the residual, but that is a correctness and uncertainty concern, not definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The quantitative contributions are computed using the fitted Gaussian potential model (Φ0, l⊥, l‖) and standard plasma wave theory (whistler dispersion, Biot-Savart law). The key assumptions are the functional form of the EH potential, field-aligned propagation, and the local origin of the residual whistler signal.

free parameters (3)
  • EH potential amplitude Φ0 = e.g., 915 V (slow EH), 4.2 kV (fast EH)
    Fitted to MMS δE data using the model in Eq. (1); used to compute δBd via Eq. (2).
  • EH perpendicular scale l⊥ = e.g., 26 km and 40 km
    Fitted from δE⊥; enters Biot-Savart integral Eq. (2).
  • EH parallel scale l‖ = e.g., l‖ = l⊥/1.6
    Obtained from four-spacecraft timing or fit; sets the parallel width in Eq. (1).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The EH potential is an axially symmetric Gaussian (Eq. 1): Φ(r,θ,z) = Φ0 e^{-r²/2l⊥²} e^{-z²/2l‖²}.
    This functional form is assumed for all analyzed EHs; EHs with bipolar δE⊥ were excluded as inconsistent with it. Section 'We use the method of Ref. [26]...'.
  • domain assumption EH velocity is field-aligned; median propagation angle of 12° is within timing uncertainty.
    Section 'We use the multi-spacecraft timing method...'.
  • domain assumption Weakly relativistic approximation γ ≈ 1 for the Lorentz transform δBL.
    Section 'For weakly relativistic EHs (i.e. γ ≈ 1)...'.
  • domain assumption Whistler dispersion relation with T⊥/T‖ from WHAMP and cold plasma is applicable.
    Fig. 4 and section 'We put our EH observations into the context...'.
  • domain assumption The residual δBRes,⊥ is generated locally by the EH rather than propagating from an external source.
    Section 'Because δBRes,⊥ is localized to the EHs, we believe the EHs to be the source...'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of Electromagnetic Electron Holes and Evidence of Cherenkov Whistler Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZS6YMW5Y

@misc{pith2026190811198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of Electromagnetic Electron Holes and Evidence of Cherenkov Whistler Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZS6YMW5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11198}
}
read the original abstract

We report observations of electromagnetic electron holes (EHs). We use multi-spacecraft analysis to quantify the magnetic field contributions of three mechanisms: the Lorentz transform, electron drift within the EH, and Cherenkov emission of whistler waves. The first two mechanisms account for the observed magnetic fields for slower EHs, while for EHs with speeds approaching half the electron Alfv\'en speed, whistler waves excited via the Cherenkov mechanism dominate the perpendicular magnetic field. The excited whistlers are kinetically damped and typically confined within the EHs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11198 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Event overview. (a) Magnetic field from FGM [28] in geocentric solar magnetospheric (GSM) coordinates, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Measured EH potential Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two examples of EH fits and induced magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a)-(b) Cold (blue) and kinetic (orange and pink) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schamel, Theory of electron holes, Physica Scripta 20, 336 (1979)

    H. Schamel, Theory of electron holes, Physica Scripta 20, 336 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Schamel, Stationary solitary, snoidal and sinusoidal ion acoustic waves, Plasma Physics 14, 905 (1972)

    H. Schamel, Stationary solitary, snoidal and sinusoidal ion acoustic waves, Plasma Physics 14, 905 (1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    I. H. Hutchinson, Electron holes in phase space: What they are and why they matter, Physics of Plasmas 24, 055601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    H. Che, J. F. Drake, M. Swisdak, and P. H. Yoon, Elec- tron holes and heating in the reconnection dissipation region, Geophysical Research Letters 37, L11105 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    I. Y. Vasko, O. V. Agapitov, F. S. Mozer, A. V. Arte- myev, V. V. Krasnoselskikh, and J. W. Bonnell, Diffusive scattering of electrons by electron holes around injection fronts, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 122, 3163 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Matsumoto, H

    H. Matsumoto, H. Kojima, T. Miyatake, Y. Omura, M. Okada, I. Nagano, and M. Tsutsui, Electrostatic soli- tary waves (esw) in the magnetotail: Ben wave forms ob- served by geotail, Geophysical Research Letters 21, 2915 (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    R. E. Ergun, C. W. Carlson, J. P. McFadden, F. S. Mozer, L. Muschietti, I. Roth, and R. J. Strangeway, Debye-scale plasma structures associated with magnetic-field-aligned electric fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 826 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Pickett, L.-J

    J. Pickett, L.-J. Chen, R. Mutel, I. Christopher, O. San- tol´ ık, G. Lakhina, S. Singh, R. Reddy, D. Gurnett, B. Tsurutani, E. Lucek, and B. Lavraud, Furthering our understanding of electrostatic solitary waves through cluster multispacecraft observations and theory, Ad- vances in Space Research 41, 1666 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Norgren, M

    C. Norgren, M. Andr´ e, D. B. Graham, Y. V. Khotyaint- sev, and A. Vaivads, Slow electron holes in multicom- ponent plasmas, Geophysical Research Letters 42, 7264 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    D. B. Graham, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, and M. Andr´ e, Electrostatic solitary waves and electrostatic waves at the magnetopause, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics 121, 3069 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    J. P. Lynov, P. Michelsen, H. L. P´ ecseli, J. J. Rasmussen, K. Sa´ eki, and V. A. Turikov, Observations of solitary structures in a magnetized, plasma loaded waveguide, Physica Scripta 20, 328 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    W. Fox, M. Porkolab, J. Egedal, N. Katz, and A. Le, Laboratory observation of electron phase-space holes dur- ing magnetic reconnection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 255003 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Lefebvre, L.-J

    B. Lefebvre, L.-J. Chen, W. Gekelman, P. Kintner, J. Pickett, P. Pribyl, S. Vincena, F. Chiang, and J. Judy, Laboratory measurements of electrostatic solitary struc- tures generated by beam injection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 115001 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Omura, H

    Y. Omura, H. Matsumoto, T. Miyake, and H. Kojima, Electron beam instabilities as generation mechanism of electrostatic solitary waves in the magnetotail, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 101, 2685 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Miyake, Y

    T. Miyake, Y. Omura, H. Matsumoto, and H. Kojima, Two-dimensional computer simulations of electrostatic solitary waves observed by geotail spacecraft, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 103, 11841 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    J. F. Drake, M. Swisdak, C. Cattell, M. A. Shay, B. N. Rogers, and A. Zeiler, Formation of electron holes and particle energization during magnetic reconnection, Sci- ence 299, 873 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Cattell, J

    C. Cattell, J. Dombeck, J. Wygant, J. F. Drake, M. Swis- dak, M. L. Goldstein, W. Keith, A. Fazakerley, M. Andr´ e, E. Lucek, and A. Balogh, Cluster observations of elec- tron holes in association with magnetotail reconnection and comparison to simulations, Journal of Geophysi...

    2005

  10. [18]

    Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. Andr´ e, M. Fujimoto, A. Retin` o, and C. J. Owen, Observations of slow electron holes at a magnetic reconnection site, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 165002 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Divin, G

    A. Divin, G. Lapenta, S. Markidis, D. L. Newman, and M. V. Goldman, Numerical simulations of separatrix in- stabilities in collisionless magnetic reconnection, Physics of Plasmas 19, 042110 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    M. V. Goldman, D. L. Newman, G. Lapenta, L. Ander- sson, J. T. Gosling, S. Eriksson, S. Markidis, J. P. East- wood, and R. Ergun, ˇCerenkov emission of quasiparallel whistlers by fast electron phase-space holes during mag- netic reconnection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 145002 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Andersson, R

    L. Andersson, R. E. Ergun, J. Tao, A. Roux, O. LeCon- tel, V. Angelopoulos, J. Bonnell, J. P. McFadden, D. E. Larson, S. Eriksson, T. Johansson, C. M. Cully, D. L. Newman, M. V. Goldman, K.-H. Glassmeier, and W. Baumjohann, New features of electron phase space holes observed b...

    2009

  14. [22]

    Le Contel, R

    O. Le Contel, R. Nakamura, H. Breuillard, M. R. Argall, D. B. Graham, D. Fischer, A. Retin` o, M. Berthomier, R. Pottelette, L. Mirioni, T. Chust, F. D. Wilder, D. J. Gershman, A. Varsani, P.-A. Lindqvist, Y. V. Khotyaint- sev, C. Norgren, R. E. Ergun, K. A. Goodrich, J. L. Bu...

    2017

  15. [23]

    J. B. Tao, R. E. Ergun, L. Andersson, J. W. Bonnell, A. Roux, O. LeContel, V. Angelopoulos, J. P. McFad- den, D. E. Larson, C. M. Cully, H.-U. Auster, K.-H. Glassmeier, W. Baumjohann, D. L. Newman, and M. V. Goldman, A model of electromagnetic electron phase- space holes and i...

    2011

  16. [24]

    J. L. Burch, T. E. Moore, R. B. Torbert, and B. L. Giles, Magnetospheric Multiscale Overview and Science Objec- tives, Space Science Reviews 199, 5 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    J. C. Holmes, R. E. Ergun, D. L. Newman, N. Ahmadi, L. Andersson, O. Le Contel, R. B. Torbert, B. L. Giles, R. J. Strangeway, and J. L. Burch, Electron phase-space holes in three dimensions: Multispacecraft observations by magnetospheric multiscale, Journal of Geophysical Rese...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Y. Tong, I. Vasko, F. S. Mozer, S. D. Bale, I. Roth, A. Artemyev, R. Ergun, B. Giles, P.-A. Lindqvist, C. Russell, R. Strangeway, and R. B. Torbert, Simul- taneous multispacecraft probing of electron phase space holes, Geophysical Research Letters 45, 11,513 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Steinvall, Y

    K. Steinvall, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, A. Vaivads, P.-A. Lindqvist, C. T. Russell, and J. L. Burch, Multispacecraft analysis of electron holes, Geo- physical Research Letters 46, 55 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    C. T. Russell, B. J. Anderson, W. Baumjohann, K. R. Bromund, D. Dearborn, D. Fischer, G. Le, H. K. Leinwe- ber, D. Leneman, W. Magnes, J. D. Means, M. B. Mold- win, R. Nakamura, D. Pierce, F. Plaschke, K. M. Rowe, J. A. Slavin, R. J. Strangeway, R. Torbert, C. Hagen, I. Jernej...

    2016

  21. [29]

    Pollock, T

    C. Pollock, T. Moore, A. Jacques, J. Burch, U. Gliese, Y. Saito, T. Omoto, L. Avanov, A. Barrie, V. Cof- fey, J. Dorelli, D. Gershman, B. Giles, T. Rosnack, C. Salo, S. Yokota, M. Adrian, C. Aoustin, C. Auletti, S. Aung, V. Bigio, N. Cao, M. Chandler, D. Chor- nay, K. Christia...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Lindqvist, G

    P.-A. Lindqvist, G. Olsson, R. B. Torbert, B. King, M. Granoff, D. Rau, G. Needell, S. Turco, I. Dors, P. Beckman, J. Macri, C. Frost, J. Salwen, A. Eriksson, L. ˚Ahl´ en, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, J. Porter, K. Lappalainen, R. E. Ergun, W. Wermeer, and S. Tucker, The Spin-Plane Doub...

    2016

  23. [31]

    R. E. Ergun, S. Tucker, J. Westfall, K. A. Goodrich, D. M. Malaspina, D. Summers, J. Wallace, M. Karlsson, J. Mack, N. Brennan, B. Pyke, P. Withnell, R. Torbert, J. Macri, D. Rau, I. Dors, J. Needell, P.-A. Lindqvist, G. Olsson, and C. M. Cully, The Axial Double Probe and Fiel...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Le Contel, P

    O. Le Contel, P. Leroy, A. Roux, C. Coillot, D. Alison, A. Bouabdellah, L. Mirioni, L. Meslier, A. Galic, M. C. Vassal, R. B. Torbert, J. Needell, D. Rau, I. Dors, R. E. Ergun, J. Westfall, D. Summers, J. Wallace, W. Magnes, A. Valavanoglou, G. Olsson, M. Chutter, J. Macri, S....

    2016

  25. [33]

    Norgren, A

    C. Norgren, A. Vaivads, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, and M. Andr´ e, Lower hybrid drift waves: Space observations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 055001 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, NY, 1999) Chap. 11, p. 558

    1999

  27. [35]

    R¨ onnmark, WHAMP-Waves in homogeneous, anisotropic, multicomponent plasmas , Tech

    K. R¨ onnmark, WHAMP-Waves in homogeneous, anisotropic, multicomponent plasmas , Tech. Rep. (Kiruna Geofysiska Inst.(Sweden), 1982)

    1982

  28. [36]

    Singh, S

    N. Singh, S. M. Loo, and B. E. Wells, Electron hole as an antenna radiating plasma waves, Geophysical Research 7 Letters 28, 1371 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Van Compernolle, G

    B. Van Compernolle, G. J. Morales, and W. Gekelman, Cherenkov radiation of shear alfv´ en waves, Physics of Plasmas 15, 082101 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

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