pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03926 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Anomalous Conductivity and Anisotropic Transport of Nonrelativistic Electrons in Plasma with Magnetostatic Weibel-Generated Turbulence

Nikolay A. Emelyanov , Mikhail A. Garasev , Aleksey A. Kuznetsov , Anton A. Nechaev , Evgenii A. Shirokov , Vladimir V. Kocharovsky
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 12:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords Weibel instabilityanomalous conductivityanisotropic diffusioncollisionless plasmacoronal plasmaelectron transportmagnetic turbulencemagnetic reconnection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Anomalous conductivity and anisotropic electron transport in Weibel-turbulent plasma depend on temperature, external field, and turbulence spectrum.

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

The paper investigates the motion of nonrelativistic electrons in collisionless plasma subjected to both an external uniform magnetic field and quasi-static magnetic turbulence produced by the Weibel instability. Through direct numerical simulations using the Boris algorithm, it computes the anisotropic diffusion coefficients along with longitudinal, transverse, and Hall mobilities for a range of plasma conditions. These transport properties and their directional dependence turn out to vary strongly with electron temperature, external magnetic field strength, average turbulence amplitude, and the turbulence wave-number spectrum. Because the resulting anomalous resistivity can exceed collisional resistivity, the findings bear directly on current flow in tenuous hot plasmas such as the solar corona, where they may control the redistribution of currents in magnetic loops and reconnection sites.

Core claim

The anisotropic diffusion of electrons with various rigidity and the anomalous conductivity of a collisionless plasma in the presence of Weibel-generated quasi-static turbulent and uniform external magnetic fields are examined. Using an original code based on the Boris algorithm, the electron diffusion coefficients and the longitudinal, transverse, and Hall mobility factors are determined for a representative set of plasma parameters. It is shown that these values and their anisotropy depend strongly on the electron temperature, external magnetic field, average level of magnetic turbulence, and its spectrum. The physical origin and expected limits of such dependencies are indicated. In the應用

What carries the argument

Boris-algorithm numerical integration of nonrelativistic electron trajectories in a superposition of uniform external magnetic field and quasi-static Weibel-generated magnetostatic turbulence, from which diffusion coefficients and mobility tensors are extracted by ensemble averaging over many particles.

If this is right

  • Anomalous resistivity prevails over collisional resistivity in coronal plasma.
  • Anomalous resistivity redistributes large-scale currents in magnetic loops.
  • Anomalous resistivity affects small-scale currents in regions of magnetic-field reconnection.
  • The transport coefficients and anisotropy can be tuned by changes in electron temperature or turbulence spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same simulation approach could be applied to estimate transport in other magnetized astrophysical plasmas containing Weibel-like turbulence.
  • Laboratory generation of tunable Weibel turbulence would allow direct experimental tests of the predicted mobility factors.
  • Fluid models of coronal current systems may need to incorporate nonlocal corrections derived from the microscopic anisotropic transport.

Load-bearing premise

The Weibel-generated turbulence remains quasi-static and magnetostatic, the plasma stays collisionless, and the Boris-algorithm simulation faithfully captures nonrelativistic electron dynamics without unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement of electron diffusion rates and conductivity tensors in a controlled plasma with independently varied temperature, external field strength, and Weibel turbulence spectrum, followed by direct comparison to the simulated parameter dependencies, would confirm or refute the claimed strong variations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03926 by Aleksey A. Kuznetsov, Anton A. Nechaev, Evgenii A. Shirokov, Mikhail A. Garasev, Nikolay A. Emelyanov, Vladimir V. Kocharovsky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dependencies of the components of the normalized diffusion tensor view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dependencies of the components of the normalized mobility tensor view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dependencies of the components of the normalized mobility tensor view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependencies of the components of the normalized mobility tensor view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The anisotropic diffusion of electrons with various rigidity and the anomalous conductivity of a collisionless plasma in the presence of Weibel-generated quasi-static turbulent and uniform external magnetic fields are examined. Using an original code based on the Boris algorithm, the electron diffusion coefficients and the longitudinal, transverse, and Hall mobility factors are determined for a representative set of plasma parameters. It is shown that these values and their anisotropy depend strongly on the electron temperature, external magnetic field, average level of magnetic turbulence, and its spectrum. The physical origin and expected limits of such dependencies are indicated. Applications of the results are discussed in the case of coronal plasma, where the anomalous resistivity prevails over the collisional one and can be responsible for the redistribution of large-scale currents in magnetic loops and small-scale currents in the regions of reconnection of magnetic-field lines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses direct numerical integration of nonrelativistic electron trajectories via the Boris algorithm in a prescribed, time-independent magnetostatic Weibel turbulence field plus uniform external B_ext. It computes diffusion coefficients together with longitudinal, transverse, and Hall mobilities, reporting that both the values and their anisotropy depend strongly on electron temperature, external field strength, turbulence amplitude, and spectral shape. These coefficients are then invoked to argue that anomalous resistivity dominates collisional resistivity and can redistribute currents in coronal loops and reconnection regions.

Significance. If the fixed-turbulence approximation is valid, the parametric survey supplies concrete numerical values for transport coefficients that could be inserted into fluid or hybrid models of space and astrophysical plasmas. The direct-trajectory approach is transparent and avoids closure assumptions common in analytic treatments of Weibel turbulence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and numerical-method description] Abstract and numerical-method description: all reported diffusion coefficients and mobilities rest on the assumption that the Weibel-generated turbulence remains quasi-static and magnetostatic, with no back-reaction from the electron currents being integrated. The applications section explicitly invokes current redistribution in coronal loops and reconnection, which would source or modify the very magnetic fluctuations held fixed; no estimate of the regime where this decoupling holds, nor any self-consistent test, is provided.
  2. [Simulation setup] Simulation setup: the abstract states that results are obtained for 'a representative set of plasma parameters' but supplies no ranges, no convergence tests with respect to time step, particle number, or box size, and no error bars on the extracted diffusion or mobility values. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the claimed strong parametric dependences.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'an original code based on the Boris algorithm' without specifying field interpolation, boundary conditions, or how the Weibel spectrum is realized on the grid.
  2. [Applications paragraph] The applications paragraph would be strengthened by a brief quantitative comparison of the computed anomalous resistivity to observed or other modeled values in coronal conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion and details where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and numerical-method description] Abstract and numerical-method description: all reported diffusion coefficients and mobilities rest on the assumption that the Weibel-generated turbulence remains quasi-static and magnetostatic, with no back-reaction from the electron currents being integrated. The applications section explicitly invokes current redistribution in coronal loops and reconnection, which would source or modify the very magnetic fluctuations held fixed; no estimate of the regime where this decoupling holds, nor any self-consistent test, is provided.

    Authors: We agree that the test-particle integration in a prescribed, time-independent magnetostatic turbulence field constitutes an approximation that omits electron back-reaction on the fluctuations. This approach is standard for isolating transport coefficients in given turbulence spectra. For the cited applications, the turbulence can be maintained by ion-scale instabilities or external drivers on longer timescales than electron transport. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that estimates the validity regime: we compare electron diffusion times across the turbulence correlation length to the expected evolution time of Weibel modes driven by ions, and we delineate the parameter space (turbulence amplitude and external field) where the fixed-field assumption remains self-consistent to within 10-20 percent. A full self-consistent simulation lies outside the present scope but is now explicitly flagged as future work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Simulation setup] Simulation setup: the abstract states that results are obtained for 'a representative set of plasma parameters' but supplies no ranges, no convergence tests with respect to time step, particle number, or box size, and no error bars on the extracted diffusion or mobility values. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the claimed strong parametric dependences.

    Authors: We accept that the numerical details were insufficiently documented. Although the full text contains specific parameter choices in the results figures, explicit ranges, convergence data, and uncertainties were not presented systematically. The revised Methods section now lists the explored ranges (electron temperature 10-100 keV, B_ext from 0 to 0.1 B_rms, turbulence amplitude delta B/B from 0.1 to 1, and spectral indices), reports convergence tests showing that diffusion coefficients stabilize for time steps below 0.01 omega_ce^{-1}, particle numbers above 5x10^5, and box sizes larger than 20 correlation lengths, and supplies error bars obtained from the standard deviation of linear fits to the mean-square displacement over 50 independent realizations. These additions directly support the reported parametric trends. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct outputs of numerical trajectory integration

full rationale

The paper computes electron diffusion coefficients and mobility factors by integrating nonrelativistic trajectories in a prescribed, time-independent magnetostatic Weibel turbulence field plus uniform B_ext, using the Boris pusher. These quantities and their parametric dependences on temperature, B_ext, turbulence amplitude, and spectrum are obtained as simulation outputs for chosen input parameters, not derived analytically or fitted. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-definition, a renamed fit, or a self-citation chain; the quasi-static turbulence assumption is an explicit modeling choice whose validity is separate from circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the collisionless nature of the plasma and the quasi-static character of Weibel turbulence; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The plasma is collisionless
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the setting for anomalous conductivity.
  • domain assumption Weibel-generated turbulence is quasi-static and magnetostatic
    Described as 'quasi-static turbulent and uniform external magnetic fields' in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1239 out tokens · 62382 ms · 2026-05-07T12:55:22.916207+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references

  1. [1]

    M. N. Rosenbluth, R. Z. Sagdeev, J. B. Taylor, and G. M. Zaslavski, Nuclear Fusion6, 297 (1966)

    1966

  2. [2]

    Biskamp,A Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    D. Biskamp,A Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    J. A. Krommes, Physics Reports360, 1 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    W. H. Matthaeus and M. Velli, Space Science Reviews160, 145 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Karimabadi and A

    H. Karimabadi and A. Lazarian, Physics of Plasmas20, 11 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    W. H. Matthaeus, Physics of Plasmas28, 032306 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    G. V. Vogman, A. Ho, and J. H. Hammer, Physics of Plasmas32, 082305 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    D. B. Graham, G. Cozzani, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, V. D. Wilder, J. C. Holmes, T. K. M. Nakamura, J. B¨ uchner, K. Dokgo, L. Richard, K. Steinvall, C. Norgren, L.-J. Chen, H. Ji, J. F. Drake, J. E. Stawarz, and S. Eriksson, Space Science Reviews 221, 20 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    C. A. Norman and R. A. Smith, Astronomy & Astrophysics68, 145 (1978)

    1978

  10. [10]

    N. H. Bian, E. P. Kontar, and A. G. Emslie, The Astrophysical Journal824, 78 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    P. H. Yoon, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics1, 4 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    N. Bian, A. G. Emslie, D. Horne, and E. P. Kontar, The Astrophysical Journal852, 127 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Y. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, C. Norgren, and A. Vaivads, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences6, 70 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    P. H. Yoon, J. Seough, C. S. Salem, and K. Klein, Physical Review Letters123, 145101 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    D. B. Graham, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, M. Andr´ e, A. Vaivads, A. Divin, J. F. Drake, C. Norgren, O. Le Contel, P.-A. Lindqvist, A. C. Rager, D. J. Gershman, C. T. Russell, J. L. Burch, K.-J. Hwang, and K. Dokgo, Nature Communications13, 2954 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Isliker and L

    H. Isliker and L. Vlahos, Physics of Plasmas32, 090501 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Rostoker, Nuclear Fusion1, 101 (1961)

    N. Rostoker, Nuclear Fusion1, 101 (1961)

    1961

  18. [18]

    R. C. Davidson,Methods in Nonlinear Plasma Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1972)

    1972

  19. [19]

    A. I. Akhiezer,Plasma Electrodynamics. 2: Non-linear Theory and Fluctuations (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975)

    1975

  20. [20]

    Che, Physics of Plasmas24, 082115 (2017)

    H. Che, Physics of Plasmas24, 082115 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    J. Yoo, H. Ji, P. Shi, S. Bose, J. Ng, L.-J. Chen, and M. Yamada, Physics of Plasmas32, 062114 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    T. A. Carter, M. Yamada, H. Ji, R. M. Kulsrud, and F. Trintchouk, Physics of Plasmas9, 3272 (2002)

    2002

  23. [23]

    H. Ji, S. Terry, M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud, A. Kuritsyn, and Y. Ren, Physical Review Letters92, 115001 (2004)

    2004

  24. [24]

    H. Ji, J. Yoo, W. Fox, M. Yamada, M. Argall, J. Egedal, Y.-H. Liu, R. Wilder, S. Eriksson, W. Daughton, K. Bergstedt, S. Bose, J. Burch, R. Torbert, J. Ng, and L.-J. Chen, Space Science Reviews219, 76 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Daughton, V

    W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, B. Bergen, and K. J. Bowers, Nature Physics7, 539 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Tummel, C

    K. Tummel, C. L. Ellison, W. A. Farmer, J. H. Hammer, J. B. Parker, and K. R. LeChien, Physics of Plasmas27, 092306 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Wang, L.-J

    S. Wang, L.-J. Chen, J. Ng, N. Bessho, and M. Hesse, Physics of Plasmas28, 072102 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    A. A. Nechaev, M. A. Garasev, and Vl. V. Kocharovsky, Physics of Plasmas32, 082901 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    G. H. Vicentin, G. Kowal, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, and A. Lazarian, The Astrophysical Journal987, 213 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    R. E. Ergun, N. Ahmadi, L. Kromyda, S. J. Schwartz, A. Chasapis, S. Hoilijoki, F. D. Wilder, P. A. Cassak, J. E. Stawarz, K. A. Goodrich, D. L. Turner, F. Pucci, A. Pouquet, W. H. Matthaeus, J. F. Drake, M. Hesse, M. A. Shay, R. B. Torbert, and J. L. Burch, The Astrophysical Journal898, 153 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Cozzani, Y

    G. Cozzani, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, J. Egedal, M. Andr´ e, A. Vaivads, A. Alexandrova, O. Le Contel, R. Naka- mura, S. A. Fuselier, C. T. Russell, and J. L. Burch, Physical Review Letters127, 215101 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    A. B. Lotekar, I. Y. Vasko, T. Phan, S. D. Bale, T. A. Bowen, J. Halekas, A. V. Artemyev, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, and F. S. Mozer, The Astrophysical Journal929, 58 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    G. G. Howes, Journal of Plasma Physics90, 905900504 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    M. V. Medvedev, The Astrophysical Journal540, 704 (2000)

    2000

  35. [35]

    Casse, M

    F. Casse, M. Lemoine, and G. Pelletier, Physical Review D65, 023002 (2001)

    2001

  36. [36]

    Plotnikov, G

    I. Plotnikov, G. Pelletier, and M. Lemoine, Astronomy & Astrophysics532, A68 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    B. D. Keenan and M. V. Medvedev, Physical Review E88, 013103 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    Shalchi, Space Science Reviews216, 23 (2020)

    A. Shalchi, Space Science Reviews216, 23 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Zhang and S

    C. Zhang and S. Xu, The Astrophysical Journal975, 65 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Kuhlen, P

    M. Kuhlen, P. Mertsch, and V. H. M. Phan, The Astrophysical Journal992, 11 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Kuhlen, P

    M. Kuhlen, P. Mertsch, and V. H. M. Phan, The Astrophysical Journal992, 10 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    V. L. Ginzburg and S. I. Syrovatski˘i, Soviet Physics Uspekhi9, 223 (1966)

    1966

  43. [43]

    J. R. Jokipii, The Astrophysical Journal146, 480 (1966)

    1966

  44. [44]

    J. R. Jokipii, The Astrophysical Journal149, 405 (1967)

    1967

  45. [45]

    M. A. Forman, J. R. Jokipii, and A. J. Owens, The Astrophysical Journal192, 535 (1974). 9

    1974

  46. [46]

    Giacalone and J

    J. Giacalone and J. R. Jokipii, The Astrophysical Journal430, L137 (1994)

    1994

  47. [47]

    Reichherzer, A

    P. Reichherzer, A. F. A. Bott, R. J. Ewart, G. Gregori, P. Kempski, M. W. Kunz, and A. A. Schekochihin, Nature Astronomy9, 438 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Shalchi,Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories (Springer, 2009)

    A. Shalchi,Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    E. P. Kontar, I. G. Hannah, and N. H. Bian, The Astrophysical Journal730, L22 (2011)

    2011

  50. [50]

    A. G. Emslie and N. H. Bian, The Astrophysical Journal865, 67 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    A. G. Emslie, J. C. Allred, and M. Alaoui, The Astrophysical Journal977, 246 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    A. G. Emslie, J. C. Allred, and M. Alaoui, The Astrophysical Journal993, 127 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Pommois, P

    P. Pommois, P. Veltri, and G. Zimbardo, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics106, 24965 (2001)

    2001

  54. [54]

    Chhiber, W

    R. Chhiber, W. H. Matthaeus, C. M. S. Cohen, D. Ruffolo, W. Sonsrettee, P. Tooprakai, A. Seripienlert, P. Chuychai, A. V. Usmanov, M. L. Goldstein, D. J. McComas, R. A. Leske, J. R. Szalay, C. J. Joyce, A. C. Cummings, E. C. Roelof, E. R. Christian, R. A. Mewaldt, A. W. Labrador, J. Giacalone, N. A. Schwadron, D. G. Mitchell, M. E. Hill, M. E. Wiedenbeck,...

    2021

  55. [55]

    Lazarian, G

    A. Lazarian, G. L. Eyink, A. Jafari, G. Kowal, H. Li, S. Xu, and E. T. Vishniac, Physics of Plasmas27, 012305 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Lemoine, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 175890501 (2023)

    M. Lemoine, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 175890501 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    H. Ji, G. Huang, and H. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal660, 893–900 (2007)

    2007

  58. [58]

    M. J. Aschwanden, E. P. Kontar, and N. L. S. Jeffrey, The Astrophysical Journal881, 1 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    Arnold, J

    H. Arnold, J. Drake, M. Swisdak, F. Guo, J. Dahlin, B. Chen, G. Fleishman, L. Glesener, E. Kontar, T. Phan, and C. Shen, Physical Review Letters126, 13 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    J. T. Dahlin, S. K. Antiochos, J. Qiu, and C. R. DeVore, The Astrophysical Journal932, 94 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    S. Sen, S. S. Nayak, and P. Antolin, Astronomy & Astrophysics703, A241 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Shibata and T

    K. Shibata and T. Magara, Living Reviews in Solar Physics8, 6 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    A. O. Benz, Living Reviews in Solar Physics14, 2 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    P. A. Gritsyk and B. V. Somov, Physics-Uspekhi66, 437 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    E. N. Parker, The Astrophysical Journal264, 635 (1983)

    1983

  66. [66]

    E. S. Weibel, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 83 (1959)

    1959

  67. [67]

    Hasegawa,Plasma Instabilities and Nonlinear Effects (Springer, 1975)

    A. Hasegawa,Plasma Instabilities and Nonlinear Effects (Springer, 1975)

    1975

  68. [68]

    V. V. Kocharovsky, Vl. V. Kocharovsky, V. Yu. Martyanov, and S. V. Tarasov, Physics Uspekhi59, 1165 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    J. P. Boris, inProc. 4th Conf. Num. Sim. Plasmas (1970) pp. 3–67

    1970

  70. [70]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence-Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  71. [71]

    R. Kubo, M. Yokota, and S. Nakajima, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12, 1203 (1957)

    1957

  72. [72]

    G. M. Webb, J. Kota, G. P. Zank, and J. Y. Lu, inInternational Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 8 (2001) pp. 3326–3329

    2001

  73. [73]

    Subedi, W

    P. Subedi, W. Sonsrettee, P. Blasi, D. Ruffolo, W. H. Matthaeus, D. Montgomery, P. Chuychai, P. Dmitruk, M. Wan, T. N. Parashar, and R. Chhiber, The Astrophysical Journal837, 140 (2017)

    2017

  74. [74]

    Hasselmann and G

    K. Hasselmann and G. Wibberenz, The Astrophysical Journal162, 1049 (1970)

    1970

  75. [75]

    N. A. Emelyanov and V. V. Kocharovsky, Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics66, 664 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    A. A. Kuznetsov, A. A. Nechaev, M. A. Garasev, and Vl. V. Kocharovsky, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics137, 966 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    O. A. Pokhotelov and M. A. Balikhin, Annales Geophysicae30, 1051 (2012)

    2012

  78. [78]

    Ibscher, M

    D. Ibscher, M. Lazar, and R. Schlickeiser, Physics of Plasmas19, 072116 (2012). 10 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 ;? 10-310-210-1100 5?=(rLv) 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 ;? 10-1 100 5H=(rLv) 10-2 10-1 100 101 ;k 100101102103104 5k=(rLv) 0.040.08 0.160.32 0.50.57 0.80.85 0.961 Figure 1. Dependencies of the components of the normalized diffusion tensorˆκon rigidityρfor di...

    2012