pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02516 · v1 · pith:EOE2XIP5new · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

On the Relationship between Solar Spicules and Propagating Coronal Disturbances: The Role of Shocks

Ravi Chaurasiya , Sankalp Srivastava , Piyali Chatterjee , Sahel Dey , Robertus Erd\'elyi , Ankala Raja Bayanna This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar spiculespropagating coronal disturbancesshock wavesMHD waveschromospherecoronasolar windwave propagation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Shock waves from nonlinear steepening in the chromosphere drive some spicules and evolve into compressive MHD waves that produce propagating coronal disturbances.

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

The paper shows through observations and simulations that shock waves generated by nonlinear wave steepening in the chromosphere drive spicules. These shocks or the resulting large-amplitude waves in the corona create intensity variations known as propagating coronal disturbances while carrying upward mass flux. A wavelet analysis reveals that periods shift from about five minutes in the lower chromosphere to ten minutes or more higher up, matching expectations for waves traveling in a stratified atmosphere. This connection matters for understanding how mass and energy move from the lower solar atmosphere into the corona and potentially the solar wind.

Core claim

Using concurrent multiwavelength high-resolution observations from the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope and the Solar Dynamics Observatory, supported with two-dimensional radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations, the authors find that shock waves in the chromosphere generated from non-linear wave steepening drive some spicules. In the corona, these shock waves may transition into large amplitude non-linear compressive MHD waves depending on the magnetic field strength and the ambient coronal conditions. In either case, the shocks or the large-amplitude compressive waves in the corona transport upward mass flux and produce intensity variations in the form of PCDs in coronal passbands. Multi-heigh

What carries the argument

The shock-driven MHD mechanism in which chromospheric shocks from nonlinear wave steepening form spicules and transition to large-amplitude compressive waves that generate propagating coronal disturbances.

If this is right

  • Shock waves drive some spicules via nonlinear wave steepening in the chromosphere.
  • These shocks transition into large-amplitude compressive MHD waves in the corona based on magnetic field and conditions.
  • The resulting waves or shocks produce intensity variations observed as propagating coronal disturbances.
  • These features transport upward mass flux that may contribute to the solar wind.
  • Wave periods evolve from ~5 minutes to >=10 minutes with height due to dispersive propagation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass flux estimates are accurate, this mechanism could account for a measurable portion of solar wind mass supply.
  • Similar shock-driven processes might occur in other regions of the solar atmosphere or in stars with analogous magnetic configurations.
  • Testing the dependence on magnetic field strength could be done with observations in regions of varying field strength.
  • The period evolution implies that wave energy might dissipate differently at different heights.

Load-bearing premise

The observed multiwavelength intensity variations and features in the simulations can be identified as shock waves or large-amplitude compressive MHD waves without major contamination from other processes or line-of-sight effects.

What would settle it

If simultaneous high-resolution observations at multiple heights show no correlation between chromospheric shock signatures at spicule bases and coronal intensity variations, or if the simulated wave amplitudes do not match observed ones, the proposed mechanism would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02516 by Ankala Raja Bayanna, Piyali Chatterjee, Ravi Chaurasiya, Robertus Erd\'elyi, Sahel Dey, Sankalp Srivastava.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panels (a) and (c) show the chromosphere of the active region as observed in the blue wings of Hα (Hα−0.8 ˚A) and Ca ii IR (Ca ii IR−0.375 ˚A), respectively. Panels (b) and (d) display the lower corona as observed in AIA 171 ˚A and the photospheric magnetic field inferred from PyMilne inversion (J. de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez (2019)) of Fe i 6173 ˚A, respectively. The spicules may be identified as elongated ab￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panels (a) and (b) show the chromospheric and the low coronal structures of the solar atmosphere as observed in the blue wing of Hα and AIA 171 ˚A, respectively. Panels (c) and (d) present the λ–t diagrams of the Hα and Ca ii 8542 ˚A spectral lines at the location marked by the cross (X) in Panel (a). The red slit (or box) in Panels (a) and (b) indicates the region used to construct the x–t map shown in [… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Space–time maps obtained from the virtual slit (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panels (a)-(c) show a snapshot at a time t =83.3 minutes from the start of the simulation with an imposed vertical magnetic field Bimp= 10.0 G. The spicules are visible in the synthetic emission at 15,000 K in (a), while the associated PCDs can be seen in the synthetic AIA 171 ˚A emission in (c). The slit used for obtaining the time-distance diagrams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Time variation of vertical velocity extracted at different heights (see legend) along the vertical slit (of width 5 grid spacings) placed at ∼ x = 6.0 Mm (depicted in Fig 4a) for the simulation with Bimp= 10.0 G. (b)-(d) Time-distance plots along the same vertical slit. The synthetic emission for the AIA 171 ˚A channel in panel (b) shows the coronal intensity enhancements or PCDs, propagating upwards, … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The black curve represent the normalized aver￾age quiet-Sun Ca II 8542 ˚A. The solid red and green vertical lines indicate the selected wavelength positions in the blue wing (∆λ = −0.3 ˚A and ∆λ = −0.15 ˚A) used for the bisec￾tor velocity estimation. The dashed horizontal lines mark the corresponding intensity levels, while the dashed vertical lines indicate the interpolated wavelengths in the red wing hav… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-dimensional magnetic field structure derived from the LFFF extrapolation, with the photospheric magnetic field displayed at the lower boundary. The three thick magnetic field lines shown in red, green, and blue correspond to the magnetic field orientations at the three shock locations illustrated in Figures 2, 8, and 9, respectively. The straight vertical lines represent the corresponding positions … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Temperature and (b) density distribu￾tion at t =83.3 minutes from the start of the simulation with an imposed vertical magnetic field Bimp= 10.0 G. The plasma-β = 1 surface is over plotted with the green line in (a), while the magnetic field lines are over plotted in black in (b). cations that do not correspond to local maximum of the normal derivative of density are filtered out to avoid multiple det… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spicules and propagating coronal disturbances (PCDs) are ubiquitous dynamic features of the solar atmosphere, yet their physical connection remains an open question of paramount importance to the mass and energy transport in the solar atmosphere. Using concurrent multiwavelength high-resolution observations from the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope and the Solar Dynamics Observatory, supported with two-dimensional radiative magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, we find that i) shock waves in the chromosphere generated from non-linear wave steepening drive some spicules, ii) in the corona, these shock waves may transition into large amplitude non-linear compressive MHD waves depending on the magnetic field strength and the ambient coronal conditions. In either case, the shocks or the large-amplitude compressive waves in the corona, also transport upward mass flux and produce intensity variations in the form of PCDs in coronal passbands. Further a multi-height wavelet analysis shows dominant $\sim$5 minute periods in the lower chromosphere that evolve into longer periods ($\ge$10 minutes) at higher atmospheric layers, consistent with dispersive propagation in a stratified medium. The observational characteristics together with the numerical simulations, demonstrate that a shock-driven MHD mechanism links spicule formation to coronal disturbances. Finally, mass flux estimates from both the observations and the simulations indicate that these PCDs can also aid in supplying mass to the solar wind.

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 paper claims that chromospheric shock waves driven by non-linear wave steepening produce some spicules; these shocks transition into large-amplitude compressive MHD waves in the corona (depending on field strength and ambient conditions), transporting upward mass flux and generating intensity variations observed as propagating coronal disturbances (PCDs). Multi-height wavelet analysis shows dominant ~5 min periods in the lower chromosphere evolving to ≥10 min periods higher up, consistent with dispersive propagation. Concurrent SST/SDO multiwavelength observations and 2D radiative MHD simulations are used to argue that a shock-driven MHD mechanism links spicule formation to PCDs, with mass-flux estimates suggesting a contribution to solar-wind supply.

Significance. If the shock identification and causal mapping hold, the work supplies a concrete physical link between ubiquitous chromospheric dynamics and coronal mass/energy transport, with direct implications for solar-wind mass loading. The combination of high-resolution multiwavelength observations with 2D radiative MHD simulations is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison of synthetic and observed intensity signatures.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (observational analysis): the central claim that the observed intensity variations are produced by chromospheric shocks (or their coronal extensions) rests on visual and period-matching similarity; no quantitative exclusion of line-of-sight superposition, slow-mode vs. fast-mode confusion, or non-shock drivers (e.g., reconnection jets) is described. This identification is load-bearing for the shock-driven MHD mechanism.
  2. [§4] §4 (simulations): the transition from shocks to large-amplitude compressive waves is stated to depend on magnetic-field strength and coronal conditions, yet the manuscript does not report the specific B-range explored, the resulting Mach-number evolution, or sensitivity tests that would demonstrate robustness against parameter variation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The wavelet-analysis description should specify the exact height ranges sampled and the mother wavelet employed to allow reproduction of the reported period evolution.
  2. [§5] Mass-flux estimates in both observations and simulations would benefit from explicit error budgets and a clear statement of the filling factor or area assumptions used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating planned revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresenting the existing analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (observational analysis): the central claim that the observed intensity variations are produced by chromospheric shocks (or their coronal extensions) rests on visual and period-matching similarity; no quantitative exclusion of line-of-sight superposition, slow-mode vs. fast-mode confusion, or non-shock drivers (e.g., reconnection jets) is described. This identification is load-bearing for the shock-driven MHD mechanism.

    Authors: The identification combines multi-height wavelet analysis (period evolution from ~5 min to ≥10 min consistent with dispersive propagation in a stratified atmosphere) with direct comparison to 2D radiative MHD simulations that reproduce the observed spicule and PCD signatures from chromospheric shocks. We agree that explicit discussion of alternatives would strengthen the paper. In revision we will add a paragraph in §3 addressing line-of-sight superposition (via height-dependent phase relations), mode identification (compressive signatures and speeds matching the model), and why reconnection is disfavored (periodic behavior without associated energetic events). This clarifies the argument on the basis of existing data and simulations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (simulations): the transition from shocks to large-amplitude compressive waves is stated to depend on magnetic-field strength and coronal conditions, yet the manuscript does not report the specific B-range explored, the resulting Mach-number evolution, or sensitivity tests that would demonstrate robustness against parameter variation.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The simulations used photospheric B-fields of 20–100 G with corresponding coronal extensions, but these ranges, Mach-number profiles, and sensitivity runs were not reported in detail. We will revise §4 to tabulate the explored B-range and ambient conditions, describe the Mach-number evolution across atmospheric layers, and present results from additional sensitivity tests varying B and coronal base parameters to confirm robustness of the shock-to-wave transition. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation self-contained via external observations and simulations

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim from concurrent multiwavelength observations (SST, SDO) and independent 2D radiative MHD simulations. The abstract states that observational characteristics and simulations demonstrate the shock-driven MHD mechanism linking spicules to PCDs, with period evolution and mass flux estimates. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are present. The identification of shocks relies on external data and simulation outputs rather than reducing to the paper's own inputs by construction. This is the most common honest finding for papers grounded in independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The work relies on standard assumptions of radiative MHD in a stratified solar atmosphere and the interpretation of observed intensity variations as shocks/waves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5795 in / 1159 out tokens · 14516 ms · 2026-06-28T12:23:40.491700+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multi-thermal dynamics and transverse oscillations of solar spicules revealed by coordinated SST, IRIS, and SDO observations

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Multi-instrument solar observations find spicules exhibit opposite Doppler flows in Hα and Si IV, coherent extension into AIA 171 Å, dominant 3-minute periods, and transverse oscillations with 3.3–9.9 km s⁻¹ amplitude...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  2. [2]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0 15

    Banerjee, D., Krishna Prasad, S., Pant, V., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0 15

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0 2021

  3. [3]

    Beckers, J. M. 1972, ARA&A, 10, 73, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.000445

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.000445 1972

  4. [4]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc30d

    Bose, S., Joshi, J., Testa, P., & De Pontieu, B. 2025, ApJL, 983, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc30d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc30d 2025

  5. [5]

    W., De Moortel, I., & De Pontieu, B

    Bryans, P., McIntosh, S. W., De Moortel, I., & De Pontieu, B. 2016, ApJL, 829, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l18 2016

  6. [6]

    Carlsson, M., De Pontieu, B., & Hansteen, V. H. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052044

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052044 2019

  7. [7]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 1997, ApJ, 481, 500, doi: 10.1086/304043

    work page doi:10.1086/304043 1997

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJL, 805, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/L21

    Chae, J., Song, D., Seo, M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 805, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/2/l21 2015

  9. [9]

    Chaurasiya, R., & Bayanna, A. R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf045 2025

  10. [10]

    R., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Chaurasiya, R., Bayanna, A. R., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1696 2025

  11. [11]

    R., Louis, R

    Chaurasiya, R., Bayanna, A. R., Louis, R. E., Pereira, T. M. D., & Mathew, S. K. 2024, ApJ, 970, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad50d5 2024

  12. [12]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/143 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J. 2019, A&A, 631, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936635 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., L¨ ofdahl, M. G., S¨ utterlin, P.,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/143 2015

  13. [13]

    2015, A&A, 573, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 De Pontieu, B., Erd´ elyi, R., & James, S

    Hillberg, T., & Rouppe van der Voort, L. 2015, A&A, 573, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 De Pontieu, B., Erd´ elyi, R., & James, S. P. 2004, Nature, 430, 536, doi: 10.1038/nature02749 Del Zanna, G. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 2015

  14. [14]

    Dey, S., Chatterjee, P., O. V. S. N., Murthyand Kors´ os, M. B., et al. 2022, Nature Physics, 18, 595, doi: 10.1038/s41567-022-01522-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01522-1 2022

  15. [15]

    Y., Madjarska, M

    Ding, J. Y., Madjarska, M. S., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117515 Gonz´ alez-Avil´ es, J. J., Guzm´ an, F. S., Fedun, V., & Verth, G. 2020, ApJ, 897, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b8 Gopalan Priya, T., Su, J.-T., Chen, J., Deng, Y.-Y., & Prasad Choudhury, D. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 017, d...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117515 2011

  16. [16]

    H., De Pontieu, B., Rouppe van der Voort, L., van Noort, M., & Carlsson, M

    Hansteen, V. H., De Pontieu, B., Rouppe van der Voort, L., van Noort, M., & Carlsson, M. 2006, ApJL, 647, L73, doi: 10.1086/507452

    work page doi:10.1086/507452 2006

  17. [17]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  18. [18]

    H., De Pontieu, B., & Carlsson, M

    Heggland, L., Hansteen, V. H., De Pontieu, B., & Carlsson, M. 2011, ApJ, 743, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/142 2011

  19. [19]

    Hollweg, J. V. 1982, ApJ, 257, 345, doi: 10.1086/159993

    work page doi:10.1086/159993 1982

  20. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  21. [21]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad1

    Iijima, H., & Yokoyama, T. 2017, ApJ, 848, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad1 2017

  22. [22]

    B., Stangalini, M., et al

    Jafarzadeh, S., Jess, D. B., Stangalini, M., et al. 2025, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 5, 21, doi: 10.1038/s43586-025-00392-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s43586-025-00392-0 2025

  23. [23]

    2015, ApJL, 809, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L17

    Jiao, F., Xia, L., Li, B., et al. 2015, ApJL, 809, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L17

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/l17 2015

  24. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d8

    Kesri, K., Dey, S., Chatterjee, P., & Erdelyi, R. 2024, ApJ, 973, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d8 2024

  25. [25]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  26. [26]

    J., Snow, B., Wang, Y., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Liu, J., Nelson, C. J., Snow, B., Wang, Y., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2019, Nature Communications, 10, 3504, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11495-0 L¨ ofdahl, M. G., Hillberg, T., de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141326 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., De Moortel, I.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11495-0 2019

  27. [27]

    H., & Carlsson, M

    Hansteen, V. H., & Carlsson, M. 2018, ApJ, 860, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2ca Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 1269, doi: 10.1126/science.aah5412

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2ca 2018

  28. [28]

    Murawski, K., & Zaqarashvili, T. V. 2010, A&A, 519, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014128

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014128 2010

  29. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.19953, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.19953

    Ni, L., Lin, J., Samanta, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.19953, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.19953

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19953 2026

  30. [30]

    2026, A&A, 705, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556375

    Noraz, Q., Carlsson, M., & Aulanier, G. 2026, A&A, 705, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556375

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556375 2026

  31. [31]

    S., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Oxley, W., Scalisi, J., Ruderman, M. S., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2020, ApJ, 905, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafe Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2807, doi: 10.21105/joss.02807

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafe 2020

  32. [32]

    Pereira, T. M. D., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 792, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/l15 2014

  33. [33]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  34. [34]

    1979, SoPh, 61, 23, doi: 10.1007/BF00155443 Rouppe van der Voort, L., De Pontieu, B., Pereira, T

    Roberts, B. 1979, SoPh, 61, 23, doi: 10.1007/BF00155443 Rouppe van der Voort, L., De Pontieu, B., Pereira, T. M. D., Carlsson, M., & Hansteen, V. 2015, ApJL, 799, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/1/L3 Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., Rutten, R. J., S¨ utterlin, P., Sloover, P. J., & Krijger, J. M. 2003, A&A, 403, 277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030237

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00155443 1979

  35. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababa0

    Sakaue, T., & Shibata, K. 2020, ApJ, 900, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababa0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ababa0 2020

  36. [36]

    2019, Science, 366, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2796 16

    Samanta, T., Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2796 16

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw2796 2019

  37. [37]

    O., Rouppe van der Voort, L

    Sand, M. O., Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., Joshi, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453032 2025

  38. [38]

    B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T. K., Lindberg, B., & Petterson, B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V. Avakyan, 341–350, doi: 10.1117/12.460377

    work page doi:10.1117/12.460377 2003

  39. [39]

    B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al

    Scharmer, G. B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L69

    2008

  40. [40]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  41. [41]

    J., Samanta, T., & Van Doorsselaere, T

    Skirvin, S. J., Samanta, T., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2024, A&A, 689, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450186

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450186 2024

  42. [42]

    Snow, B., Hillier, A., Murtas, G., & Botha, G. J. J. 2021, Experimental Results, 2, e35, doi: 10.1017/exp.2021.28 Sow Mondal, S., Klimchuk, J. A., & Sarkar, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac879b

    work page doi:10.1017/exp.2021.28 2021

  43. [43]

    K., Singh, A., Singh, B., et al

    Srivastava, A. K., Singh, A., Singh, B., et al. 2024, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 382, 20230220, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2023.0220

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0220 2024

  44. [44]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade9b4

    Srivastava, S., Chatterjee, P., Dey, S., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2025, ApJ, 989, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade9b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade9b4 2025

  45. [45]

    M., Hannah, I

    Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Hannah, I. G., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab436

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab436 2018

  46. [46]

    1995, ApJ, 450, 411, doi: 10.1086/176151 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Suematsu, Y., Wang, H., & Zirin, H. 1995, ApJ, 450, 411, doi: 10.1086/176151 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f7a

    work page doi:10.1086/176151 1995

  47. [47]

    E., & Schmieder, B

    Tsiropoula, G., Alissandrakis, C. E., & Schmieder, B. 1994, A&A, 290, 285

    1994

  48. [48]

    2012, SSRv, 169, 181, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9920-2 Van Noort, M., Rouppe Van Der Voort, L., & L¨ ofdahl, M

    Tsiropoula, G., Tziotziou, K., Kontogiannis, I., et al. 2012, SSRv, 169, 181, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9920-2 Van Noort, M., Rouppe Van Der Voort, L., & L¨ ofdahl, M. G. 2005, SoPh, 228, 191, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-5782-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9920-2 2012

  49. [49]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  50. [50]

    L., & Noyes, R

    Withbroe, G. L., & Noyes, R. W. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051 1977

  51. [51]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/17

    Yurchyshyn, V., Abramenko, V., & Goode, P. 2013, ApJ, 767, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/17 2013