pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10512 · v1 · pith:T2NILNBZnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Turbulent Diffusion of Magnetic Field Lines in the Heliosphere

J.V.A. Joubert , R.D. Strauss , J. Light , N.E. Engelbrecht , N.H. Bian This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar windmagnetic field linesturbulenceParker spiralstochastic differential equationsheliospherefield line diffusionangular distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Turbulence turns Parker spirals stochastic, yielding a Gaussian angular spread of about 25 degrees at 1 AU.

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

The paper models the dispersion of magnetic field lines caused by solar wind turbulence using a convection-diffusion equation that depends on radial distance and two heliographic angles. By converting this equation into stochastic differential equations that account for how turbulence changes with distance from the Sun, the authors simulate many field line paths both outward and backward. They find that at Earth's orbit the angular distribution fits a two-dimensional Gaussian with a standard deviation near 25 degrees, and that tracing lines back to 0.25 AU reduces this uncertainty to about 4 degrees. This matters because it quantifies how reliably we can link spacecraft measurements at 1 AU to their solar origins despite the mixing effect of turbulence.

Core claim

The central claim is that the three-dimensional convection-diffusion equation for the field line density distribution, after transformation into stochastic differential equations incorporating radial turbulence evolution, yields an angular distribution at 1 AU that is well fitted by a two-dimensional Gaussian with standard deviation close to 25 degrees, with magnetic field lines underwound on average for strong turbulence, and with angular uncertainty reduced to approximately 4 degrees when field lines are traced backward to the solar wind source surface at 0.25 AU.

What carries the argument

Stochastic differential equations obtained by transforming the convection-diffusion equation for magnetic field line density, accounting for radial evolution of turbulence, and solved numerically in both forward and backward directions.

Load-bearing premise

The specific form of the radial dependence of the turbulence is assumed when transforming the convection-diffusion equation into stochastic differential equations.

What would settle it

Observations showing that the angular spread of magnetic field lines at 1 AU deviates substantially from a Gaussian distribution with 25 degree standard deviation, or that back-tracing to 0.25 AU does not reduce the uncertainty to around 4 degrees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10512 by J. Light, J.V.A. Joubert, N.E. Engelbrecht, N.H. Bian, R.D. Strauss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: 100 stochastic Parker spirals (solid black and blue curves) along with the nominal Parker spiral (thick solid red curve) emanating from the same magnetic footpoint on the solar wind source surface. Right: Their projection on the ecliptic plane. The dashed red circle has a radius of 1 AU. The thin solid red circle has a radius r0 = 0.04AU corresponding to the source surface radius from which all the m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Angular field line distribution, as a function of ϕ (left) and θ (right), compared to Gaussian fits at radial distances 0.1 AU (blue), 0.5 AU (green) and 1 AU (red) from the Sun. field lines are plotted in blue in order to better depict the stochastic nature of each solution curve. It can be clearly seen that the magnetic field lines tend to disperse, in both heliographic longitude and latitude, away from … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: σϕ(r) (blue crosses) and σθ(r) (orange crosses) determined from the Gaussian fit to the angular distribution. They are compared to the model for σϕ(r) (solid blue line) and σθ(r) (solid orange line) given by Eq. (19). Bottom: ϕ(r) values (blue crosses) and θ(r) (orange crosses) compared to the Parker spiral ϕ(r) (solid blue line) and θ(r) (solid orange line) at interval distances of 0.1 AU from the Su… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The PDF ρm Density map of the 2D profile showing the normalized probability distribution calculated along the solution curves, the (ϕ, θ) values (blue crosses) compared to the Parker spiral (thick solid black line), the 1 AU radius (dashed black line) and the starting radius (thin solid black line). fieldline would follow, with the ideal Parker magnetic field. The (ϕ, θ) are displayed using crosses, which … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mollweide projection depicting the shifted probability distribution at a radial distance of 1 AU from the Sun. The (ϕ, θ) value (white circle), Parker spiral (white square) and σ (blue area) are shown as well. lower intensity and red indicates a higher intensity. Along with the density map, the location of the most likely path with respect to the Parker spiral is included. Finally the standard deviation on… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ϕ(r) values as a function of radial distance for D⊥ × 4 (orange with triangle), D⊥ × 2 (purple with cross), D⊥ × 0.5 (red with square) and D⊥ × 0.1 (blue circle). Included as well are the ϕ values of the ideal Parker spiral (dashed black line) as a function of radial distance. field intensity values are all identical to the reference scenario as well. The only difference between the reference scenarios and… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability distribution, obtained from the function gm, shown as intensity maps for D⊥ × 0.1 (first), D⊥ × 0.5 (second), D⊥ × 2 (third) and D⊥ × 4 (fourth panel). All of the graphs show the starting radius (solid black line), the 1 AU radius (black dashed line), the ideal Parker spiral (thick black line) and the most likely path (blue crosses) for each simulation. than that of simulations 1 and 2. Finally… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: 2D profile for 100 solution curves (solid black and blue lines), obtained using the time-back￾ward formulation, along with the Parker spiral (thick solid red line), the 1 AU radius (dashed red line) and the end radius (thin solid red line). Right: Zoomed in view of the 100 solution curves position of a stochastic fieldline. 3.2. Backward simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mollweide projections depicting the shifted probability distributions at a radial distance of 0.04 AU from the Sun obtained using the time-backwards formulations with starting radii 1 AU (top left), 0.7 AU (top right), 0.5 AU (bottom left) and 0.25 AU (bottom right). The (ϕ, θ) value (white circle), Parker spiral (white square) along with the σ value (blue area) are indicated once more on each of the proje… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Due to solar wind turbulence, Parker spirals are stochastic. The dispersion of magnetic field lines is described by a convection-diffusion equation for the field line density distribution which is a function of the two heliographic angles in addition to the radial distance. Taking into account the radial evolution of the turbulence, the three-dimensional convection-diffusion equation is transformed into a set {of} stochastic differential equations which is solved numerically using both a forward and backward formulation. By tracing a large number of stochastic Parker spirals, the field line density distribution is constructed at any point in the heliosphere. It is shown that the angular part of the distribution function can be well-fitted by a two-dimensional Gaussian with standard deviation close to $ 25^{\circ}$ at 1 AU. The simulations also confirm that the magnetic field lines are underwound, on average, for strong enough turbulence intensity. Applying the backward approach, magnetic field lines are traced from an observer at 1 AU back to the Sun, quantifying the probability of magnetic connection when interplanetary turbulence is accounted for. It is shown that the angular uncertainty of $\sim 25^{\circ}$ is sharply reduced to $\sim 4^{\circ}$ when the field lines are traced back to the solar wind source surface from 0.25 AU.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that transforming the 3D convection-diffusion equation for magnetic field line density (accounting for radial turbulence evolution) into stochastic differential equations, solved numerically in both forward and backward formulations, yields an angular distribution well-fitted by a 2D Gaussian with standard deviation ~25° at 1 AU. Backward tracing from 1 AU to the source surface at 0.25 AU reduces the angular uncertainty to ~4°, and the simulations indicate that field lines are underwound on average for strong turbulence.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work supplies a quantitative tool for modeling turbulent diffusion of Parker spirals and magnetic connectivity in the heliosphere, relevant to solar energetic particles and space weather forecasting. The dual forward-backward SDE approach is a methodological strength, as it permits construction of the distribution function at arbitrary heliospheric locations without requiring full 3D grids.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported Gaussian widths (~25° at 1 AU and reduction to ~4° on backward tracing) rest directly on the adopted radial evolution of turbulence parameters in the SDE transformation; no sensitivity tests, observational constraints, or alternative radial scalings are presented, yet a different functional form would alter the integrated diffusion and the fitted angular spreads.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and numerical methods: central claims are generated by SDE integrations, but no validation details, error bars on the 25° and 4° values, or convergence tests (e.g., particle number, time-step independence) are supplied; this is load-bearing because the specific numerical outputs constitute the primary results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a formatting artifact: 'set {of} stochastic differential equations' should read 'set of stochastic differential equations'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive comments that will improve the presentation of our results. We address each of the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported Gaussian widths (~25° at 1 AU and reduction to ~4° on backward tracing) rest directly on the adopted radial evolution of turbulence parameters in the SDE transformation; no sensitivity tests, observational constraints, or alternative radial scalings are presented, yet a different functional form would alter the integrated diffusion and the fitted angular spreads.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the reported angular spreads depend on the specific radial evolution model adopted for the turbulence parameters. Our choice follows established radial scaling laws from the literature on solar wind turbulence. However, we recognize the value of sensitivity analysis. In the revised manuscript, we will include tests with alternative functional forms for the radial dependence and discuss observational constraints, thereby quantifying the impact on the Gaussian widths. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and numerical methods: central claims are generated by SDE integrations, but no validation details, error bars on the 25° and 4° values, or convergence tests (e.g., particle number, time-step independence) are supplied; this is load-bearing because the specific numerical outputs constitute the primary results.

    Authors: We agree that validation of the numerical integrations is essential given that the angular spreads are the key quantitative results. The original manuscript focused on the methodology and outcomes but omitted detailed convergence and error analysis. We will add this information in the revised version, including convergence tests with respect to particle number and time step, as well as error bars on the fitted standard deviations derived from the simulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; numerical integration of SDEs yields distribution independent of input fitting

full rationale

The derivation consists of converting the convection-diffusion equation to SDEs (with radial turbulence evolution stated as an input), then performing forward and backward numerical integration to construct the field-line density. The reported ~25° Gaussian width and its reduction to ~4° upon backward tracing are direct outputs of that integration, not quantities fitted to data or forced by redefinition. No equation equates a prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation. The result is therefore self-contained against the stated model assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the domain assumption that field line dispersion obeys a convection-diffusion equation whose radial turbulence dependence can be inserted into SDEs; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the reported results.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dispersion of magnetic field lines is described by a convection-diffusion equation in heliographic angles and radial distance
    This is the starting equation that is transformed into SDEs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5771 in / 1198 out tokens · 18304 ms · 2026-06-27T11:59:58.293350+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

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., & Zhao, L

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L. 2021, Fluids, 6, 368, doi: 10.3390/fluids6100368

    work page doi:10.3390/fluids6100368 2021

  2. [2]

    H., & Li, G

    Bian, N. H., & Li, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd39a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd39a 2021

  3. [3]

    H., Strauss, R

    Bian, N. H., Strauss, R. D., Li, G., & Engelbrecht, N. E. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19dd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad19dd 2024

  4. [4]

    W., Matthaeus, W

    Bieber, J. W., Matthaeus, W. H., Smith, C. W., et al. 1994, Astrophys. J., 420, 294, doi: 10.1086/173559

    work page doi:10.1086/173559 1994

  5. [5]

    W., Wanner, W., & Matthaeus, W

    Bieber, J. W., Wanner, W., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 2511, doi: 10.1029/95JA02588

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja02588 1996

  6. [6]

    H., Minnie, J., et al

    Breech, B., Matthaeus, W. H., Minnie, J., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, 2007JA012711, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012711

    work page doi:10.1029/2007ja012711 2008

  7. [7]

    A., & McKee, S

    Burger, R. A., & McKee, S. R. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 71, 4916, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.033 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Nel, A

    Burger, R. A., Nel, A. E., & Engelbrecht, N. E. 2022, Astrophys. J., 926, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4741

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4741 2022

  9. [9]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9386

    Chhiber, R. 2022, ApJ, 939, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9386

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9386 2022

  10. [10]

    H., et al

    Chhiber, R., Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 908, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd7f0

  11. [11]

    H., Cohen, C

    Chhiber, R., Matthaeus, W. H., Cohen, C. M. S., et al. 2021b, A&A, 650, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039816

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039816

  12. [12]

    C.-L., Borotto, F

    Chian, A. C.-L., Borotto, F. A., Hada, T., et al. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 34, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00095-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-022-00095-z 2022

  13. [13]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, 1761, doi: 10.1086/511811

    Meechai, J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, 1761, doi: 10.1086/511811

    work page doi:10.1086/511811 2007

  14. [14]

    E., Chhiber, R., Roy, S., et al

    Cuesta, M. E., Chhiber, R., Roy, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fd da Silva, D. E., Wallace, S., Arge, C. N., & Jones, S. 2023, Space Weather, 21, e2023SW003554, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003554

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fd 2022

  15. [15]

    Engelbrecht, N. E. 2019a, Astrophys. J., 872, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7f

  16. [16]

    Engelbrecht, N. E. 2019b, ApJ, 880, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2871

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2871

  17. [17]

    E., & Burger, R

    Engelbrecht, N. E., & Burger, R. A. 2013, Astrophys. J., 772, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/46 2013

  18. [18]

    E., & Burger, R

    Engelbrecht, N. E., & Burger, R. A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/152

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/152 2015

  19. [19]

    E., & Strauss, R

    Engelbrecht, N. E., & Strauss, R. D. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab495

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab495 2018

  20. [20]

    E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al

    Engelbrecht, N. E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 33, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00896-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00896-1 2022

  21. [21]

    Smith, E. J. 1996, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 595, doi: 10.1029/96GL00416 28

    work page doi:10.1029/96gl00416 1996

  22. [22]

    Gardiner, C. W. 1985, Handbook of stochastic methods: for physics, chemistry, and the natural sciences, 2nd edn. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

    1985

  23. [23]

    Hussain, A. K. M. F. 1986, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 173, 303, doi: 10.1017/S0022112086001192

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112086001192 1986

  24. [24]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, The Astrophysical Journal, 146, 480, doi: 10.1086/148912

    work page doi:10.1086/148912 1966

  25. [25]

    E., & Platen, E

    Kloeden, P. E., & Platen, E. 1999, Numerical solution of stochastic differential equations, corr. 3rd print edn., Applications of mathematics; 23 (Berlin: Springer)

    1999

  26. [26]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c7

    Laitinen, T., & Dalla, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c7 2019

  27. [27]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca892

    Hutchinson, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca892

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca892 2023

  28. [28]

    2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A13, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018001

    Laitinen, T., Effenberger, F., Kopp, A., & Dalla, S. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A13, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018001

    work page doi:10.1051/swsc/2018001 2018

  29. [29]

    Lemons, D. S. 2002, An introduction to stochastic processes in physics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press)

    2002

  30. [30]

    E., Wicks, R

    Lotz, S., Nel, A. E., Wicks, R. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca903

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca903 2023

  31. [31]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 956, doi: 10.1086/520924

    Chuychai, P., & Minnie, J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 956, doi: 10.1086/520924

    work page doi:10.1086/520924 2007

  32. [32]

    H., Breech, B., Dmitruk, P., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Breech, B., Dmitruk, P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L121, doi: 10.1086/513075

    work page doi:10.1086/513075 2007

  33. [33]

    H., Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Roberts, D. A. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 20673, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA12p20673

    work page doi:10.1029/ja095ia12p20673 1990

  34. [34]

    H., Gray, P

    Matthaeus, W. H., Gray, P. C., Pontius, Jr., D. H., & Bieber, J. W. 1995, Physical Review Letters, 75, 2136, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2136 Øksendal, B. K. 2000, Stochastic differential equations : an introduction with applications, 5th edn. (Verlag: Springer-Verlag)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.2136 1995

  35. [35]

    Breech, B., & Isenberg, P. A. 2011, J. Geophys. Res., 116, doi: 10.1029/2010JA016365

    work page doi:10.1029/2010ja016365 2011

  36. [36]

    Osman, K. T. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140152, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0152

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0152 2015

  37. [37]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, The Astrophysical Journal, 128, 664, doi: 10.1086/146579

    work page doi:10.1086/146579 1958

  38. [38]

    2013, Planetary and Space Science, 89, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2013.09.013

    Posner, A., Odstrˆ cil, D., MacNeice, P., et al. 2013, Planetary and Space Science, 89, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2013.09.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2013.09.013 2013

  39. [39]

    A., Roy, S., Matthaeus, W

    Pradata, R. A., Roy, S., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b2 2025

  40. [40]

    H., & Chuychai, P

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., & Chuychai, P. 2003, ApJL, 597, L169, doi: 10.1086/379847

    work page doi:10.1086/379847 2003

  41. [41]

    H., & Chuychai, P

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., & Chuychai, P. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 420, doi: 10.1086/423412 29

    work page doi:10.1086/423412 2004

  42. [42]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, 64, 2426, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.03.005

    Shalchi, A. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 64, 2426, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.03.005 2019

  43. [43]

    1971, The Astrophysical Journal, 170, 265, doi: 10.1086/151210

    Skilling, J. 1971, The Astrophysical Journal, 170, 265, doi: 10.1086/151210

    work page doi:10.1086/151210 1971

  44. [44]

    Leamon, R. J. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, L85, doi: 10.1086/506151

    work page doi:10.1086/506151 2006

  45. [45]

    W., Matthaeus, W

    Smith, C. W., Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., et al. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 8253, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000366

    work page doi:10.1029/2000ja000366 2001

  46. [46]

    J., Johnson, D., Botha, G

    Steyn, P. J., Johnson, D., Botha, G. J. J., & R´ egnier, S. 2024, ApJ, 966, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3356

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3356 2024

  47. [47]

    Strauss, R. D. T., Dresing, N., & Engelbrecht, N. E. 2017, ApJ, 837, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df5 2017

  48. [48]

    Strauss, R. D. T., & Effenberger, F. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 151, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0351-y van Kampen, N. G. 2007, Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry, 3rd edn., North-Holland personal library (Amsterdam: Elsevier). http://site.ebrary.com/id/10172768 Van Der Merwe, F. H., & Engelbrecht, N. E. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, 80, doi: 10...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0351-y 2017

  49. [49]

    H., Chhiber, R., et al

    Wang, J., Matthaeus, W. H., Chhiber, R., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, 169, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02401-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02401-z 2024

  50. [50]

    Matthaeus, W. H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16053

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.16053 2025

  51. [51]

    Kivelson, M. G. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016621

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016621 2011

  52. [52]

    P., Matthaeus, W

    Zank, G. P., Matthaeus, W. H., & Smith, C. W. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 17093, doi: 10.1029/96JA01275

    work page doi:10.1029/96ja01275 1996

  53. [53]

    2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A04208, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011323

    Zhang, M. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A04208, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011323

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011323 2006

  54. [54]

    Feng, X. S. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab362

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab362 2018