Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Plasmoid-Mediated 2D Magnetic Reconnection in Partially Ionized Plasmas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In weakly ionized plasma, reconnection fragments into a dense chain of small plasmoids instead of a single monster plasmoid, at reconnection rates near 1–3.5% of the Alfvén speed.

desk verdict A well-executed 2D two-fluid MHD study of high-Lundquist reconnection in partially ionized plasma, with a genuinely new nonlinear result that is slightly overclaimed because the weakly ionized run stops early. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08448 v1 pith:4R45YV3X submitted 2026-08-09 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Yue Hu , Siyao Xu , Grzegorz Kowal , James M. Stone , Alex Lazarian , Hui Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionplasmoidinstabilitypartiallyionizedplasmasambipolardiffusiontwo-fluidMHDneutral-iondecouplingHarriscurrentsheetLundquistnumber
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

Partially ionized plasmas—the neutral-dominated gas of molecular clouds, the solar chromosphere, and protoplanetary disks—release magnetic energy through reconnection, but most theory of fast reconnection assumes full ionization. This paper uses two-fluid (ion + neutral) simulations of a Harris current sheet at Lundquist number $10^5$ to ask whether the canonical fully ionized plasmoid picture survives when neutrals decouple from ions below a characteristic scale. The answer is a changed nonlinear outcome: neutral-ion decoupling accelerates the tearing instability, suppresses the large “monster” plasmoid that dominates fully ionized sheets, and fragments the layer into a dense chain of small plasmoids. Ions pile up inside those plasmoids by factors up to a few thousand, raising the local ionization fraction and recoupling the fluids there, while the overall reconnection rate remains at the usual few percent of the Alfvén speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the scale hierarchy built on the two-fluid drag frequencies: the neutral decoupling scale $\ell_{\rm dec}=v_A/(\gamma_d\rho_i)$, below which neutrals cannot follow magnetically driven ion motions, and the ion decoupling scale $\ell_{\rm dec,i}=v_{A,i}/(\gamma_d\rho_n)$, below which ions move at the fast ion-Alfvén speed against a passive neutral background. Between them lies the ambipolar-diffusion zone, with $\eta_{\rm AD}=v_{A,i}\ell_{\rm dec,i}$ characterizing flux transport and $\delta_{\rm AD}=a_0/\sqrt{S_{\rm AD}}$ the associated thickness. The ordering $\ell_{\rm dec,i}<\delta_{\rm AD}<\ell_{\rm dec}<a_0$ for $\xi=10^{-2}$ puts the inner reconnection layer inside the damping zone (AD-dominated), while $\ell_{\rm dec}<\delta_{\rm AD}$ for $\xi=10^{-1}$ gives a transitional regime; this ordering determines whether the plasmoid hierarchy is truncated at $\ell_{\rm dec}$. Ambipolar drift reshapes the sheet but does not dissipate flux—only the explicit Ohmic resistivity does.

What would settle it

Evolve the $\xi=10^{-2}$ run beyond the present $5\,t_{A,i}$ endpoint, using a domain large enough (or outflow boundaries open enough) that reconnected flux cannot recirculate within the run. If the largest-plasmoid flux fraction eventually climbs from $\sim0.06$ toward $\sim0.3$, the monster plasmoid is delayed rather than suppressed; if it remains below $\sim0.1$ while the sheet keeps fragmenting, the suppression claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that in the ambipolar-diffusion-dominated regime (ionization fraction $\xi=10^{-2}$), neutral-ion decoupling suppresses the macroscopic “monster” plasmoid that dominates fully ionized reconnection, replacing it with a dense, extended chain of sub-scale plasmoids whose coalescence is slowed below the neutral decoupling scale $\ell_{\rm dec}$. In this regime, ions concentrate into plasmoid cores with peak overdensities $\rho_i/\rho_{i,0}\approx 3{-}5\times10^3$ (versus $\approx 10$ for $\xi=10^{-1}$), while the neutral density stays smooth; the pile-up raises the local ionization fraction toward unity, contracts $\ell_{\rm dec}\propto \rho_i^{-1}$, and recouples the two fluids inside the plasmoids. The instability develops in two stages—ambipolar-driven sheet thinning, then sub-$\ell_{\rm dec}$ species differentiation—with measured linear growth rates $\gamma_B\approx1.3$ and $3.6\,t_{A,i}^{-1}$ for $\xi=10^{-1}$ and $10^{-2}$, far faster than the fully ionized onset after $\sim25\,t_{A,i}$. Measured from the out-of-plane electric field at reconnection sites, the rate is $R_{\rm rec}\approx0.01$ quasi-steady for $\xi=10^{-2}$ (with an early overshoot to $\approx0.035$) and climbs to $\approx0.02$, reaching $\approx0.035$ during coalescence, for $\xi=10^{-1}$; even though the ambipolar-driven ion inflow can reach $\sim0.5\,v_{A,0}$, the rate is set by Ohmic dissipation in the inner layer, not by the fast inflow.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing assumption is that five ion-Alfvén times is enough time to reveal how the weakly ionized sheet behaves in the long run, even though the fully ionized comparison case needs about thirty-seven of those times to form its giant plasmoid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In weakly ionized environments, reconnection energy is released through many small, short-lived plasmoids rather than one dominant structure, so energy deposition into the gas is more spatially distributed and intermittent.
  • Ambipolar-driven sheet thinning shortens the linear onset from tens of ion-Alfvén times in the fully ionized case to about one, lowering the effective threshold for plasmoid formation in weakly ionized media.
  • Ion overdensities of up to $\sim5\times10^3$ times upstream in plasmoid cores raise the local ionization fraction and recouple the fluids; because recombination is neglected, these overdensities are upper limits.
  • Neutral decoupling changes the morphology and the onset speed of reconnection but not its asymptotic rate, which remains at a few percent of the total Alfvén speed in all runs.
  • Observable counterparts differ by species: ions form sharp dense cores while neutrals develop ring-like wakes around contracting and merging plasmoids, a signature that spatially resolved ion-neutral observations could test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The suppression seen at $5\,t_{A,i}$ may be a delay rather than an absence; a run extended past $\sim30\,t_{A,i}$ is needed to tell whether the monster plasmoid eventually forms.
  • Including ionization–recombination chemistry would shrink the ion pile-up (the recombination rate scales as $\rho_i^2$), plausibly weakening the recoupling feedback and reducing the peak overdensities below the quoted values.
  • In three dimensions, flux ropes can kink and interact with ambient turbulence, so the dense-chain morphology is likely a lower bound on structural complexity; the scale-selective sub-$\ell_{\rm dec}$ ion response should persist.
  • The results suggest a non-turbulent route to fine-grained magnetic energy release in chromospheric and molecular-cloud current sheets, which should be tested by looking for many small, transient reconnection events rather than one large flare.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 2D two-fluid (ion + neutral) MHD simulations of Harris-sheet reconnection at S = 10^5 and beta = 2, using a 16384 x 4096 grid, for three initial ionization fractions xi = 1, 10^-1, and 10^-2. The authors report that neutral-ion decoupling accelerates the linear tearing stage, that the AD-dominated xi = 10^-2 run suppresses the large-scale "monster" plasmoid seen in the fully ionized baseline, and that the sheet instead fragments into a dense chain of small plasmoids. They further report extreme ion overdensities (rho_i/rho_i0 up to 3-5 x 10^3 in the xi = 10^-2 case), local re-coupling of ions and neutrals inside plasmoids, and quasi-steady reconnection rates of order 0.01-0.02 v_A measured from the out-of-plane electric field. The paper includes a half-resolution convergence check, a linear growth-rate measurement compared with Coppi tearing scaling, and explicit statements of limitations such as the neglect of ionization/recombination and the use of periodic outflow boundaries.

Significance. If the monster-suppression claim survives the duration test described below, this is a significant result for reconnection in partially ionized plasmas: it would show that in the AD-dominated regime the nonlinear plasmoid hierarchy is qualitatively different from the canonical fully ionized case, with consequences for chromospheric, ISM, and protoplanetary-disk energy release. The paper has clear strengths: a high-resolution numerical setup with a half-resolution convergence check (Appendix D), a measured linear growth rate compared against an independently defined Coppi scaling rather than fitted, careful scale-hierarchy definitions in Section 3.2, and a candid itemization of limitations in Section 5.3. These strengths make the central question well posed; the remaining issue is whether the headline conclusion is supported by the simulated time span.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 1 right column, Appendix Fig. 12, Conclusion item 1] The central claim that neutral decoupling suppresses the monster plasmoid is not established by the xi = 10^-2 run, which is evolved only to t = 5 t_A,i. The fully ionized baseline does not form its monster until t ≈ 37 t_A,i, after a Sweet-Parker thinning phase lasting to roughly t = 20-30 t_A,i; the AD run's nonlinear phase (roughly t = 1-5 t_A,i) spans about 4 t_A,i, shorter than the roughly 7 t_A,i nonlinear interval (about t = 30-37 t_A,i) that precedes monster formation in the fully ionized case. The paper's own plasmoid statistics in Appendix Fig. 12 show the largest-plasmoid flux fraction in the xi = 10^-2 run rising from about 0.02 to 0.06 with continued small-scale mergers, a trajectory that could continue toward a dominant plasmoid. Since Section 5.3.2 states that periodic-boundary recirculation does not contaminate the layer before about 27 t_A,i, extending the run to at least 30-40 t_A,i is both feasible and necessary to distinguish suppression from delay. As it stands, the data support only 'no monster forms within 5 t_A,i,' not active suppression of monster formation.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion item 1 vs. §4.1 and Appendix B] The blanket statement that the large-scale monster plasmoid is suppressed in the presence of neutral decoupling is inconsistent with the paper's own results for xi = 10^-1. Section 4.1 describes a "precursor monster plasmoid" emerging at t = 5 t_A,i in that run, and Appendix B reports a transient largest-plasmoid flux fraction of about 0.3 near t = 3.3 t_A,i during a major coalescence event. The suppression claim should either be restricted to the AD-dominated xi = 10^-2 case or accompanied by an explicit criterion (size, flux fraction, or lifetime) for what constitutes a monster plasmoid; otherwise the abstract and Conclusion overstate the scope of the result.
  3. [§5.3.2 and the fully ionized baseline] The recirculation-time argument in Section 5.3.2 is stated only for the partially ionized runs over the 5 t_A,i interval. The fully ionized baseline is analyzed to t = 37 t_A,i, and with outflow speeds of order v_A,0 a flux element can traverse the L_x = 2 domain in a few t_A, so the reference run undergoes many boundary crossings before the monster appears. The authors should either quantify recirculation for the xi = 1 run or demonstrate that it does not affect the monster-formation time, because the suppression comparison depends on this baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.4.1] The Coppi-scaling expression "gamma_B ~ S^{-1/3} delta v_A/delta_AD" is not dimensionally consistent with the definitions in Section 3.1.2 as printed; the authors should specify whether S and v_A are the ion quantities (S_i, v_A,i) and show the arithmetic leading to gamma_B ≈ 35 v_A/L.
  2. [Captions of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6] The captions of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 state "for initial ionization fractions of xi = 10^-1," but Section 4.2 and the surrounding text analyze the xi = 10^-2 run in these figures; the captions should read xi = 10^-2.
  3. [Abstract and §4.5] The abstract's phrase "the reconnection rate in the xi = 10^-2 case achieves R_rec ≈ 0.01" could be misread as the peak value; in Section 4.5 the peak is about 0.035 during the transient and 0.01 is the quasi-steady value. Suggest writing "quasi-steady R_rec ≈ 0.01" in the abstract.
  4. [§5.1] The sentence "we expect it to persist beyond the 3D plasmoid geometry studied here" appears to be a typo for "beyond the 2D geometry studied here," since all simulations in the paper are two-dimensional.
  5. [§4.1 and §3.1.2] The statement that "the relative ion-neutral drift efficiently dissipates the ion motions that drive coalescence" should be reconciled with Section 3.1.2's emphasis that ambipolar drift does not dissipate magnetic energy; clarifying that drag dissipates relative kinetic energy while Ohmic resistivity dissipates magnetic energy would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central claims are measured from two-fluid simulations and checked against external tearing theory; the short runtime of the ξ=10^-2 run is a supportability caveat, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—suppression of the monster plasmoid, accelerated linear tearing, ion pile-up and re-coupling, and E_z-based reconnection rates—are obtained by evolving the two-fluid MHD equations with fixed input parameters (S=10^5, β=2, ξ=1, 10^-1, 10^-2) and measuring energy, density, velocity, and electric-field diagnostics from the simulations. Nothing in the derivation chain fits a parameter to the target result and then re-presents that fit as a prediction. The linear growth rates are measured from the exponential growth of E_By and are compared with the Coppi tearing scaling using independently defined S, δ_AD, and a0; the prediction is parameter-free with respect to the measured growth rate, so this is an external benchmark rather than a self-fulfilling fit. The fully ionized baseline reproduces the known monster-plasmoid scenario from external references, and the partially ionized runs differ dynamically from that baseline. Cited prior work, including papers by the present authors, appears in the introduction and in the definitions of decoupling scales and ambipolar diffusion, but those citations do not contain the nonlinear result that neutral decoupling suppresses the monster plasmoid; that result rests on the simulation evolution itself. The main caveat—that the ξ=10^-2 run is reported only to t=5t_A,i while the fully ionized monster forms at t≈37t_A,i—is an evidentiary limitation explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.3.2, not a circular reduction: the paper demonstrates no monster within 5t_A,i rather than proving suppression at all later times. No step in the paper equates a prediction with its input by construction, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or imports a forced choice solely from a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation inputs (eta, beta, c_s, B0, a0, resolution) are standard numerical choices. The only hand-chosen parameter that sets the regime is gamma_d, and the plasmoid threshold f affects statistics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • drag coefficient gamma_d = not stated explicitly (set so that L_dec is about 50 cells and L_dec,i is about 5 cells for xi=10^-2)
    Chosen by hand to place the decoupling scales within the grid hierarchy. This choice directly sets the AD-dominated regime that the paper's classification and central claims depend on.
  • plasmoid identification threshold f = 0.05 Delta_A_z
    Hand-chosen threshold for counting plasmoids in Appendix B. The authors verify qualitative trends are stable over a plateau, but absolute plasmoid counts depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-fluid isothermal MHD with drag coupling and Ohmic resistivity captures the relevant reconnection physics.
    Section 2.1: the model neglects Hall physics, kinetic inertial scales, and ionization-recombination, so the current-sheet thickness is set by ambipolar diffusion and resistivity.
  • domain assumption A single Harris sheet with beta=2 and uniform initial ionization fraction is a representative reconnection setup.
    Section 2.1.1: reconnection is seeded with a prescribed perturbation, so onset timing is setup-dependent and may not capture self-forming sheets in real environments.
  • domain assumption Ambipolar drift is non-dissipative flux transport, with Ohmic resistivity as the only topology-changing dissipation.
    Section 3.1.2: this distinction is load-bearing for the interpretation of E_z at the reconnection sites as the Ohmic reconnection rate.
  • domain assumption Periodic outflow boundaries do not recirculate reconnected flux within the analyzed interval.
    Section 5.3.2: recirculation time is estimated as greater than 27t_A,i, exceeding the 5t_A,i duration, but the boundaries still prevent true outflow of plasmoids.
  • standard math Coppi tearing scaling gamma_B ~ S^(-1/3) v_A / delta_AD applies to the AD-thinned current sheet.
    Section 4.4.1: used to interpret the measured growth rate; assumes the ambipolar-thinned sheet follows the same tearing scaling as a purely resistive sheet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plasmoid-Mediated 2D Magnetic Reconnection in Partially Ionized Plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4R45YV3X

@misc{pith2026260808448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plasmoid-Mediated 2D Magnetic Reconnection in Partially Ionized Plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4R45YV3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08448}
}
abstract

Magnetic reconnection in partially ionized plasmas is an important channel for energy release. While the plasmoid instability is well characterized in 2D fully ionized plasmas, its behavior in the presence of neutral-dominated plasma remains poorly understood in the nonlinear, high-Lundquist-number ($S = 10^5$) regime. We present high-resolution ($16384 \times 4096$ cells) two-dimensional two-fluid (ion $+$ neutral) simulations of Harris-sheet reconnection with upstream plasma beta $\beta = 2$, comparing fully ionized and partially ionized (ionization fraction $\xi = 10^{-1}$ and $10^{-2}$) regimes. Neutral-ion decoupling accelerates the linear tearing stage and alters the plasmoid hierarchy: the large-scale ``monster'' plasmoid that dominates the fully ionized case is suppressed, and the sheet instead fragments into a dense chain of sub-scale plasmoids. Below the neutral-ion decoupling scale $\ell_{\rm dec}$, ions concentrate into the plasmoids, reaching peak overdensities $\rho_i/\rho_{i,0} \approx 10$ ($\xi = 10^{-1}$) and $3-5\times10^{3}$ ($\xi = 10^{-2}$), while the neutrals remain comparatively smooth. This local pile-up raises the ionization fraction and recouples the two fluids within the plasmoids. Measured from the out-of-plane electric field at the reconnection sites, the reconnection rate in the $\xi = 10^{-2}$ case achieves $R_{\rm rec}\approx0.01$, whereas the $\xi = 10^{-1}$ case rises to a rate $\approx0.02$ and further $0.035$ when apparent coalescence occurs. In the $\xi = 10^{-2}$ case, the ambipolar drift drives a rapid ion inflow $\sim0.5\,v_{A,0}$ into the layer at the same reconnection sites, far above the neutral inflow velocity $\sim0.1\,v_{A,0}$. Here, $v_{A,0}$ is the upstream total Alfv\'en speed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08448 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the normalized out-of-plane current density (Jz/Jz,0) during the magnetic reconnection process. The left and right columns correspond to simulations with initial ionization fractions of ξ = 10−1 and ξ = 10−2 , respectively. Snapshots are taken at consecutive times t = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5tA,i (from top to bottom). Consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the spatial distributions of the normalized ion density (ρi/ρi,0) and neutral density (ρn/ρn,0) during the magnetic reconnection process. The left column presents the simulation case with an initial ionization fraction of ξ = 10−1 , while the right column displays the case with ξ = 10−2 . From top to bottom, the panels show snapshots at consecutive times: t = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5tA,i, where tA,i is th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of the one-dimensional transverse profiles across the primary central plasmoid for initial ionization fractions of ξ = 10−1 . The cross-sectional slices are extracted by continuously tracking the real-time position of the plasmoid centroid. The horiz…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the one-dimensional transverse profiles across the primary central plasmoid for initial ionization fractions of ξ = 10−1 . The cross-sectional slices are extracted by continuously tracking the plasmoid centroid’s position in real time. The horizon…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The three columns display, from left to right: the root-mean-square velocity (vrms) normalized by the upstream total Alfven speed ´ (vA,0); the kinetic energy (Ekin = 1 2 ρv2 ) normalized by the initial total magnetic energy Emag(0); and the magnetic energy components …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of the inflow speed and the reconnection rate. Left: the maximum inflow speed averaged over the active reconnection sites, normalized to the total Alfven speed, shown separately for the ion (solid) and neutral (dashed) fluids. ´ Right: the reconnection …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 2D spatial distributions for the fully ionized (ξ = 1), single-fluid MHD limit in the fully developed non-linear regime (t = 37tA,i). From top to bottom, the panels display the normalized plasma density (ρ/ρ0), velocity magnitude (v/vA,0), magnetic field strength (B/B…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plasmoid statistics versus ion Alfven times ´ tA,i for ξ = 10−1 (blue) and ξ = 10−2 (red). Left: number of plasmoids Nplasmoid. Middle: size of the largest plasmoid normalized by the sheet length, Lmax/Lz. Right: fraction of the reconnected flux in the largest plasmoi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ion (left) and neutral (right) density maps in the ξ = 10−2 run, shown at four times during the nonlinear phase (t = 4.1, 4.4, 4.7, and 5 tA,i, top to bottom). Each panel is a zoom on the tracked plasmoid, spanning ∆x ∈ [−0.01, 0.01]Lx and ∆y ∈ [−0.04, 0.04]Ly [PITH_…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: 1D transverse profiles through the plasmoid, cut along the outflow direction (∆x) at the four times of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Total pressure budget through the plasmoid presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The three columns display, from left to right: the root-mean-square velocity (vrms) normalized by the upstream total Alfven´ speed (vA,0); the kinetic energy (Ekin = 1 2 ρv2 ) normalized by the initial total magnetic energy Emag(0); and the magnetic energy components …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Haynes, M., & Leake, J

    Arber, T. D., Haynes, M., & Leake, J. E. 2007, A&A, 471, 649, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077980

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077980 2007

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  3. [3]

    L., Alexeev, I., Collados, M., et al

    Ballester, J. L., Alexeev, I., Collados, M., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 58, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0485-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0485-6 2018

  4. [4]

    2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    Bhattacharjee, A., Huang, Y .-M., Yang, H., & Rogers, B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    doi:10.1063/1.3264103 2009

  5. [5]

    2000, Magnetic Reconnection in Plasmas (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511599958

    Biskamp, D. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection in Plasmas (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511599958

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511599958 2000

  6. [6]

    Borges, R., Carmona, M., Costa, B., & Don, W. S. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 3191, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.038

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.038 2008

  7. [7]

    Brandenburg, A., & Zweibel, E. G. 1994, ApJL, 427, L91, doi: 10.1086/187372

    doi:10.1086/187372 1994

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/118

    Burkhart, B., Lazarian, A., Balsara, D., Meyer, C., & Cho, J. 2015, ApJ, 805, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/118 2015

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Begelman, M

    Cerutti, B., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, ApJ, 746, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/148

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 100702, doi: 10.1063/1.4964481

    Comisso, L., Lingam, M., Huang, Y .-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 100702, doi: 10.1063/1.4964481

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    1976, Soviet Journal of Plasma Physics, 2, 533

    Coppi, B., Galvao, R., Pellat, R., Rosenbluth, M., & Rutherford, P. 1976, Soviet Journal of Plasma Physics, 2, 533

    1976

  4. [12]

    Draine, B. T. 1986, MNRAS, 220, 133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/220.1.133

    1986 doi

  5. [13]

    T., & McKee, C

    Draine, B. T., & McKee, C. F. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002105

    1993

  6. [14]

    Drenkhahn, G., & Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020839

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Hawley, J

    Evans, C. R., & Hawley, J. F. 1988, ApJ, 332, 659, doi: 10.1086/166684

    1988 doi

  8. [16]

    Ferri`ere, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    Harris, E. G. 1962, Il Nuovo Cimento, 23, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF02733547

    1962 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/152

    Hillier, A., Takasao, S., & Nakamura, N. 2016, ApJ, 827, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/152

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2026, ApJ, 1005, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae75b4

    Hu, Y ., Comisso, L., Sironi, L., & Xu, S. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae75b4

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00ab

    Hu, Y ., Lazarian, A., & Xu, S. 2021, ApJ, 915, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00ab

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Lazarian, A

    Hu, Y ., Xu, S., Arzamasskiy, L., Stone, J. M., & Lazarian, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3493

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104, doi: 10.1063/1.3420208 —

    Huang, Y .-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104, doi: 10.1063/1.3420208 —. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055702, doi: 10.1063/1.4802941

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E

    Kowal, G., Falceta-Gonc ¸alves, D. A., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2017, ApJ, 838, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6001

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    T., & Otmianowska-Mazur, K

    Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. T., & Otmianowska-Mazur, K. 2009, ApJ, 700, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/63

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445, doi: 10.1086/149981

    1969 doi

  18. [26]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/154

    Lazarian, A., Esquivel, A., & Crutcher, R. 2012, ApJ, 757, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/154

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Jafari, A., et al

    Lazarian, A., Eyink, G. L., Jafari, A., et al. 2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 012305, doi: 10.1063/1.5110603

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 1999, ApJ, 517, 700, doi: 10.1086/307233

    1999 doi

  21. [29]

    T., & Cho, J

    Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. T., & Cho, J. 2004, ApJ, 603, 180, doi: 10.1086/381383

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b38

    Lazarian, A., Zhang, B., & Xu, S. 2019, ApJ, 882, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b38

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    E., & Arber, T

    Leake, J. E., & Arber, T. D. 2006, A&A, 450, 805, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054099

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Lukin, V

    Leake, J. E., Lukin, V . S., Linton, M. G., & Meier, E. T. 2012, ApJ, 760, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/109

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 1151, doi: 10.1086/529581

    Li, H.-b., & Houde, M. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1151, doi: 10.1086/529581

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3783

    Liu, M., Hu, Y ., & Lazarian, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3783

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 042303, doi: 10.1063/1.3703318

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Lyubarsky, Y . E. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437, doi: 10.1086/318354 —. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08767.x

    2001

  30. [38]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495, doi: 10.1038/371495a0

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y . 1994, Nature, 371, 495, doi: 10.1038/371495a0

    1994 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Li, P

    McKee, C. F., Li, P. S., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1612, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1612

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., J. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    1956 doi

  33. [41]

    Mouschovias, T. C. 1996, ApJ, 466, 814, doi: 10.1086/177554

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    A., & Lukin, V

    Murphy, N. A., & Lukin, V . S. 2015, ApJ, 805, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/134

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/79

    Ni, L., Kliem, B., Lin, J., & Wu, N. 2015, ApJ, 799, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/79

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    I., & Schmieder, B

    Ni, L., Lin, J., Roussev, I. I., & Schmieder, B. 2018, ApJ, 852, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9edb

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2005, Journal of Scientific Computing, 25, 129, doi: 10.1007/s10915-004-4636-4

    Pareschi, L., & Russo, G. 2005, Journal of Scientific Computing, 25, 129, doi: 10.1007/s10915-004-4636-4

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    Parker, E. N. 1957, Journal of Geophysical Research, 62, 509, doi: 10.1029/JZ062i004p00509

    1957 doi

  39. [47]

    F., Uzdensky, D

    Samtaney, R., Loureiro, N. F., Uzdensky, D. A., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2009, Physical Review Letters, 103, 105004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.105004 24

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    Shibata, K., & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Shu, F. H. 1983, ApJ, 273, 202, doi: 10.1086/161359 —. 1992, The physics of astrophysics. V olume II: Gas dynamics

    1983 doi

  42. [50]

    A., & Giannios, D

    Sironi, L., Uzdensky, D. A., & Giannios, D. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 127, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-020325-115713

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2009, New Astronomy, 14, 139, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.003

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Tomida, K., Felker, K

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., Felker, K. G., Grete, P., & White, C. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16053

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sweet, P. A. 1958, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 6, Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, ed. B. Lehnert, 123

    1958

  46. [54]

    A., Kunz, M

    Tolman, E. A., Kunz, M. W., Stone, J. M., & Arzamasskiy, L. 2024, ApJ, 967, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c0

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, Physical Review Letters, 105, 235002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5815

    Lazarian, A. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5815

    2026 doi

  49. [57]

    T., & Lazarian, A

    Vishniac, E. T., & Lazarian, A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 193, doi: 10.1086/306643

    1999 doi

  50. [58]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.23683

    Wang, L., Dong, C., Huang, Y .-M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.23683

    2026 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/44

    Xu, S., Lazarian, A., & Yan, H. 2015, ApJ, 810, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/44

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 166, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/166

    Xu, S., Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 166, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/166

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 603, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.603

    Yamada, M., Kulsrud, R., & Ji, H. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 603, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.603

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    Zweibel, E. G. 2002, ApJ, 567, 962, doi: 10.1086/338682

    2002 doi

  56. [64]

    G., & Yamada, M

    Zweibel, E. G., & Yamada, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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