Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Solar disk gamma-rays emission via synthetic magnetic field from photosphere to low corona

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Braided magnetic fields explain the Sun's gamma-ray spectrum above 10 GeV

desk verdict New synthetic braided-field model reproduces the solar-disk gamma-ray spectrum, but the key rebrightening is likely driven by an isotropic injection at the photosphere that bypasses the physical mirroring filter. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15468 v1 pith:QPPWF52F submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Eleonora Puzzoni , Federico Fraschetti , József Kóta , Joe Giacalone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords solargamma-rayemissiongalacticcosmicraysmagneticfieldsbraidingtest-particlesimulationsphotosphereFermi-LATHAWC
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

The paper tries to establish that the observed >10 GeV gamma-ray spectrum from the solar disk is shaped by the geometric braiding of open magnetic field lines in the low solar atmosphere, rather than by a fit to the cosmic-ray input. The authors construct a static, divergence-free synthetic magnetic field whose transverse components switch on with a Gaussian envelope near the photosphere, and inject GeV-TeV protons into it in 3D test-particle simulations. They compute the resulting gamma-ray flux from proton-proton collisions and find that increasing the braiding amplitude raises the flux and flattens the spectral dip between roughly 30 and 100 GeV, matching Fermi-LAT and HAWC data. If the claim is right, the solar-disk gamma-ray spectrum is a readable map of photospheric and chromospheric magnetic structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the synthetic total magnetic field $\mathbf{B}(x,y,z) = B_0\hat{k} + \nabla\times[f(z)\mathbf{S}(x,y,z)]$, a divergence-free superposition of a uniform vertical field and a plane-wave vector potential $\mathbf{S}$ whose amplitude is modulated by the Gaussian envelope $f(z)=e^{-(z/\Lambda)^2}$. This envelope confines the braiding to a layer of height $\Lambda\simeq 1.41\times10^{-2}R_\odot$ above the photosphere, so the field is laminar in the corona and progressively horizontal and tangled near the surface. The braiding amplitude $\sigma^2=\langle\delta B^2\rangle/B_0^2$, with values 0.1, 1, and 10, controls the fraction of cosmic rays that interact before escaping, which is the quantity that directly sets the gamma-ray flux and its spectral shape.

What would settle it

Recompute the same test-particle gamma-ray transport using a braided magnetic field extracted from a time-dependent, high-resolution MHD simulation of the photosphere and chromosphere, and check whether the 30-100 GeV flattening survives; if it does not, the synthetic geometry is responsible for the rebrightening rather than real solar physics. Alternatively, a future Fermi-LAT/HAWC measurement with better statistics that shows a deepening dip and no rebrightening in the 30-100 GeV range would directly contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that open, increasingly braided field lines alone, without closed magnetic arcades, can account for the >10 GeV solar-disk gamma-ray spectrum, and that the rebrightening between approximately 30 and 100 GeV is a physical consequence of enhanced cosmic-ray confinement in the photo- and chromosphere. The magnetic field is built as $\mathbf{B} = B_0\hat{k} + \nabla\times[f(z)\mathbf{S}(x,y,z)]$ with $f(z)=e^{-(z/\Lambda)^2}$ and $\Lambda \simeq 1.41\times 10^{-2}R_\odot$, so distortions grow only near the surface; the braiding strength $\sigma^2 = \langle\delta B^2\rangle/B_0^2$ controls how horizontal the field becomes. In the simulations, the fraction of injected protons that interact rises with $\sigma^2$ when particles start inside the braided layer, raising the gamma-ray yield and flattening the dip, and this flattening saturates at $\sigma^2\gtrsim 10$ rather than growing into a bump. The authors take the saturation, together with tests changing $L_s$ and $\Lambda$, as evidence that the dip-rebrightening is a genuine physical effect tied to the condition $r_g(300\,\mathrm{GeV}) \simeq L_s$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the synthetic static field, with its Gaussian vertical envelope and plane-wave distortions, is a faithful stand-in for the real photospheric and chromospheric field; if the actual field has time-dependent or smaller-scale structure not captured by this construction, the calculated trapping and the predicted rebrightening could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The >10 GeV solar-disk gamma-ray spectrum is set by magnetic geometry, not by the cosmic-ray injection spectrum, so spectral features like the ~30 GeV dip become diagnostics of photospheric field structure.
  • Stronger braiding raises the gamma-ray flux at all energies and specifically flattens the 30-100 GeV dip, so the dip depth should vary with solar-cycle phase and with local magnetic complexity in time-resolved observations.
  • Open braided field lines alone can account for the observed flux, meaning closed magnetic arcades are not required to explain the >10 GeV emission.
  • The model predicts an energy-dependent angular pattern: higher-energy gamma-rays are emitted nearly tangent to the solar surface while lower-energy emission is more isotropic, consistent with the Fermi-LAT morphology.
  • The relation $r_g(300\,\mathrm{GeV}) \simeq L_s$ ties the dip energy to the granular scale of photospheric magnetic structures, making the dip a measurable scale of the low solar atmosphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If braiding strength is the controlling parameter, the depth of the 30-100 GeV dip should vary across the solar cycle and with heliographic latitude, a testable prediction beyond the paper's static snapshot.
  • The same trapped galactic-cosmic-ray population would also produce solar-disk neutrons and neutrinos at similar energies, so the braiding model could be cross-checked with non-gamma-ray channels.
  • Because the grid resolution (~418 km) excludes structures below the granular scale, the sub-10 GeV flux and possibly the dip shape could change once smaller-scale field variations are resolved; the central claim is safest above 10 GeV.
  • Replacing the synthetic field with a braided field taken from an MHD simulation of convective flows would show whether the Gaussian envelope is essential or whether any braided open-field geometry yields the same rebrightening.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 3D test-particle simulations of galactic cosmic-ray protons in a synthetic, divergence-free magnetic field that is open at the top and increasingly braided toward the photosphere. Protons are injected isotropically at two heights, one in the laminar corona and one in the braided photosphere; the fraction that undergoes p-p interactions is used to rescale the observed local interstellar GCR spectrum and to compute the solar disk gamma-ray flux via Eq. (10). The main finding is that with increasing braiding amplitude, the interaction fraction for particles injected in the braided layer grows, leading to a flattening/rebrightening of the flux in the 30-100 GeV range, which the authors interpret as a physical confinement effect and compare with Fermi-LAT and HAWC data.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a plausible explanation for the spectral dip/rebrightening in the 30-100 GeV range of the solar disk gamma-ray emission using an open-field braided geometry, complementing the closed-arcade model of Puzzoni et al. (2024). The computational setup is transparent, the synthetic field construction is explicitly separated from the particle transport, and the model parameters are anchored to solar magnetometry rather than fitted to gamma-ray data. The sensitivity study over sigma^2, Ls, and Lambda is a useful diagnostic. However, the physical interpretation is critically dependent on the particle injection scheme, which as argued above may introduce an artificial source of interacting particles; until this is resolved, the significance of the claimed rebrightening mechanism remains uncertain.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.2, Eq. (10), and Fig. 3] The averaging of Nint/Ninj over injections at z_up and z_down is not physically justified. In the real solar atmosphere, the phase-space density of GCRs at the photosphere is the filtered remnant of the external isotropic population that has propagated downward through the mirroring and escape regions; it is not an independent isotropic source. The injection at z_down therefore loads the braided layer with particles that would not be present in the steady-state distribution, artificially enhancing the interaction probability. This is not a cosmetic issue: Fig. 3 shows that Nint increases with sigma^2 only for the z_down injection, while the z_up injection is nearly independent of sigma^2, and Eq. (10) uses their average. Consequently, the claimed 30-100 GeV rebrightening in Sec. 4.3 is driven by an artificial source term. The authors should either (i) inject particles only at the top boundary and count those that subsequently interact, or (ii) weight the z_down contribution by the transmission probability computed from the z_up transport; the resulting spectral shape should be compared to show that the rebrightening is not a boundary artifact.
  2. [4.3 and Fig. 5] Because Eq. (10) uses the full observed local interstellar GCR intensity for both injection altitudes, the absolute gamma-ray flux in Fig. 5 is normalized by a particle population at z_down that is not supplied from infinity. The factor 2πR_sun^2/L^2 in the flux expression assumes the injection surface area equals the domain cross-section, but the z_down injection does not correspond to an incident flux at that height. The apparent agreement with the Fermi-LAT/HAWC points in Fig. 5 is therefore not a model prediction that is independent of the injection scheme. The requested top-boundary test is also needed to establish whether the absolute flux level remains compatible with the observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'Fermi-HAWC' while the standard notation in the text is 'Fermi-LAT/HAWC'; please make it consistent.
  2. [Section 3.2] The justification of isotropic injection by the observed isotropy of anomalous cosmic rays at ~0.1 AU (Rankin 2024) is not directly applicable to GeV-TeV galactic cosmic rays at the photosphere, where the Sun's absorbing boundary creates a loss cone; please clarify or replace this justification.
  3. [Section 4.3] The discussion of the Ls scan states that increasing Ls to 3 Ls 'does not change the flux at the dip' after arguing that the dip-rebrightening is associated with rg(300 GeV) ~ Ls; this tension should be resolved by stating explicitly which mechanism (resonance vs mean free path) controls the effect.
  4. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'the ratio between this Alfvén velocity to the particle speed' should read 'the ratio of this Alfvén velocity to the particle speed'.
  5. [Figure 5] The color coding of the different sigma^2 curves should be described in the caption; the text refers to green, brown, orange diamonds, and orange stars, but the caption as printed does not list them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model parameters come from solar magnetometry; the gamma-ray comparison is an independent forward calculation against Fermi/HAWC data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: construct a synthetic divergence-free field via Eqs. (1)-(8) with parameters B0, sigma^2, Ls, and Lambda chosen to emulate observed/MHD solar magnetic properties (e.g., horizontal-to-vertical field ratios, granular scales), not fitted to gamma-ray data; integrate test-particle proton orbits in that static field (Sec. 3); simulate Nint/Ninj as an output (Fig. 3, left); and fold it with the independently measured AMS/ISS-CREAM GCR spectrum and standard pp->pi0->gamma yields (Eq. 10) to compare against Fermi-LAT/HAWC flux (Fig. 5). No target quantity is defined in terms of itself: the simulated interaction fraction is not fitted to the observed gamma-ray spectrum, and the 30-100 GeV flattening tracks the simulated sigma^2 dependence of confinement, especially for z_down injection. The self-references (Puzzoni et al. 2024; Giacalone 2021; Giacalone & Jokipii 1999) supply the density profile, the flux-convolution method, and the Fourier-mode field superposition; these are methodological inputs, not a uniqueness theorem or a fitted prediction, and the central comparison remains against external Fermi-LAT/HAWC data. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations (no closed field lines, no time dependence, unresolved sub-10 GeV structures, unspecified braiding driver), and these are modeling caveats rather than evidence of circular reasoning. The possible concern that z_down injection bypasses the coronal mirror filter is a boundary-condition/physics caveat, not a definitional reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are environmental inputs chosen from solar observations, not fitted directly to the gamma-ray spectrum, but their selected values (especially sigma^2=10) are the ones that make the model agree with the target data. The synthetic field is the main ad hoc modeling choice, and the density, isotropy, and interaction cross sections are standard assumptions from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma^2 (relative magnetic fluctuation amplitude) = scanned 0.1, 1, 10, 50; best match at 10
    The gamma-ray flux and the 30-100 GeV rebrightening depend on sigma^2; sigma^2=10 is the value that matches the Fermi-LAT/HAWC data in Fig. 5, so the comparison to the target data selects this parameter.
  • B0 (background magnetic field strength) = 5 G and 50 G
    B0 sets the low-photosphere maximum field Bmax ~ 100-1000 G; both values are used in Fig. 5 with sigma^2=10, and the choice affects the overall flux normalization.
  • Ls (largest horizontal scale of magnetic structures) = 0.003 R_sun (about 2 Mm)
    Chosen to match the granular scale; the paper tests varying Ls to 3 Ls and shows the dip region is unaffected, so it is a hand-chosen input.
  • Lambda (scale height of braiding onset) = 1.41e-2 R_sun
    Chosen to mimic the height where the field becomes horizontal; doubling it does not change the >=30 GeV spectrum, so its value is not tightly constrained by the target data.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic field B(x,y,z) in Eqs. (1)-(8) with f(z)=exp(-(z/Lambda)^2) approximates the real solar atmospheric field.
    The field is not derived from MHD but crafted to mimic observed braiding; the central claim of reproducing the gamma-ray spectrum rests on this geometric assumption.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is static over the GCR propagation timescale (tens of seconds).
    Section 2.1; justified by the field evolution timescale being tens of minutes, but it limits the applicability to quiescent periods.
  • domain assumption GCRs are injected isotropically at the two heights.
    Section 3.2; based on observed isotropy of anomalous cosmic rays; an anisotropic injection could change the flux by up to a factor of 5 (Section 5).
  • standard math The density profile and the p-p interaction cross section and yield functions are accurate.
    Uses Fontenla et al. (1993) and Gonzalez-Aviles et al. (2021) for density and Kafexhiu et al. (2014) and Kelner et al. (2006) for the hadronic interactions; these are literature inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar disk gamma-rays emission via synthetic magnetic field from photosphere to low corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPPWF52F

@misc{pith2026250715468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar disk gamma-rays emission via synthetic magnetic field from photosphere to low corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPPWF52F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15468}
}
abstract

Gamma-ray emission in the GeV-TeV range from the solar disk is likely to arise from collisions of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) with solar atmospheric plasma. In a previous study, we demonstrated that closed turbulent magnetic arcades trap efficiently GCRs leading to a gamma-ray flux consistent with the Fermi-HAWC observations (from $\sim 0.1$ GeV to $\sim 1$ TeV). Here, we model a synthetic magnetic field with a static, laminar structure of open field lines in the chromosphere increasingly braiding near the solar surface, with a scale height of $\sim 10^{-2} R_\odot$. The height-dependent increase in magnetic field line braiding is modulated by an exponential scalar function, mimicking the bending of the photo- and chromo-spheric magnetic field revealed by polarimetric observations and reproduced by MHD simulations. Employing 3D test-particle numerical simulations, we investigate how distorted magnetic field lines affect the gamma-rays production by injecting GeV-TeV protons into both magnetically laminar and braided regions. We find that with the chosen spatial resolution this synthetic magnetic field can account for the $> 10$ GeV gamma-ray spectrum observed by Fermi-LAT/HAWC. A rebrightening between approximately $30$ and $100$ GeV (following a $\sim 30$ GeV spectral dip), suggests an enhanced confinement within the photo-/chromospheric layer by a stronger braiding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic field magnitude in the 3D domain (with logarithmic color scale in Gauss) together with the decom￾position of the particle velocity vector defined by the angles θ and ϕ. The xy-plane is tangent to the solar surface and z-axis is parallel to the local radial direction. S(x, y, z), derived in Giacalone (2021) as S(x, y, z) = X Nm n=1 An kn (sin αnxˆ ′ n + i cos αnyˆ ′ n )e iknz ′ n+iβn . (3) In our model, we t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: Average angle ⟨θ⟩⊥ (in degrees) as a function of the altitude z with σ 2 = 10. Bottom panels: Magnetic field lines (in black) and magnitude (colorbar) in the xz-plane (lowest y = 0.0003R⊙ plane in the grid, left panel) and xy-plane (lowest z = 0.0003R⊙ plane in the grid, right panel) with σ 2 = 10. code (Mignone et al. 2007, 2012). The total magnetic field is interpolated (Birdsall & Langdon 1991) at the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Ratio Nint/Ninj (Nesc/Ninj) for the interacting (escaping) GCRs marked by the solid (dashed) lines as a function of σ 2 for injection at z = zup and z = zdown for 100 GeV (red and magenta lines, respectively) and 10 TeV (blue and black lines, respectively) GCRs. Right panel: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Angular component θ and ϕ of the velocity vector of the GCRs at tint for Ep = 100 GeV with σ 2 = 10 and injection at z = zdown. Right panel: Same as left panel for Ep = 10 TeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solar disk-average gamma-ray spectrum observed by Fermi-LAT with (purple points) and without (black points) solar flares, from Linden et al. (2022), by HAWC (blue line, from Albert et al. 2023), and obtained from our simulations with σ 2 = 10 (orange diamonds), σ 2 = 1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/131 2011

  2. [2]

    U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 50, 26, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002 2013

  3. [3]

    Puzzling Variation of Gamma Rays from the Sun over the Solar Cycle Revealed with Fermi-LAT

    Acharyya, A., Adelfio, A., Ajello, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06348, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06348

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.06348 2025

  4. [4]

    2021, PhR, 894, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2021, PhR, 894, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003 2021

  5. [5]

    2023, PhRvL, 131, 051201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.051201

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 051201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.051201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.051201 2023

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3208

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3208 2024

  7. [7]

    J., Chen, D., et al

    Amenomori, M., Bi, X. J., Chen, D., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 031101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.031101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.031101 2018

  8. [8]

    2023, A&A, 676, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346016

    Antolin, P., Dolliou, A., Auch` ere, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346016

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346016 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bd2

    Arsioli, B., & Orlando, E. 2024, ApJ, 962, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bd2

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Athay, R. G. 1976, The solar chromosphere and corona: Quiet sun, Vol. 53, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-1715-2

    1976 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 Becker Tjus, J., Desiati, P., D¨ opper, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936306

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    K., & Langdon, A

    Birdsall, C. K., & Langdon, A. B. 1991, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation

    1991

  5. [13]

    Cannady, N. W. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 604, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0604

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Seo, E

    Choi, G. H., Seo, E. S., Aggarwal, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d2c

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Danilovic, S., Sch¨ ussler, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2010, A&A, 513, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913379 del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J.,ˇStˇ ep´ an, J., &

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaceab D¨ orner, J., Morejon, L., Kampert, K.-H., & Becker Tjus, J

    Shchukina, N. 2018, ApJ, 863, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaceab D¨ orner, J., Morejon, L., Kampert, K.-H., & Becker Tjus, J. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/043

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2001, A&A, 378, 627, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011263

    Faurobert, M., Arnaud, J., Vigneau, J., & Frisch, H. 2001, A&A, 378, 627, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011263

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    1995, A&A, 298, 289

    Petrovay, K., & Spielfiedel, A. 1995, A&A, 298, 289

    1995

  11. [19]

    M., Avrett, E

    Fontenla, J. M., Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 1993, ApJ, 406, 319, doi: 10.1086/172443

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Drake, J

    Fraschetti, F., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., & Garraffo, C. 2022, ApJ, 937, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d7

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Fraschetti, F., & Jokipii, J. R. 2011, ApJ, 734, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/83

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0b2

    Giacalone, J. 2021, ApJ, 912, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0b2

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J. R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 204, doi: 10.1086/307452 Gonz´ alez-Avil´ es, J. J., Guzm´ an, F. S., Fedun, V., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab36f Gonz´ alez-Avil´ es, J. J., Murawski, K., Srivastava, A. K.,

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    V., & Gonz´ alez-Esparza, J

    Zaqarashvili, T. V., & Gonz´ alez-Esparza, J. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 50, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1261 11 Guti´ errez, M., Masip, M., & Mu˜ noz, S. 2022, ApJ, 941, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca020

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    S., MacKinnon, A., Szydlarski, M., & Carlsson, M

    Hudson, H. S., MacKinnon, A., Szydlarski, M., & Carlsson, M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4852, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3373

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabe8406, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe8406

    Ishikawa, R., Trujillo Bueno, J., del Pino Alem´ an, T., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabe8406, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe8406

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Vila, G

    Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V. V. 2006, PhRvD, 74, 034018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Griffith, S., & Peter, A

    Li, J.-T., Beacom, J. F., Griffith, S., & Peter, A. H. G. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad158f

    doi

  22. [30]

    Li, Z., Ng, K. C. Y., Chen, S., Nan, Y., & He, H. 2024b, Chinese Physics C, 48, 045101, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad1cda

    doi

  23. [31]

    F., Peter, A

    Linden, T., Beacom, J. F., Peter, A. H. G., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 063013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063013

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    F., et al

    Linden, T., Zhou, B., Beacom, J. F., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 131103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.131103

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    N., Luque, P

    Mazziotta, M. N., Luque, P. D. L. T., Di Venere, L., et al. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 083011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083011

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabccd

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Vaidya, B., & Mattia, G. 2018, ApJ, 859, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabccd

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, ApJS, 198, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/7

    Mignone, A., Zanni, C., Tzeferacos, P., et al. 2012, ApJS, 198, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/7

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Sharma, R., Tajfirouze, E., & Miriyala, H

    Morton, R. J., Sharma, R., Tajfirouze, E., & Miriyala, H. 2023, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 7, 17, doi: 10.1007/s41614-023-00118-3

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Ng, K. C. Y., Beacom, J. F., Peter, A. H. G., & Rott, C. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 023004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023004

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Ng, K. C. Y., Hillier, A., & Ando, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.17549, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17549

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ea

    Puzzoni, E., Fraschetti, F., K´ ota, J., & Giacalone, J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ea

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Rankin, J. S. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, SH21C–2832

    2024

  34. [42]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 4, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-4

    Reale, F. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 4, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-4

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    Rempel, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Petrie, G., Kuhn, J., et al

    Schad, T. A., Petrie, G., Kuhn, J., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadq1604, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adq1604

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Seckel, D., Stanev, T., & Gaisser, T. K. 1991, ApJ, 382, 652, doi: 10.1086/170753

    1991 doi

  38. [46]

    2011, ApJL, 731, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L21

    Shchukina, N., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2011, ApJL, 731, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L21

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2008, ApJL, 680, L85, doi: 10.1086/589740

    Steiner, O., Rezaei, R., Schaffenberger, W., & Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S. 2008, ApJL, 680, L85, doi: 10.1086/589740

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    Stenflo, J. O. 2013, A&A, 555, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321608

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Tang, Q.-W., Ng, K. C. Y., Linden, T., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 063019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063019 Trujillo Bueno, J., Shchukina, N., & Asensio Ramos, A. 2004, Nature, 430, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature02669

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Zhou, B., Ng, K. C. Y., Beacom, J. F., & Peter, A. H. G. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 023015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023015

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.