Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Parker Solar Probe Observations of Preferential Heating of Protons over Alpha Particles near Turbulent Coherent Structures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that in the young solar wind, turbulent coherent structures heat protons more than alpha particles, pulling the species toward thermal equilibration.

desk verdict A credible first look at species-dependent heating near PVI structures, but the alpha-moment products are the load-bearing measurement and need validation before the 13% vs 6% ordering is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17484 v1 pith:TYIQDY3W submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Jiayang Xi , Tieyan Wang , Daniel Verscharen , Yan Yang , Luca Sorriso-Valvo , Xinyi Wang , Wenhao Chen , Zuzheng Chen
show 10 more authors
Zeren Zhima Chao Xiao Xiangcheng Dong Jin Liu Xiang Li Guoqi Liu Naifei Gou Xiaoxiao Qin Malcolm Dunlop Jinbin Cao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindalphaparticlesprotonheatingintermittentturbulencecoherentstructuresParkerProbePVImethodtemperatureanisotropy
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

Parker Solar Probe data from 0.05 to 0.28 AU reveal that the sharp magnetic and velocity structures that punctuate solar wind turbulence are not passive features: they locally heat ions, and they heat protons more efficiently than alpha particles. For the strongest structures, proton temperature rises about 13% above background while alpha temperature rises about 6%, producing a localized dip of up to 12% in the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio. The heating is perpendicular-dominant for both species. The same events show a collapse in the alpha-proton differential flow speed and a minimum in Coulomb collision age, which the authors read as evidence that collisionless kinetic processes drive the relaxation. If correct, coherent structures are active regulators of ion thermal disequilibrium in the young solar wind.

What carries the argument

The PVI (Partial Variance of Increments) statistic, computed from magnetic-field increments at a 3.5-second lag, identifies intermittent coherent structures. Conditional median epoch analysis—aligning temperature profiles at PVI event times and normalizing by a 700-second background mean—isolates the localized thermal response. The alpha-to-proton temperature ratio, decomposition into parallel and perpendicular temperatures relative to the local magnetic field, normalized differential flow speed, and Coulomb collision age are the diagnostics that carry the argument.

What would settle it

Re-run the same epoch analysis using full velocity-distribution-function fits for alpha particles at the same 3.5-second cadence; if the alpha temperature spike relative to background is not smaller than the proton's, or if the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio dip disappears, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using PSP data from encounters 6–24 (0.05–0.28 AU), the authors perform conditional epoch analysis on 169,141 coherent structures identified by the PVI method at a 3.5-second lag. For the strongest structures (PVI>6), the median proton temperature rises roughly 13% relative to background while the alpha temperature rises roughly 6%. Consequently, the median alpha-to-proton temperature ratio, typically 5–7 in this wind, dips by up to about 12% at the structure core, and the dip depth scales with the PVI threshold. The effect is anisotropic: perpendicular temperature enhancements exceed parallel ones for both species. The authors also observe a simultaneous drop in the normalized alpha-proton

Load-bearing premise

The alpha-particle temperatures derived from SPAN-I level-3 partial moments remain unbiased inside coherent-structure cores, where the proton and alpha distributions overlap and the alpha density is only a few percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coherent structures in the inner heliosphere are sites of species-dependent, perpendicular-dominated ion heating, not passive tracers of turbulence.
  • The alpha-to-proton temperature ratio is locally modulated by intermittency; strong events reduce inter-species thermal disequilibrium by up to roughly 12%.
  • Because the effect scales with the PVI threshold, turbulence intermittency strength controls the degree of cross-species thermal coupling.
  • The simultaneous drop in drift speed and collision age indicates that collisionless kinetic processes, not Coulomb collisions, govern the relaxation.
  • The persistence of the signature across encounters 6–24 suggests it is a consistent feature of the young solar wind.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SPAN-I level-3 alpha partial moments are biased inside the sharp density depletions and velocity jumps of these structures, the reported species ordering of the temperature spikes could be an artifact; a validation against full distribution-function fits would resolve this.
  • The results imply that global radial trends of the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio may be partly produced by resolvable intermittent structures; models of solar wind ion thermodynamics may need to include structure-localized, species-dependent heating terms.
  • The paper's preliminary Wind (1 AU) evidence suggests the same mechanism may persist to Earth orbit; if confirmed, it would connect near-Sun intermittency to the observed 1-AU alpha-proton temperature ratio.
  • A kinetic simulation varying PVI strength and species mass-to-charge ratio could test whether the roughly 2:1 proton-to-alpha relative heating ratio is a universal feature or specific to these plasma parameters.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical study of Parker Solar Probe observations from encounters 6–24 (0.05–0.28 AU), using the Partial Variance of Increments method on magnetic-field data to identify coherent structures and conditional epoch medians of proton and alpha-particle temperatures, temperature ratios, drift speed, Coulomb collision age, plasma beta, and alpha-to-proton density ratio. The authors report that high-PVI events are associated with a normalized proton temperature increase of ~13% versus ~6% for alpha particles at PVI>6, a corresponding dip of up to ~12% in the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio, and a stronger perpendicular than parallel heating response. They interpret the accompanying drop in normalized alpha–proton drift and local minimum in collision age as evidence for collisionless, species-dependent relaxation near coherent structures. The analysis uses 4,654,482 measurements and 169,141 PVI events.

Significance. If the central result is correct, this is the first systematic statistical evidence that coherent structures in the inner solar wind produce species-dependent, anisotropic ion heating that locally narrows the alpha–proton thermal gap. The dataset is large and drawn from public PSP data, and the conditional-median approach is well matched to the question. The main strength is the scope of the statistical sample and the novelty of quantifying alpha-particle temperature responses to intermittent structures. However, the headline 13%-versus-6% ordering rests on alpha-particle partial moments extracted by a two-population fit in exactly the plasma conditions where such fits are most fragile, and no validation or uncertainty budget is provided. The quantitative claim is therefore promising but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 2] The headline species comparison (13% vs 6%) is based on SPAN-I level-3 alpha partial moments (Livi et al. 2025a), which are not validated inside coherent-structure cores. The event in Fig. 1 shows n_p dropping from 310 to 50 cm^-3, V_R jumping ~150 km/s, and n_alpha/n_p spiking to ~8% over ~30 s. These are precisely the conditions under which two-population moment fitting can bias the alpha temperature. Since the reported alpha enhancement is only ~6%, an unquantified systematic could change or even reverse the species ordering. The paper should supply a cross-check against full distribution-function fits on a subset of events, or a quantitative sensitivity/uncertainty analysis for the alpha moments.
  2. [Eq. (2), §3.2] The normalization temperature T_{j,0} is computed as the mean within a 700-s window centered on the PVI event. Because the event itself falls inside this window, the median normalized spike is diluted by an amount that depends on event duration and on the species being considered. This can bias the comparison of the normalized proton and alpha enhancements and also the PVI-dependence of the spikes. The analysis should be repeated with an asymmetric or event-excluded baseline (e.g., median of a surrounding window with the central portion removed) to show that the 13% vs 6% ordering is not an artifact of the normalization choice.
  3. [§2, §3.1] Alpha partial moments have a native cadence of 14 s but are resampled to 3.5 s. The coherent structure shown in Fig. 1 lasts about 30 s, so only ~2 native alpha samples cover the core. The paper does not state the resampling method (e.g., linear interpolation, sample-and-hold) nor test for temporal smearing. This is directly relevant to the amplitude and width of the alpha temperature spike and to the depth of the T_alpha/T_p dip. Please document the resampling and evaluate the maximum possible smearing effect on the conditional medians.
  4. [Figs. 2–4] No confidence intervals or systematic error bars are shown. With 6,186 events in the highest PVI bin, the sampling error on the medians is likely small, but the quantitative claims—13% vs 6%, the 2–12% ratio dips, and the perpendicular/parallel split—carry no quantified uncertainty. A bootstrap confidence interval on the medians and a propagation of the alpha-moment uncertainty (or at least an explicit statement that the result is robust to plausible moment biases) would materially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The text refers to 'Figures 2a-2d' for proton total, parallel, and perpendicular panels, but the figure has six panels (a–f) and the caption assigns labels differently. Please correct the panel references and the in-text notation for \tilde T_p, \tilde T_{p,\parallel}, \tilde T_{p,\perp} and the alpha equivalents.
  2. [References] Several references in the bibliography are not cited in the text (e.g., Chen et al. 2019; Kasper & Klein 2019; Matthaeus et al. 2020; Verscharen et al. 2015; Phillips et al. 2023; Li et al. 2023; Formisano et al. 1970). Either cite them in the relevant passages or remove them.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The notation is typeset awkwardly: the conditioning PVI∈[θ_i, θ_{i+1}) is written inside the median expression, and T_{j,0} is not explicitly defined as a per-event quantity. Please rewrite for clarity.
  4. [§3.1] The text says the proton and alpha temperatures are shown 'in panel f and g,' but the figure panels are labeled (e) and (f) for temperatures. Also, the caption for panel (d) says n_alpha is plotted 'at 100 times scale'—please clarify the scaling in the text.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments thank 'the reviewer' for comments. This is unusual in a submitted manuscript and should be removed or rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports conditional observational statistics, and its central claims do not reduce to fitted parameters or to load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This is an observational analysis, not a derivation. The central quantities—normalized temperature responses õT_j (Eq. 2), the T_alpha/T_p ratio dips, drift speed, and collision age—are computed directly from independent SPAN-I and FIELDS measurements. The reported 13% vs 6% species difference and the ratio dip are conditional medians of measured temperatures selected by PVI thresholds; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the species ordering. PVI is constructed only from magnetic-field increments (Eq. 1), so the temperature comparison is not defined in terms of the outcome it claims to find. The collision-age N_c is a derived context diagnostic; it is not used to construct the temperature or ratio claims, and its internal consistency does not make the temperature result circular. Citations to prior work by coauthors (e.g., Chen et al. 2025, Yang et al. 2017a,b, Wang et al. 2019, Sorriso-Valvo et al.) are contextual support for known turbulence phenomenology, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or smuggled ansatze. The alpha-particle partial-moment data products are cited to external instrument teams (Livi et al. 2025a,b). The legitimate concern that SPAN-I alpha partial moments may be biased inside strong density and velocity gradients is a measurement-validity issue, not a circularity: no equation in the paper makes the alpha temperature equal to the proton temperature or to a fitted input. No specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free model parameters are fitted to a theory. The hand-chosen analysis parameters (700-s normalization window, 3.5-s PVI lag, threshold bins) enter the quantitative claims directly. The analysis rests on domain assumptions about PVI-structure correspondence, SPAN-I moment separation, the collision-time formula, and event independence. No invented entities: the 'small-scale magnetic switchback' in the event study classifies an observed structure class and is not a new postulated entity.

free parameters (2)
  • Background normalization window for T_j,0 (Eq. 2) = 700 s (hand-chosen)
    The relative temperature increases (proton 13% vs alpha 6% for PVI>6) are measured against the mean over this ±700 s window. The window is motivated by the turbulence correlation time (Chen et al. 2020a) but sensitivity to its size is not tested; the claimed efficiencies depend on it.
  • PVI lag and threshold bins = tau = 3.5 s; bins 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, >6
    The structure-identification scale and bin edges are hand-chosen. The reported scaling of the T_alpha/T_p dip and the heating efficiencies with PVI level is defined by these bins; a different lag (ion vs sub-ion scale) would select different structures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption High PVI (>=3) at 3.5 s lag identifies coherent structures (current sheets, discontinuities) that are preferential sites of energy dissipation.
    Section 2 adopts the standard PVI interpretation (Greco 2008; Osman 2011). The paper does not independently verify, from this dataset, that the selected events are dissipation sites rather than, e.g., convected Alfvenic discontinuities with no local dissipation.
  • domain assumption SPAN-I L3 alpha and proton partial moments separate the two ion populations against a Maxwellian core at 3.5 s cadence.
    The central species comparison depends on the L3 products (Livi et al. 2025a,b). The event study shows a 6x density drop and ~150 km/s velocity jump within 30 s; no validation or uncertainty estimates for the alpha moment extraction under such conditions are given.
  • domain assumption The Coulomb collision number N_c (Eqs. 3-5, Hernandez et al. 1987) is a valid estimator of collisional relaxation for the proton-alpha pair.
    Section 3.4 uses the N_c minimum to argue for collisionless relaxation. The formula is taken from the literature on face value; interpreting a dip in N_c as evidence of collisionless kinetics assumes the estimator is accurate in the local parameter regime.
  • domain assumption Conditional-median epoch statistics are valid with events treated as independent.
    Section 3.2 computes medians without accounting for event overlap: two events closer than 700 s share baseline windows and profile segments, so the effective number of independent events is smaller than 169,141. The paper does not test clustering corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parker Solar Probe Observations of Preferential Heating of Protons over Alpha Particles near Turbulent Coherent Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYIQDY3W

@misc{pith2026260717484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parker Solar Probe Observations of Preferential Heating of Protons over Alpha Particles near Turbulent Coherent Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYIQDY3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17484}
}
read the original abstract

Solar wind alpha particles exhibit preferential heating and acceleration relative to protons; however, their behavior in the vicinity of turbulent coherent structures remains less understood. We report the first evidence of localized alpha particle and proton heating within coherent structures identified using the Partial Variance of Increments (PVI) method, based on Parker Solar Probe (PSP) observations. Our results show that high-PVI events are associated with significant, species-dependent temperature enhancements: protons undergo a relative larger temperature increase than alpha particles. This preferential proton heating produces a localized decrease in the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio, indicating that the plasma is driven toward thermal equilibration between species. The heating is also anisotropic, being dominated by enhancements in the perpendicular temperature. These temperature-signatures coincide with a pronounced reduction in the normalized alpha-proton differential flow speed and a localized minimum in the Coulomb collision age, suggesting that the relaxation is affected primarily by collisionless kinetic effects. These findings provide new insight into the intermittent energy conversion and ion thermodynamics in the solar wind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the differential behaviors of alpha particles and protons near the coherent structure. (a) PVI of magnetic field. (b) magnetic field BRT N in RTN coordinates. (c) velocity field VRT N in RTN coordinates. (d) number density of protons np and alpha particles nα at 100 times scale. (e) proton temperature Tp. (f) alpha particle temperature Tα. (g) temperature ratio Tα/Tp. (h) density ratio nα/np. (i) normaliz… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conditional median of the normalized temperature variations for protons (top row) and alpha particles (bottom row) under different PVI thresholds as defined by equation (2). The different colored curves represent the results for 5 PVI threshold bins (2 ≤ PVI < 3, 3 ≤ PVI < 4, 4 ≤ PVI < 5, 5 ≤ PVI < 6, and PVI > 6). Figures 2a-2d show results for the total (Tfp), parallel (Tgp,∥), and perpendicular (Tgp,⊥) temperatur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Median value of the alpha to proton temperature ratio under different PVI thresholds. The columns show the total ⟨Tα/Tp⟩, parallel ⟨Tα,∥/Tp,∥⟩, and perpendicular ⟨Tα,⊥/Tp,⊥⟩ temperature ratios. the normalized drift speed δvα,p is found at ∆t = 0, indicating that within the core of the coherent structure, the two species are moving together more closely. The Alfv´en speed VA does not change much at the event center, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median of the plasma environment and composition parameters under different PVI thresholds. (a) Normalized drift speed δvα,p between alpha particles and protons. (b) Collision age Nc. (c) Plasma beta β. (d) Alpha-to-proton density ratio nα/np. Together, these results s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., & Zhao, L.-L

    Adhikari, L., Khabarova, O., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L.-L. 2019, ApJ, 873, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c6 2019

  2. [2]

    2008, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 15, 95, doi: 10.5194/npg-15-95-2008

    Alexandrova, O. 2008, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 15, 95, doi: 10.5194/npg-15-95-2008

    work page doi:10.5194/npg-15-95-2008 2008

  3. [3]

    B., & Vaivads, A

    Amaro, M. B., & Vaivads, A. 2024, ApJL, 964, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2ded

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2ded 2024

  4. [4]

    T., Fargette, N., Matteini, L., et al

    Badman, S. T., Fargette, N., Matteini, L., et al. 2026, SSRv, 222, 14, doi: 10.1007/s11214-026-01267-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-026-01267-w 2026

  5. [5]

    D., MacDowal, R

    Bale, S. D., MacDowal, R. J., Koval, A., et al. 2020, PSP FIELDS Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) Magnetic Field

    2020

  6. [6]

    https://spase-metadata.org/ NASA/NumericalData/ParkerSolarProbe/FIELDS/ MAG/Level2/RTN/FullResolution/PT0.003413S

    Vectors, Radial-Tangential-Normal, RTN, Coordinates, Full Resolution, Level 2 (L2), 3.413 ms Data, Accessed on 2026-07-15, Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0YY0-BA92. https://spase-metadata.org/ NASA/NumericalData/ParkerSolarProbe/FIELDS/ MAG/Level2/RTN/FullResolution/PT0.003413S

    doi:10.48322/0yy0-ba92 2026

  7. [7]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54bc

    Bendt, A., Chapman, S., & Dudok de Wit, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad54bc 2024

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Bourouaine, S., Marsch, E., & Neubauer, F. M. 2011, ApJL, 728, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/728/1/L3

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Kasper, J

    Maruca, B. A., & Kasper, J. C. 2013, ApJL, 777, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L3

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Ervin, T., Mallet, A., et al

    Bowen, T. A., Ervin, T., Mallet, A., et al. 2025, PhRvL, 135, 255201, doi: 10.1103/rxd8-22m9

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/503

    Germaschewski, K. 2010, ApJ, 720, 503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/503

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Chandran, B. D. G., Verscharen, D., Quataert, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/45

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Chen, C. H. K. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816001124

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Chen, C. H. K., Klein, K. G., & Howes, G. G. 2019, Nature Communications, 10, 740, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08435-3

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Chen, C. H. K., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2020a, ApJS, 246, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab60a3

    doi

  10. [18]

    2020b, ApJ, 903, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb820 10Xi et al

    Chen, Y., Hu, Q., Zhao, L., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 903, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb820 10Xi et al. 2026

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    Z., Wang, T

    Chen, Z. Z., Wang, T. Y., Yu, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae13ad

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1197, doi: 10.1086/308620 —. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2009-3

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Winebarger, A

    Cranmer, S. R., & Winebarger, A. R. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 100704, doi: 10.1063/1.4933212

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJL, 952, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd553

    Duan, D., He, J., Zhu, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd553

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, in Magnetospheres in the Solar System, ed

    Echim, M., Chang, T., Kovacs, P., et al. 2021, in Magnetospheres in the Solar System, ed. R. Maggiolo, N. Andr´ e, H. Hasegawa, & D. T. Welling, Vol. 2, 67

    2021

  17. [25]

    1970, SoPh, 15, 479, doi: 10.1007/BF00151853

    Formisano, V., Palmiotto, F., & Moreno, G. 1970, SoPh, 15, 479, doi: 10.1007/BF00151853

    1970 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Goldstein, B

    Gary, S. P., Goldstein, B. E., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 24955, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000059

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Smith, C

    Gary, S. P., Smith, C. W., & Skoug, R. M. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A07108, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010569

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    2008, Geophys

    Dmitruk, P. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L19111, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035454

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Hernandez, R., Livi, S., & Marsch, E. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 7723, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA07p07723

    1987 doi

  23. [31]

    V., & Isenberg, P

    Hollweg, J. V., & Isenberg, P. A. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1147, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000270

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Larson, D

    Huang, J., Kasper, J. C., Larson, D. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace694

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 012303, doi: 10.1063/1.4773205

    Karimabadi, H., Roytershteyn, V., Wan, M., et al. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 012303, doi: 10.1063/1.4773205

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., & Klein, K. G. 2019, ApJL, 877, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1de5

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2008, PhRvL, 101, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261103

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Maruca, B

    Kasper, J. C., Maruca, B. A., Stevens, M. L., & Zaslavsky, A. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 091102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.091102

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al

    Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Weber, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b1

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Kawazura, Y., Barnes, M., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 771, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812491116

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Barnes, M., et al

    Kawazura, Y., Schekochihin, A. A., Barnes, M., et al. 2020, Physical Review X, 10, 041050, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041050

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    V., & Zank, G

    Khabarova, O. V., & Zank, G. P. 2017, ApJ, 843, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7686 le Roux, J. A., Zank, G. P., Webb, G. M., & Khabarova, O. 2015, ApJ, 801, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/112

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Xiang, L., Wu, D

    Li, Q. H., Xiang, L., Wu, D. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346815

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae07b

    Li, X., Guo, F., Li, H., & Li, S. 2018, ApJ, 866, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae07b

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2a4a

    Liu, W., Jia, H.-Y., & Liu, S.-M. 2024, ApJL, 963, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2a4a

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    E., & Rahmati, A

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., & Rahmati, A. 2025a, PSP Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons (SWEAP) SPAN-A Alpha Particle Distribution Function, Partial Moments, Instrument Frame, Level 3 (L3), 14 s Data, Accessed on 2026-07-15, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/9Z...

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    https://spase-metadata.org/NASA/NumericalData/ ParkerSolarProbe/SWEAP/SPAN-I/Level-3/ ProtonPartialMoments/VariableCadence.xml

    Data, Accessed on 2026-07-15, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/VW42-M541. https://spase-metadata.org/NASA/NumericalData/ ParkerSolarProbe/SWEAP/SPAN-I/Level-3/ ProtonPartialMoments/VariableCadence.xml

    2026 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Mallet, A., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3251

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, PhR, 1006, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.12.001

    Marino, R., & Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2023, PhR, 1006, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.12.001

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-1

    Marsch, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-1

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Marsch, E., Schwenn, R., Rosenbauer, H., et al. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 52, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA01p00052

    1982 doi

  44. [52]

    2007, Geophys

    Matteini, L., Landi, S., Hellinger, P., et al. 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L20105, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030920

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    H., Parashar, T

    Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., Wan, M., & Wu, P. 2016, ApJL, 827, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L7

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140154, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0154 PSP observation of alpha particles heating11

    2015

  47. [55]

    H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d6a

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Zank, G

    Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., Oughton, S., Mullan, D. J., & Dmitruk, P. 1999, ApJL, 523, L93, doi: 10.1086/312259

    1999 doi

  49. [57]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae69c9

    Meng, S., & Yao, S. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae69c9

    2026 doi

  50. [58]

    K., Raouafi, N

    Mostafavi, P., Jagarlamudi, V. K., Raouafi, N. E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0732 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    Opie, S., Verscharen, D., Chen, C. H. K., et al. 2024, Journal of Plasma Physics, 90, 905900602, doi: 10.1017/S0022377824001375

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Matthaeus, W

    Osman, K. T., Matthaeus, W. H., Greco, A., & Servidio, S. 2011, ApJL, 727, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L11

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    T., Matthaeus, W

    Osman, K. T., Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., & Rappazzo, A. F. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 261102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.261102

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    N., & Matthaeus, W

    Parashar, T. N., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 41, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00097-x

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fa

    Peng, J., He, J., Duan, D., & Verscharen, D. 2024, ApJ, 977, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fa

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1250219, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1250219

    Perri, S. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1250219, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1250219

    2023

  57. [65]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/99

    Perrone, D., Valentini, F., Servidio, S., Dalena, S., & Veltri, P. 2013, ApJ, 762, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/99

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/43

    Perrone, D., Valentini, F., & Veltri, P. 2011, ApJ, 741, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/43

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65db

    Perrone, D., Settino, A., Perri, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65db

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    J., & Bale, S

    Phillips, C., Bandyopadhyay, R., McComas, D. J., & Bale, S. D. 2023, MNRAS, 519, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac143

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Maruca, B

    Qudsi, R. A., Maruca, B. A., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5c19

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    D., & Smith, C

    Richardson, J. D., & Smith, C. W. 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1206, doi: 10.1029/2002GL016551

    2003 doi

  63. [71]

    E., Hundhausen, A

    Robbins, D. E., Hundhausen, A. J., & Bame, S. J. 1970, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 1178, doi: 10.1029/JA075i007p01178

    1970 doi

  64. [72]

    W., Li, X., Alexandrova, O., & Li, B

    Roberts, O. W., Li, X., Alexandrova, O., & Li, B. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 3870, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022248

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca479

    Roy, S., Bandyopadhyay, R., Yang, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca479

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    Scudder, J. D. 1992, ApJ, 398, 299, doi: 10.1086/171858

    1992 doi

  67. [75]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 045001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.045001

    Servidio, S., Valentini, F., Califano, F., & Veltri, P. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 045001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.045001

    2012 doi

  68. [76]

    2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 325810107, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000841

    Servidio, S., Valentini, F., Perrone, D., et al. 2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 325810107, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000841

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85de

    Sioulas, N., Shi, C., Huang, Z., & Velli, M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85de

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2018a, SoPh, 293, 10, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1229-6

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, F., Perri, S., et al. 2018a, SoPh, 293, 10, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1229-6

    doi

  71. [79]

    2001, Planet

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, V., Giuliani, P., et al. 2001, Planet. Space Sci., 49, 1193, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00060-5

    2001 doi

  72. [80]

    2018b, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 725840201, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000302

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Perrone, D., Pezzi, O., et al. 2018b, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 725840201, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000302

    doi

  73. [81]

    2019, PhRvL, 122, 035102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035102

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Catapano, F., Retin` o, A., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 035102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035102

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    Salem, C. S. 2019, A&A, 623, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834900

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Teodorescu, E., Wawrzaszek, A., & Echim, M. M. 2026, ApJ, 999, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3185

    2026 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Matthaeus, W

    Tessein, J. A., Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 776, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/1/L8

    2013 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/170

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    1995, SSRv, 73, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00748891

    Tu, C.-Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, SSRv, 73, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00748891

    1995 doi

  79. [87]

    2016, New Journal of Physics, 18, 125001, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/12/125001

    Valentini, F., Perrone, D., Stabile, S., et al. 2016, New Journal of Physics, 18, 125001, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/12/125001

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    Hollweg, J. V. 2015, ApJ, 806, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/157

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5288

    Vinogradov, A., Alexandrova, O., D´ emoulin, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5288

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    H., Roytershteyn, V., et al

    Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., Roytershteyn, V., et al. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 042307, doi: 10.1063/1.4945631

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    H., Karimabadi, H., et al

    Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., Karimabadi, H., et al. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 195001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.195001

    2012 doi

  85. [93]

    2019, ApJL, 871, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafe0d

    Wang, T., Alexandrova, O., Perrone, D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafe0d

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    2013, ApJL, 772, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L14 12Xi et al

    Wang, X., Tu, C., He, J., Marsch, E., & Wang, L. 2013, ApJL, 772, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L14 12Xi et al. 2026

    2013 doi

  87. [95]

    D., et al

    Woolley, T., Matteini, L., McManus, M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2281

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 020501, doi: 10.1063/5.0121140

    Wu, H., Tu, C., He, J., Wang, X., & Yang, L. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 020501, doi: 10.1063/5.0121140

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    2013, ApJL, 763, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L30

    Wu, P., Perri, S., Osman, K., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L30

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    Y., Parashar, T

    Xiong, Q. Y., Parashar, T. N., Huang, S. Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4643

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    H., Parashar, T

    Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., et al. 2017a, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 072306, doi: 10.1063/1.4990421 —. 2017b, PhRvE, 95, 061201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.061201

    doi

  92. [100]

    S., Trotta, D., et al

    Yang, Y., Horbury, T. S., Trotta, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae173a

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

    P., & Kilpua, E

    Yordanova, E., V¨ or¨ os, Z., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Dimmock, A. P., & Kilpua, E. 2021, ApJ, 921, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1942

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/147

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/137

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    Q., Feng, H

    Zhao, G. Q., Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJL, 889, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6b29

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    P., Chen, Y., et al

    Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G. P., Chen, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafcb2

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    P., Khabarova, O., et al

    Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G. P., Khabarova, O., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf6

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3d7

    Zheng, J., & Hu, Q. 2018, ApJL, 852, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3d7

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    Zhou, M., Liu, Z., & Loureiro, N. F. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2231

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.