Turbulent heating of the solar corona and acceleration of the solar wind: Insights, theory, and modeling from NASA Parker Solar Probe and ESA Solar Orbiter missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem is easily stated and yet has endured for longer than the space age: the surface temperature of the Sun is a mere 6,500 degrees Kelvin yet the temperature of the solar corona exceeds 1 million degrees, hot enough to create a supersonically expanding wind that fills interplanetary space. What heats the solar corona? Sixty five years after the discovery of the solar wind, this remains one of the most outstanding unanswered question in space physics. The launches of ESA’s Solar Orbiter and NASA’s Parker Solar Probe spacecraft were designed to answer this question, venturing closer to the surface of the Sun than any previous missions. Parker Solar Probe has now made multiple excursions below the Alfven surface, during encounters 8 – 14, which for the first time has allowed us to observe the properties of the sub-Alfvenic solar wind that in principle is in direct contact with the surface of the Sun. The Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter missions have motivated considerable development in theory and modeling to explain the heating of the solar corona. An emerging consensus is that the solar corona is heated via the transport and dissipation of low-frequency magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Recent measurements from Parker Solar Probe and observations by the Metis instrument on the Solar Orbiter spacecraft suggest that interchange reconnection of magnetic field lines in the lower solar corona generates turbulence that can yield sufficient energy, likely in the form of advected nonlinear magnetic structures, to heat the solar corona and thus drive the solar wind. Current solar turbulence theory and modeling will be presented in the context of relevant Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter observations to suggest that we may have a solution to the 65-year-old question of the origin of the supersonic solar wind.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".