Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Revision of two-temperature magnetically arrested flows onto a black hole

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-temperature magnetically arrested disk simulations around a black hole produce millimeter emission that is converged with grid resolution and practically indistinguishable from simple R(beta) electron-temperature models.

desk verdict A careful, honest two-temperature MAD study whose headline convergence claim is somewhat stronger than the evidence supports; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06492 v3 pith:K4F6RVAE submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.HE

M. Moscibrodzka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SupermassiveblackholesMagnetohydrodynamicalsimulationsLow-luminosityactivegalacticnucleiPlasmaphysicstwo-temperatureaccretionflowsmagneticallyarresteddisksSgrA*millimeterpolarimetry
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

This paper revisits three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetically arrested disks around black holes, tracking electron temperatures through a turbulent-heating prescription rather than through a fitted proton-to-electron temperature ratio. It aims to establish that the millimeter emission properties of these two-temperature models are numerically converged at currently used grid resolutions, and that the models are observationally similar to the simpler parametric $R(\beta)$ electron-temperature prescription. If true, simulated images and variability statistics used to interpret black hole observations are stable against grid resolution, and the simpler parametric electron model remains adequate for current Sgr A* millimeter data. The paper also finds that radiative cooling and a nonthermal electron distribution change the millimeter emission only weakly, and that comparing the models with Sgr A* observations favors lower viewing angles and moderate black hole spin.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-temperature magnetically arrested disk simulation in which the electron temperature is evolved from an entropy equation with a subgrid heating split; the split, taken from a turbulent-cascade prescription, sends most dissipation to protons in high-$\beta$ plasma and to electrons in low-$\beta$ plasma. The electron-temperature model is compared against the parametric $R(\beta)$ prescription, in which the proton-to-electron temperature ratio is a function of plasma $\beta$ with limiting values $R_{\rm low}$ and $R_{\rm high}$. The argument is carried by post-processing the flows with polarized synchrotron radiative transfer to produce light curves and image metrics, notably the total-intensity modulation index, rotation measure, and fractional linear and circular polarization. The close similarity of these observable distributions between the turbulent-heating models and the R10 parametric models is the evidence for practical indistinguishability.

What would settle it

Run one of the zero-spin MAD models with roughly an order of magnitude more grid points in each direction and compare the distributions of the modulation index, rotation measure, and polarization fractions over the same time interval; if they move outside the run-to-run scatter among the four current resolutions, the claimed convergence plateau is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radiative output of two-temperature magnetically arrested disk (MAD) simulations around a black hole, with electrons heated by a prescribed turbulent cascade, is well converged at the grid resolutions used in current event-horizon-scale model libraries: total-intensity variability, rotation measure, and linear and circular polarization do not shift systematically as the grid is refined. The paper further claims that these self-consistent two-temperature models are in practice indistinguishable from the parametric $R(\beta)$ models with $R_{\rm high}=10$ in most observables, even though the spatial map of $T_p/T_e$ is not the same as R10. Radiative cooling and nonthermal electron distribution functions have only weak effects on the millimeter emission. When the models are scaled to Sgr A*, none reproduces all observed properties: the models are too variable and too optically thin, an external Faraday screen is needed to match the rotation measure, and among prograde models spin $a_*=0.5$ best recovers circular polarization at both observed frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison treats the numerical dissipation that appears at the grid scale in the ideal simulation as a stand-in for the physical turbulent cascade that heats electrons, and the paper does not independently validate that equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the convergence result holds, existing model libraries built at these grid resolutions do not need to be regenerated at higher resolution to draw conclusions about millimeter emission statistics.
  • If the turbulent-heating models are indeed practically indistinguishable from the R10 parametric models, parameter inference based on $R(\beta)$ electron temperatures remains a serviceable shortcut for interpreting current Sgr A* observations.
  • Radiative cooling can be neglected when modeling Sgr A* millimeter emission from MADs with turbulent heating at these accretion rates.
  • Circular polarization is the most discriminating observable: it distinguishes thermal from nonthermal electron distributions and favors an intermediate black hole spin ($a_*\approx 0.5$) for Sgr A*.
  • None of the modeled MADs matches the observed variability or optical depth of Sgr A*, which points to physical ingredients beyond the thermal turbulent-heating picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence left implicit in the paper: if the turbulent-heating and R10 models are indistinguishable for current observables, then the remaining mismatch with Sgr A* data is probably not in the electron-temperature law but in other missing physics such as reconnection heating, resistivity, or anisotropic pressure.
  • A natural next numerical test is to run the same convergence and comparison pipeline with a reconnection-based heating partition; if it drives electron temperatures lower while still mapping onto an $R(\beta)$-like model, it could resolve the too-variable and too-optically-thin discrepancies without abandoning the parametric approach.
  • The weak effect of nonthermal electrons found at millimeter wavelengths may not persist at higher frequencies or for brighter sources; applying the kappa-distribution models to such cases could expose larger circular-polarization differences.
  • The appendix's observation that raising $R_{\rm low}$ makes $R(\beta)$ images resemble those of a much larger $R_{\rm high}$ suggests that polarimetric scoring with $R_{\rm low}=1$ fixed may have biased inferred temperature ratios upward; verifying this could remove part of the apparent tension between turbulent-heating models and the best-fit $R(\beta)$ model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The manuscript reports new 3D GRMHD simulations of two-temperature magnetically arrested disks (MADs) around black holes, using the ebhlight code and the Kawazura et al. (2019) turbulent electron heating prescription. The radiative output is post-processed with ipole to produce multifrequency light curves and polarimetric observables, which are then compared with the standard parametric R(β) electron temperature model, with models including radiative cooling, with a nonthermal f_kappa electron distribution, and finally with ALMA observations of Sgr A*. The principal claims are that the integrated radiative properties (M3, RM, LP, CP) are well converged with respect to grid resolution at a*=0, that the turbulent-heating K models are similar to, and in practice may be indistinguishable from, R(β) models (most closely R10), that radiative cooling has negligible effect at Sgr A* accretion rates, that nonthermal electrons affect mainly circular polarization, and that among the prograde models a*=0.5 at low viewing angles is closest to the ALMA constraints, although no model matches all observables.

Significance. If the convergence claim holds, it materially strengthens the reliability of grid-resolution choices used in EHT-scale model libraries and supports the use of integrated variability and polarization diagnostics for two-temperature MAD models. The claimed closeness of the turbulent-heating K models to the parametric R10 model is also practically significant because it suggests that simpler electron temperature prescriptions may suffice for current Sgr A* image and light-curve modeling. The paper benefits from long-duration simulations (up to 30,000M), a broad spin range, multifrequency polarized radiative transfer, and a direct comparison with ALMA data. The main weaknesses are that the convergence evidence is narrow and that the K-versus-R(β) similarity is presented through qualitative correlation and distribution comparisons rather than quantitative model-comparison statistics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Figure 2, Table 1] The abstract's headline claim that radiative properties are 'well converged with respect to the numerical grid resolution' is not fully supported by the evidence shown. The four convergence runs are all at a*=0, and the refinement sequence is not nested: LR (120x120x128) to MR (240x120x128) doubles only N_r; MR to HR (240x240x128) doubles only N_theta; MR to HHR (360x120x192) increases N_r and N_phi but leaves N_theta unchanged. This is not a systematic convergence sequence. In addition, the reported comparison in Figure 2 is restricted to distributions of integrated quantities at 229 GHz, the 86/690 GHz agreement is asserted only in the text, and no image-space, spectral-index, or emissivity-weighted electron-temperature diagnostic is shown. Since the convergence claim is one of the paper's two central results, it should either be narrowed to 'integrated observables at 229 GHz for a*=0' or supported by additional diagnostics and additional spins.
  2. [Section 2.3] The physical interpretation of the K-models depends on an assumption that is stated but not validated in this work: the numerical truncation-error heating in the ideal GRMHD scheme is identified with the turbulent cascade heating that is partitioned between electrons and protons. The manuscript acknowledges that 'the total viscous heating is produced by truncation errors at the numerical grid level' and defers to Ressler et al. (2015) for the justification. This is not necessarily an error, but it is load-bearing for the claim that the K models represent physically motivated turbulent electron heating. The paper should either present a validation or sensitivity test for this identification, or explicitly frame the convergence and K-versus-R(β) results as properties of the numerical dissipation model rather than of the physical turbulent heating scenario.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figures 4-5] The second central claim, that the K models 'in practice, may be indistinguishable from the R(β) models,' is supported only by qualitative visual comparison of correlations and distributions. Figure 4 shows that K is strongly correlated with R10 for spectral index and CP but only weakly correlated for RM and LP, which the text itself identifies as the observables most sensitive to electron temperature. No quantitative distribution-overlap metric, likelihood, or model-selection statistic is provided. Given that the claim is stated in the abstract, a formal comparison (for example, a two-sample test on the observable distributions or a scoring against the same ALMA data used in Section 3.3) should be reported, or the wording should be weakened to reflect the qualitative agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'self-consisitent' should be corrected to 'self-consistent'.
  2. [Section 2.4] The sentence 'Although not shown, this is also true for two other neighboring frequencies of 86 and 690 GHz' is an unsupported parenthetical in a section whose purpose is to establish convergence; the statement should either be removed or the supporting figure should be included.
  3. [Section 2.1] The text refers to 'mixed modified Kerr-Schield logarithmic coordinates'; the correct spelling is 'Kerr-Schild'.
  4. [Table 1] The 'Cooling' column contains both 'No' and 'no' entries; capitalization should be made uniform.
  5. [Section 2.2] The mass-scaling procedure is described as setting M to reproduce an average 229 GHz flux of 2-3 Jy, but the iterative nature of the procedure and the behavior of the 86 GHz flux under this scaling are not described; a sentence clarifying the procedure would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the K-versus-R(beta) comparison and the grid-resolution convergence claim are empirical results, not reductions to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing comparisons are not constructed from one another. The turbulent-heating model K evolves electron temperatures from electron entropy using the Kawazura et al. (2019) heating partition, while the R(beta) models compute electron temperatures from the same GRMHD internal energy via Eqs. (3)-(4); the two prescriptions share only the underlying fluid simulation. The finding that K resembles R10 is presented as an emergent result of the simulations, with Figs. 4-7 showing that the Tp/Te maps of K and R10 actually differ, so the resemblance is not imposed by definition. The resolution-convergence claim is likewise an empirical grid study: Fig. 2 compares four distinct resolutions and several observables (M3, RM, LP, CP), and the paper itself cautions that 'we cannot exclude that our models are located at the resolution plateau.' That limitation is a robustness concern about single-spin, anisotropic refinement and integrated statistics, not circularity. The mass scaling M is fitted to the observed 229 GHz total flux, but the observables used for model comparison are normalized or dimensionless quantities (modulation index, fractional polarization, spectral index, RM), so the models are not 'predicting' the fitted flux. The author's self-citations (the ipole code, the R(beta) prescription from Moscibrodzka et al. 2016, and Yfantis et al. 2024) are code/tool and benchmark references; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for a conclusion. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumptions inherited from the subfield: that numerical dissipation in ideal GRMHD stands in for the physical turbulent cascade (Section 2.3), that the Kawazura et al. (2019) heating partition is correct (Eq. 2), and that synchrotron emission with an internal Faraday screen is the right radiation mechanism. The only fitted parameter in the analysis is the mass scale M, normalized to reproduce the observed 229 GHz flux; R(beta) parameters and kappa are scanned or taken from literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Mass scaling M (per model, equivalent to accretion rate Mdot) = 1.0e-8 to 1.4e-8 Msun/yr for a*=0 convergence runs; 2.0e-9 to 1.4e-8 Msun/yr across fiducial models (Table 1)
    Set so each model reproduces the observed Sgr A* average total flux of 2-3 Jy at 229 GHz. This is a data-fitting normalization applied per model.
  • Rlow and Rhigh parameters of the R(beta) electron temperature model = Rlow = 1 fixed; Rhigh scanned as 1, 10, 40, 160
    Parameters of the benchmark parametric model (Eq. 3). They are scanned values, not fitted to Sgr A* data; they define models R1-R160 used to compare with the K model.
  • kappa shape parameter of the nonthermal f_kappa distribution = kappa = 4.25
    Assumed from solar wind observations (Livadiotis et al. 2018) for the exploratory nonthermal model; not fitted to the Sgr A* observations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The grid-scale numerical dissipation in the ideal GRMHD code is equivalent to the physical turbulent cascade heating in a collisionless plasma.
    The two-temperature scheme applies the subgrid heating partition to the total viscous heating, which in the ideal code is the numerical truncation error. The paper asserts this equivalence, citing Ressler et al. (2015), but does not validate it here. See Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The Kawazura et al. (2019) prescription for proton-to-electron heating ratio (Eq. 2) correctly describes turbulent dissipation in MADs.
    Adopted from the literature without independent validation in this work; it determines electron temperatures in the K models. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The plasma is collisionless, two-temperature, and free of Coulomb coupling; radiative cooling is negligible for Sgr A* accretion rates.
    Standard assumption for RIAFs; the paper tests cooling for a single a*=0 model and finds it negligible, but generalizes to other spins. Sections 2.3, 3.2.1.
  • standard math Synchrotron emission, absorption, and internal Faraday rotation computed with ipole correctly model the millimeter radiation.
    The paper relies on ipole (Moscibrodzka & Gammie 2018) for polarized radiative transfer; the synchrotron coefficients are assumed correct. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Ideal GRMHD with a constant adiabatic index gamma_ad = 13/9 adequately describes the MAD accretion flow.
    The simulations use ideal MHD with gamma_ad=13/9; the paper notes a variable gamma_ad is not self-consistent but is not expected to change dynamics (Narayan et al. 2022). Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revision of two-temperature magnetically arrested flows onto a black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4F6RVAE

@misc{pith2026241206492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revision of two-temperature magnetically arrested flows onto a black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4F6RVAE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06492}
}
abstract

We revisit the radiative properties of 3D general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD) two-temperature magnetically arrested disk (MAD) models in which electrons are heated by a magnetic turbulent cascade. We focus on studying the model emission, whose characteristics include variability in both total intensity and linear/circular polarizations as well as rotation measures at energies around the synchrotron emission peak in millimeter waves. We find that radiative properties of MAD models with turbulent electron heating are well converged with respect to the numerical grid resolution, which has not been demonstrated before. We compare radiation from two-temperature simulations with turbulent heating to single-temperature models with electron temperatures calculated based on commonly used $R~(\beta)$ prescription. We find that the self-consisitent two-temperature models with turbulent heating do not significantly outperform the $R~(\beta)$ models and, in practice, may be indistinguishable from the $R~(\beta)$ models. Accounting for physical effects such as radiative cooling and nonthermal electron distribution function makes a weak impact on properties of millimeter emission. Models are scaled to Sgr A*, an accreting black hole in the center of our galaxy, and compared to the most complete observational datasets. We point out the consistencies and inconsistencies between the MAD models and observations of this source and discuss future prospects for GRMHD simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equatorial density (top panels), plasma β (middle panels), and K model electron temperature (bottom panels) maps in various-resolution two-temperature MAD a∗ = 0 models at t = 10, 000M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of Stokes I, RM, LP, and CP in two-temperature MAD a∗ = 0 models with increasing grid resolution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of meridional and equatorial slices showing plasma density (top panels), plasma β parameter (middle panels) and K model electron temperatures (bottom panels) in the fiducial MAD a∗ = 0.9375 simulation at t = 25, 000M (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the net radiative properties for MAD K and R1 - 160 (spins a∗ = 0, 0.5, 0.9375 combined) models calculated for the default viewing angle i = 160◦ . Top panels show modulation indices of Stokes I light curves at 86 and 229 GHz and spectral slopes and RM di…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of distributions of various observables in MAD models K and R1 - 160 observed at i = 160◦ . The light red background is introduced to visually separate models with different spins (a∗ = 0, 0.5, 0.9375) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of snapshot images of MAD a∗ = 0.5 models K, R1, R10, R40 and R160 at frequency of 229 GHz for the fiducial viewing angle i = 160◦ . Images are blurred by a Gaussian kernel with FWHM = 20 µas to imitate the resolution of EHT. In the top panels, the gray scal…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of meridional and equatorial slices showing Tp/Te (top panels show Tp/Te in model R10 and middle panels show Tp/Te in model K) and the ratio of K and R10 Θe (bottom panels) in MAD a∗ = 0.9375 at t = 25, 000M. The uncertain regions, not taken into account in ra…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of radial profiles of density, magnetic field strength (square), proton-to-electron temperature ra￾tio (R) and electron temperatures in GRMHD (black lines) and GRRMHD (red lines) models. All quantities are dimen￾sionless or in code units, and they are all ar…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of radiative characteristics of the GRMHD (K) and GRRMHD (Kcool) models with a∗ = 0 spin computed for light curves in the time interval 15, 000 − 30, 000M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the radiative characteristics of thermal and nonthermal MAD models with a∗ = 0.5. All panels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of radiative characteristics of MAD models K (a∗ = 0, 0.5, 0.9375) at a default viewing angle of i = 160◦ (K) and three additional angles i = 150◦ , 130◦ , 110◦ deg (K 150, K 130, K 110) to observations of Sgr A* collected by ALMA in April 2017 (86 GHz data…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radiative signatures for the MAD a∗ = 0 model at the default viewing angle of i = 160◦ . Panels from left to right display Stokes I (86, 229, 690 GHz), RM (213 - 229 GHz), LP (86, 229, 690 GHz) and CP (86, 229, 690 GHz). Panels from top to bottom show models R1-160, a…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Meridional and equatorial slices showing number of superphotons emitted within one synchrotron cooling timescale in GRRMHD MAD a∗ = 0 model. The figure illustrates not only the quality of the GRRMHD model but also the origin of the synchrotron emission in the two-temp…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Polarimetric images of a single GRMHD MAD a∗ = 0.5 snapshot. Panels show the same quantities as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Survey of Radiative, Two-Temperature Magnetically Arrested Simulations of the Black Hole M87* I: Turbulent Electron Heating

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Radiative two-temperature MAD simulations of M87* with Kawazura et al. (2019) turbulent electron heating match EHT total intensity but over-predict beam-scale linear polarization (about 30% versus the observed under 1...

  2. Two-temperature treatments in magnetically arrested disk GRMHD simulations more accurately predict light curves of Sagittarius A*

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding separate electron thermodynamics and radiative cooling to magnetically arrested disk simulations of Sgr A* lowers predicted 230 GHz variability by nearly 50%, but still leaves it above observed levels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2020, , 493, 1404

    Anantua , R., Ressler , S., & Quataert , E. 2020, , 493, 1404

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Chael , A., Narayan , R., & Johnson , M. D. 2019, , 486, 2873

    2019

  5. [5]

    2018, , 478, 5209

    Chael , A., Rowan , M., Narayan , R., Johnson , M., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 478, 5209

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A., Narayan , R., & Sadowski , A

    Chael , A. A., Narayan , R., & Sadowski , A. 2017, , 470, 2367

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    2015, , 799, 1

    Chan , C.-K., Psaltis , D., \"O zel , F., Narayan , R., & Sadowski , A. 2015, , 799, 1

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    S., Wong , G

    Chan , H.-S., Chan , C.-k., Prather , B. S., Wong , G. N., & Gammie , C. 2024, , 964, 17

    work page 2024

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    M., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103

    2022

  2. [10]

    2018, , 612, A34

    Davelaar , J., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Bronzwaer , T., & Falcke , H. 2018, , 612, A34

    2018

  3. [11]

    2019, , 632, A2

    Davelaar , J., Olivares , H., Porth , O., et al. 2019, , 632, A2

    2019

  4. [12]

    M., et al

    Dexter , J., Jim \'e nez-Rosales , A., Ressler , S. M., et al. 2020 a , , 494, 4168

    2020

  5. [13]

    2020 b , , 497, 4999

    Dexter , J., Tchekhovskoy , A., Jim \'e nez-Rosales , A., et al. 2020 b , , 497, 4999

    2020

  6. [14]

    K., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C

    Dihingia , I. K., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2023, , 518, 405

    2023

  7. [15]

    C., Gammie , C

    Dolence , J. C., Gammie , C. F., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., & Leung , P. K. 2009, , 184, 387

    2009

  8. [16]

    A., & Loeb , A

    Emami , R., Anantua , R., Chael , A. A., & Loeb , A. 2021, , 923, 272

    2021

  9. [17]

    2024, , 964, L26

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2024, , 964, L26

    2024

  10. [18]

    2022, , 930, L16

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022, , 930, L16

    2022

  11. [19]

    C., et al

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Algaba , J. C., et al. 2021, , 910, L13

    2021

  12. [20]

    Fishbone , L. G. & Moncrief , V. 1976, , 207, 962

    1976

  13. [21]

    F., Quataert , E., & Tchekhovskoy , A

    Foucart , F., Chandra , M., Gammie , C. F., Quataert , E., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2017, , 470, 2240

    2017

  14. [22]

    M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, , 660, A107

    2022

  15. [23]

    2023, , 957, 103

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 957, 103

    2023

  16. [24]

    F., McKinney , J

    Gammie , C. F., McKinney , J. C., & T \'o th , G. 2003, , 589, 444

    2003

  17. [25]

    C., Johnson , M

    Gold , R., McKinney , J. C., Johnson , M. D., & Doeleman , S. S. 2017, , 837, 180

    2017

  18. [26]

    Howes , G. G. 2010, , 409, L104

    2010

  19. [27]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  20. [28]

    V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M

    Igumenshchev , I. V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 592, 1042

    2003

  21. [29]

    M., & Nathanail , A

    Jiang , H.-X., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., & Nathanail , A. 2023, , 522, 2307

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kawazura , Y., Barnes , M., & Schekochihin , A. A. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 771

    2019

  23. [31]

    Y., Krichbaum , T

    Kim , J. Y., Krichbaum , T. P., Lu , R. S., et al. 2018, , 616, A188

    2018

  24. [32]

    I., & Wilson , L

    Livadiotis , G., Desai , M. I., & Wilson , L. B., I. 2018, , 853, 142

    2018

  25. [33]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, , 423, 3083

    2012

  26. [34]

    M., Younsi , Z., et al

    Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., Younsi , Z., et al. 2021, , 506, 741

    2021

  27. [35]

    & Falcke , H

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. & Falcke , H. 2013, , 559, L3

    2013

  28. [36]

    2016, , 586, A38

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Falcke , H., & Shiokawa , H. 2016, , 586, A38

    2016

  29. [37]

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Falcke , H., Shiokawa , H., & Gammie , C. F. 2014, , 570, A7

    2014

  30. [38]

    & Gammie , C

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. & Gammie , C. F. 2018, , 475, 43

    2018

  31. [39]

    & Gammie , C

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. & Gammie , C. F. 2024, , 968, 6

    2024

  32. [40]

    F., Dolence , J

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Gammie , C. F., Dolence , J. C., & Shiokawa , H. 2011, , 735, 9

    2011

  33. [41]

    2022, , 511, 3795

    Narayan , R., Chael , A., Chatterjee , K., Ricarte , A., & Curd , B. 2022, , 511, 3795

    2022

  34. [42]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 55, L69

    2003

  35. [43]

    Oliphant , T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10

    2007

  36. [44]

    Palumbo , D. C. M., Wong , G. N., & Prather , B. S. 2020, , 894, 156

    2020

  37. [45]

    & Gammie , C

    Petersen , E. & Gammie , C. 2020, , 494, 5923

    2020

  38. [46]

    Porth , O., Mizuno , Y., Younsi , Z., & Fromm , C. M. 2021, , 502, 2023

    2021

  39. [47]

    & Begelman , M

    Proga , D. & Begelman , M. C. 2003, , 592, 767

    2003

  40. [48]

    M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Chandra , M., & Gammie , C

    Ressler , S. M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Chandra , M., & Gammie , C. F. 2015, , 454, 1848

    2015

  41. [49]

    M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., & Gammie , C

    Ressler , S. M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., & Gammie , C. F. 2017, , 467, 3604

    2017

  42. [50]

    Ricarte , A., Gammie , C., Narayan , R., & Prather , B. S. 2023, , 519, 4203

    2023

  43. [51]

    E., Sironi , L., & Narayan , R

    Rowan , M. E., Sironi , L., & Narayan , R. 2017, , 850, 29

    2017

  44. [52]

    R., Dolence , J

    Ryan , B. R., Dolence , J. C., & Gammie , C. F. 2015, , 807, 31

    2015

  45. [53]

    R., Ressler , S

    Ryan , B. R., Ressler , S. M., Dolence , J. C., Gammie , C., & Quataert , E. 2018, , 864, 126

    2018

  46. [54]

    R., Ressler , S

    Ryan , B. R., Ressler , S. M., Dolence , J. C., et al. 2017, , 844, L24

    2017

  47. [55]

    2017, , 466, 705

    Sadowski , A., Wielgus , M., Narayan , R., et al. 2017, , 466, 705

    2017

  48. [56]

    Scepi , N., Dexter , J., & Begelman , M. C. 2022, , 511, 3536

    2022

  49. [57]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79

    2011

  50. [58]

    T., Olivares , H., Cerutti , B., & Mo \'s cibrodzka , M

    Vos , J. T., Olivares , H., Cerutti , B., & Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. 2024, , 531, 1554

    2024

  51. [59]

    C., Hardee , P

    Walker , R. C., Hardee , P. E., Davies , F. B., Ly , C., & Junor , W. 2018, , 855, 128

    2018

  52. [60]

    2024, , 682, A97

    Wielgus , M., Issaoun , S., Mart \' -Vidal , I., et al. 2024, , 682, A97

    2024

  53. [61]

    2022 a , , 930, L19

    Wielgus , M., Marchili , N., Mart \' -Vidal , I., et al. 2022 a , , 930, L19

    2022

  54. [62]

    2022 b , , 665, L6

    Wielgus , M., Moscibrodzka , M., Vos , J., et al. 2022 b , , 665, L6

    2022

  55. [63]

    Wong , G. N. & Gammie , C. F. 2022, , 937, 60

    2022

  56. [64]

    2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203

    Xiao , F. 2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203

    2006

  57. [65]

    I., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M

    Yfantis , A. I., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. A., Wielgus , M., Vos , J. T., & Jimenez-Rosales , A. 2024, , 685, A142

    2024

  58. [66]

    2023, , 519, 340

    Zhao , S.-S., Huang , L., Lu , R.-S., & Shen , Z. 2023, , 519, 340

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.