The Impact of Plasma Angular Momentum on Magnetically Arrested Flows and Relativistic Jets in Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes

Ho-Sang Chan; Jason Dexter; Mitchell C. Begelman; Prasun Dhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Impact of Plasma Angular Momentum on Magnetically Arrested Flows and Relativistic Jets in Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rapidly spinning black hole fails to sustain a magnetically arrested disk or a relativistic jet when the inflowing plasma carries too little angular momentum; instead, magnetic flux is expelled in giant asymmetric bubbles.

desk verdict Clean GRMHD parameter study showing low angular momentum tori make only transient MAD/jets; the f=0.1 episodic case is the real new bit, but the f-axis is not a clean control and the authors admit they cannot isolate the mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15489 v1 pith:FWITGCOT submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Ho-Sang Chan , Prasun Dhang , Jason Dexter , Mitchell C. Begelman This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords HighenergyastrophysicsPlasmaBlackholephysicsMagnetohydrodynamicalsimulationsGeneralrelativityAccretionRelativisticjets

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 uses three-dimensional, general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations to ask whether the angular momentum content of accreting plasma controls whether a black hole forms a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) and launches relativistic jets. Starting from a magnetized Fishbone-Moncrief torus around a black hole spinning at $a = 0.9$, the authors scale the torus's angular velocity by fractions $f = 0.0$, $0.1$, $0.3$, $0.5$, $0.7$, and $1.0$. They find that at $f = 0$ the flow does go magnetically arrested and briefly launches a jet, but the freely falling plasma then breaks through the magnetic barrier, loads the jet with mass, and destroys the jet-disk structure; at $f = 0.1$ the system oscillates quasi-periodically between arrested and non-arrested states, and only for $f \ge 0.3$ does the behavior approach that of a standard accreting torus with a sustained jet. A sympathetic reader should care because this adds the angular momentum of accreted gas as a governing parameter alongside black hole spin and magnetic flux, with direct implications for why sources like Sagittarius A* can have dynamically important magnetic fields yet no observed radio jet.

What carries the argument

The control parameter is the fraction $f$ that scales the angular velocity of a Fishbone-Moncrief torus, which sets how much centrifugal support the plasma has as it approaches the black hole. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the dimensionless horizon magnetic flux $\phi_{\rm BH} = \Phi_{\rm BH}/(2\sqrt{\langle \dot{M}\rangle})$, whose saturation near 50 marks the magnetically arrested state and whose drop to $\lesssim 10$ tracks the death of the jet. The central mechanism is the competition between prompt free-fall of low-angular-momentum gas, which drags poloidal flux inward and over-saturates the horizon, and the buoyant, asymmetric expulsion of that flux in magnetized bubbles; in higher-angular-momentum flows, azimuthal velocity shear tears the bubbles apart and mixes their field back into the inflowing plasma, recycling the flux so that the arrested state can be sustained.

What would settle it

Perform a GRMHD run with $f = 0$ and $f = 0.1$ but replace the initial single-loop field with a large-scale vertical magnetic field spanning the domain (or with a flux loop anchored close to the horizon), and check whether $\phi_{\rm BH}$ remains at or above about 50 for more than a few thousand $GM/c^3$ and whether a jet persists; a configuration that sustains the arrested state at low $f$ would falsify the inference that low angular momentum itself prevents MAD maintenance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a rapidly spinning black hole ($a = +0.9$), the dimensionless magnetic flux threading the event horizon, $\phi_{\rm BH}$, rises to the magnetically arrested value of about 50 and drives a jet with outflow efficiency $\eta$ near 100% when the initial torus has very low angular momentum, but this state is not maintained. In the $f = 0$ model the horizon flux drops to $\lesssim 10$ within a few thousand $GM/c^3$ because free-falling plasma penetrates the magnetic barrier, disorganizes the poloidal field, and the excess flux is carried away in gigantic, asymmetric, buoyant magnetic bubbles that show no tendency to return. In the $f = 0.1$ model the same processes run as a quasi-periodic cycle, with $\phi_{\rm BH}$ oscillating between $\lesssim 10$ and 50 and the jet being destroyed and revived in step. For $f \ge 0.3$ the flows retain enough centrifugal support that magnetic flux builds slowly and is recycled through azimuthal shear, and the jet-disk structure survives; the paper concludes that the angular momentum content of accreted plasma is an important parameter governing MAD maintenance and jet launching.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that angular momentum content controls the outcome rests on the assumption that the difference between the models is caused by the angular momentum itself, not by the specific initial magnetic field configuration, which is a single flux loop contained entirely inside the torus with a fixed strength ($C_B = 0.5$); if a different field geometry could keep flux on the horizon even when $f$ is small, the general conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, a rapidly spinning black hole supplied with zero-angular-momentum gas will not remain magnetically arrested: the MAD phase is inherently short-lived and the jet shuts off.
The quasi-periodic $f = 0.1$ case predicts episodic jet activity, with the horizon gas outflow efficiency cycling between roughly 1% and 100% on timescales of thousands of $GM/c^3$.
Low angular momentum breaks the ordered poloidal field needed for the Blandford-Znajek process, so even while mass continues to fall in, the electromagnetic energy extraction drops drastically.
The difference between sustained and destroyed jets reduces to magnetic flux transport: inward flux transport revives the jet, outward transport through asymmetric bubbles kills it.
For Sagittarius A*, the absence of a detected radio jet could be explained not only by slow spin or kink dissipation, but by the accreted gas carrying too little angular momentum to maintain a jet.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test is to fix $f$ at 0 or 0.1 and vary the initial magnetic field geometry, for example placing a flux loop closer to the horizon or using a vertical field filling the domain; if some geometry sustains $\phi_{\rm BH}$ near 50 even at low $f$, then angular momentum alone is not the governing parameter, and the present result is specific to the single-loop configuration.
The quasi-periodic oscillations in the $f = 0.1$ model resemble the flux eruption cycles seen in MAD simulations, but with a much larger amplitude and a clear asymmetry; comparing the period to the free-fall time of the outer torus could turn this into a scaling relation usable for interpreting quasi-periodic oscillations in low-luminosity active galactic nuclei.
The paper's argument that shear recycles magnetic flux suggests a testable prediction: in a high-angular-momentum run with artificially suppressed azimuthal shear, flux should fail to return and the MAD state should be lost, mirroring the low-$f$ behavior.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a solid, well-scoped GRMHD parameter study. The cleanest new result is the f=0.1 case, where the dimensionless magnetic flux and jet efficiency oscillate between MAD-like and weak states; the asymmetric bubble ejection that carries off flux is also worth noting. But "accreted angular momentum is an important parameter" is a softer claim than "angular momentum is the governing parameter," and the abstract sometimes leans on the stronger version.

What it does well: the internal comparison across f is clean, with the same torus, same field-loop setup, same resolution, and only u_phi scaled. Diagnostics are standard (phi_BH, eta, energy-extraction decomposition). The authors are unusually honest: they say outright that they are repeating major results of Ressler et al. (2021) and Lalakos et al. (2024), and they flag in Section 4 that they cannot identify the primary governing parameters. The discussion of why their saturated MAD phase is shorter than Lalakos's is plausible, invoking the torus vs. spherical inflow, the weak loop field, and prompt infall.

Soft spots: the f-axis does not isolate angular momentum. For f < 1 the torus is not an equilibrium solution, so the prompt infall and asymmetric bounce are partly a startup transient of an out-of-equilibrium initial condition. That does not invalidate the qualitative trend, because real low angular momentum plasma genuinely is out of equilibrium, but it does mean the specific lifetimes and the quasi-periodic cycle for f = 0.1 rest on this particular setup. There is one run per f, no convergence study, and the quasi-periodic claim is based on only a few cycles in 20,000 GM/c^3. The field geometry is fixed to a single loop, so field strength and geometry are not varied independently. The paper acknowledges all of this, but the abstract and summary state the conclusion more strongly than Section 4 warrants. No data release is mentioned.

Bottom line: this is a useful and honest addition to the low angular momentum accretion literature. The Sgr A* interpretation is speculative but appropriately framed. It deserves a serious referee; a revision should add a resolution/convergence statement, soften the causal language in the abstract, and ideally compare quantitatively with Galishnikova et al. (2024). Send it to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D GRMHD simulations of accretion onto a rapidly spinning black hole (a = +0.9), using a Fishbone-Moncrief torus whose initial angular velocity is scaled by a fraction f (0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0). The torus is threaded with a single poloidal magnetic loop. For f = 0, the flow becomes magnetically arrested and launches a powerful jet for only a few thousand GM/c^3, after which free-falling plasma breaks through the magnetic barrier, destroys the jet-disk structure, and magnetic flux is lost via large asymmetric bubbles. For f = 0.1, the dimensionless horizon flux and jet efficiency oscillate quasi-periodically, with repeated jet destruction and revival. For f >= 0.3, the dynamics approaches that of a standard MAD accretion flow. The authors conclude that accreted plasma angular momentum is an important parameter governing the maintenance of MAD states and relativistic jet launching, and they discuss implications for Sagittarius A*.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an interesting and potentially important contribution: it identifies a possible resolution to the apparent paradox that Sgr A* has a dynamically important magnetic field but no observed relativistic jet, and it complements earlier work on low-angular-momentum accretion (e.g., Lalakos et al. 2024, Ressler et al. 2021, Galishnikova et al. 2024). The paper uses standard, externally benchmarked diagnostics (phi_BH, eta, the MAD criterion phi_BH ~ 50), the simulations are evolved in time rather than fitted, and the authors are explicit about several limitations. However, the scope of the claim is broader than the evidence: only one initial magnetic field geometry and strength are used, each f is represented by a single run with no convergence study, and the f < 1 initial conditions are out of equilibrium.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1 and Table 1] The design varies f by multiplying u_phi by a fraction of the standard FM value, so for f = 0.0, 0.1, and 0.3 the initial torus is not a dynamical-equilibrium solution; Table 1 itself lists no circularization radius for these models. The early-time high Mdot, prompt flux saturation, and subsequent asymmetric bubble ejection in a09f00 and a09f01 could therefore be a response to the initial force imbalance rather than a property of quasi-steady low-angular-momentum accretion. The central claim that angular momentum content 'governs' MAD maintenance needs either a control run that removes the transient (e.g., initializing with a quasi-equilibrium low-angular-momentum profile) or a clear quantitative argument that the transient does not set the late-time behavior.
[Section 2.1 (Eq. 4) and Section 4] The initial magnetic field is a single poloidal loop fully contained in the torus with CB = 0.5 and volume-averaged beta ~30; this geometry and strength are held fixed while f varies. The Discussion states that the assertion 'should be quite general across different initial conditions' and also that the authors 'are unable to identify the primary governing parameters responsible for the observed differences.' These statements are in tension: without varying field geometry, field strength, or torus scale, the data do not exclude the possibility that the f-dependence is specific to this initial field/torus setup. A more limited conclusion, or targeted additional simulations, is required.
[Section 3, Figures 2 and 3] Each f value is represented by a single simulation, and there is no resolution or convergence study. Given that the simulations use ideal GRMHD with numerical floors and ceilings (Eq. 5 and the sigma <= 100, beta >= 0.001 limits), quantitative statements such as the lifetime of the phi_BH ~ 50 plateau ('a few thousand GM/c^3') and the quasi-period of a09f01 should be treated as approximate; the authors should either provide convergence evidence or explicitly qualify the quantitative results.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1] There is a typo on the line introducing Table 1: 'T able 1' should read 'Table 1'.
[Section 3.2] The sentence 'the outflow velocity is lower compared to model models a09f05 and a09f10' contains a doubled word; it should read 'compared to models a09f05 and a09f10'.
[Figure 6 caption] The caption contains the typo 'polodial'; it should be 'poloidal'.
[Figure 9 caption] The caption contains the typo 'presnet'; it should be 'present'.
[References] The entries White et al. 2019a and White et al. 2019b are identical (same journal, volume, page, and DOI); if two distinct papers are intended, the references need correction, otherwise one citation should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed angular-momentum dependence emerges from GRMHD time evolution and standard external diagnostics, not from a fitted or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that accreted angular momentum content governs the maintenance of the magnetically arrested state and relativistic jet launching. This claim is supported by direct numerical time evolution of the GRMHD equations, not by a derivation that assumes the conclusion. The independent variable f is a simulation control parameter, and the outcomes (phi_BH, eta, flow morphology, flux transport) are computed from the evolved state. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no quantity used in the analysis is defined in terms of the target conclusion. The MAD criterion phi_BH ~ 50 and the efficiencies eta and eta_EM^j are standard external benchmarks from Tchekhovskoy et al. (2011) and Narayan et al. (2012). Self-citations to Dhang et al. (2023, 2025) appear only for flux definitions, sign conventions, and diagnostic integrals; these are conventional and not load-bearing for the physical conclusion. The comparison to Lalakos et al. (2024) is an external benchmark, not a self-citation. The paper explicitly acknowledges a limitation in Section 4, stating that a limited parameter space was explored and that the authors 'are unable to identify the primary governing parameters responsible for the observed differences.' This is an honest caveat about controlled variables, not circularity: varying f changes both angular momentum content and the degree of initial force balance, and the single-loop field geometry is not varied independently. That confound is a correctness or robustness concern, but it does not make the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The dynamical outcomes are not logically forced by the definition of f; they emerge from the nonlinear evolution. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the choice of initial conditions, namely a torus with scaled angular velocity and a single weak magnetic loop, and on standard ideal GRMHD assumptions. The free parameters are setup choices rather than fits to data; the main control parameter f is scanned. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

f (initial angular velocity fraction) = 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 (scanned, not fitted)
The control variable of the study. It sets the initial u_phi as a fraction of the Fishbone-Moncrief value, and the central claim is a function of this parameter.
CB (initial magnetic flux amplitude) = 0.5
Sets the strength of the initial poloidal magnetic loop through the vector potential in Eq. (4). The MAD and jet outcomes depend on how much flux reaches the horizon, and CB is a hand-chosen value with no variation explored.
Magnetic field geometry parameters = qp=0.5, qr=2.0, nr=n_theta=1, rB,min=8.5, rB,max=2000, thetaB,min=0.6
Shape the initial flux loop inside the torus. The authors explicitly note that different flux distributions could alter whether free-falling plasma is blocked, so these choices are load-bearing for the f-dependence they report.
Numerical floors and ceilings = Pfloor=max(1e-6 r^-2.5, 1e-10), rho_floor=max(1e-4 r^-1.5, 1e-8), sigma<=100, Gamma<=50, beta>=0.001
These numerical parameters can affect polar magnetization and jet mass loading. No sensitivity tests are reported, and they are part of the effective physics in low-density regions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ideal GRMHD equations with no resistivity, viscosity, or radiative cooling describe the hot accretion flow.
The paper solves Eq. (1) with the ideal MHD stress-energy tensor; dissipation and reconnection are numerical rather than physical, which matters for flux transport and jet launching.
domain assumption Kerr metric with spin a=+0.9 and the Kerr-Schild coordinate setup are used throughout.
The background spacetime is fixed in Kerr and the spin is chosen once at 0.9. The frame-dragging effects are essential to the jet launching argument.
domain assumption The Fishbone-Moncrief torus is an equilibrium solution for f=1, and scaling u_phi by f is a physically meaningful way to lower angular momentum.
The initial conditions are constructed this way. For f<1 the torus is not in equilibrium, and the resulting prompt infall is interpreted as astrophysical rather than as an artifact of the setup.
domain assumption A 'MAD state' and a 'relativistic jet' are identified through the empirical criteria phi_BH ~ 50 and eta ~ 100% from prior simulations.
These thresholds are taken from Tchekhovskoy et al. (2011) and standard GRMHD practice; the paper does not derive them and uses them as classification benchmarks.
domain assumption The simulation duration of 20000 GM/c3 is sufficient to judge jet sustainability and to characterize oscillations as quasi-periodic.
The paper draws conclusions from finite runs, and for model a09f01 only a few oscillation cycles are observed, making the periodicity claim tentative.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Plasma Angular Momentum on Magnetically Arrested Flows and Relativistic Jets in Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWITGCOT

@misc{pith2026250415489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Plasma Angular Momentum on Magnetically Arrested Flows and Relativistic Jets in Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWITGCOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15489}
}

abstract

In certain scenarios, the accreted angular momentum of plasma onto a black hole could be low; however, how the accretion dynamics depend on the angular momentum content of the plasma is still not fully understood. We present three-dimensional, general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of low angular momentum accretion flows around rapidly spinning black holes (with spin $a = +0.9$). The initial condition is a Fishbone-Moncrief (FM) torus threaded by a large amount of poloidal magnetic flux, where the angular velocity is a fraction $f$ of the standard value. For $f = 0$, the accretion flow becomes magnetically arrested and launches relativistic jets but only for a very short duration. After that, free-falling plasma breaks through the magnetic barrier, loading the jet with mass and destroying the jet-disk structure. Meanwhile, magnetic flux is lost via giant, asymmetrical magnetic bubbles that float away from the black hole. The accretion then exits the magnetically arrested state. For $f = 0.1$, the dimensionless magnetic flux threading the black hole oscillates quasi-periodically. The jet-disk structure shows concurrent revival and destruction while the gas outflow efficiency at the event horizon changes accordingly. For $f \geq 0.3$, we find that the dynamical behavior of the system starts to approach that of a standard accreting FM torus. Our results thus suggest that the accreted angular momentum is an important parameter that governs the maintenance of a magnetically arrested flow and launching of relativistic jets around black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15489 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The initial density distribution of the torus (in the log10 scale) and grid setup (shown as transparent lines) along the x − z plane. base resolution is 72 × 32 × 32, while the effective resolution is 576 × 256 × 256. All levels of refinement cover the full azimuthal angle. We show the x − z slice of the initial condition with grid structures appended in Figure 1 for reference. The parameters of the simulations ar… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) The horizon gas outflow efficiency η (in %) and (b) the dimensionless magnetic flux threading the event horizon ϕBH. In (b), the blue (orange) dashed-dotted horizontal lines represent ϕBH = 10 (50). For model a09f00, η and ϕBH drop significantly at ∼ 5000 GM/c3 ; for model a09f01, η and ϕBH oscillate quasi-periodically. 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 M a09f00 a09f01 a09f03 a09f05 a09f07 a09f10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 t (G… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The ϕ-averaged ρ and σ contours (log10 scale) appended with velocity and magnetic field lines, respectively, for models a09f00, a09f01, a09f05, and a09f10. In each subplot, the left (right) panel shows ρ (σ). All data are further timeaveraged between 15000 GM/c3 and 2…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The ϕ- and time-averaged radial velocity v r = u r /ut against polar angle θ measured at r = 10 GM/c2 . The time averaging is done between 15000 − 20000 GM/c3 with a cadence of 10 GM/c3 . event horizon. Afterward, the poloidal magnetic fields reappear, and the polar re…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Snapshots of model a09f00 (a) and a09f01 (b). In each subplot, we show ρ (σ)in the left (right) panel along the x−z plane (log10 scale) for the y = 0 slice, appended with velocity (magnetic) field lines. We show the coordinate time at the top. For model a09f00, the fre…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: B r for model a09f00, focusing on the jet dying phase, where ϕBH and η decrease. The well-organized structure of the magnetic field originally presnet at t = 4500 GM/c3 is later destroyed. Φtot, as Φtot(r) = ΦNH + Φmid(r), ΦNH = Z 2π 0 Z π/2 0 √ 4πBr√ −gdθdϕ, Φmid(r) …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Radial profiles of b 2 evaluated at rBH for models a09f00 and a09f01. The time-variability of the horizon magnetic energy correlates with that of η EM j , indicating that the reduction of η EM j is partially due to the reduction of the magnetic field strength [PITH_F…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Time-series of radial plots of the total available magnetic flux Φtot for models a09f00 and a09f01. Φtot is normalized to its maximum value over all radii. For model a09f00 (a09f01), we focus on t = 2500 − 10500 GM/c3 (t = 7500 − 12500 GM/c3 ). The temporal evolution …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Snapshot in the x−y plane for model a09f00 at t = 7000 GM/c3 . Here, we show the density ρ (log10 scale) and the radial Mach number M = v r /cs. The coordinate extents increase from top to bottom. Each column shares the same color scale. Low-density (also highly magne…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The density (log10 scale) in the x − y plane at t = 18000 GM/c3 , appended with velocity streamlines, for models a09f00, a09f01, a09f05, and a09f10. The asymmetric inflow-outflow structure does not exist for models with larger angular momentum content of the accreting…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Snapshots of the plasma β in the x − y plane. We show (a) model a09f00 and (b) model a09f05. The coordinate time is labeled at the top of each subplot. For (a), magnetic flux is lost via gigantic, asymmetrical magnetic bubbles. After the bubbles are ejected in a prefe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

On regular black string spacetimes in nonlinear electrodynamics
gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

No regular purely electric black strings exist in NED recovering the Maxwell limit, but regular cylindrical Bardeen and Hayward analogues are constructed with finite curvature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022
[2]

D., & Znajek, R

Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977
[3]

2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04132

Chan, H.-S., & Chan, C.-k. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04132

arXiv 2024
[4]

2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454

Gammie, C. 2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454 2024
[5]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

Dexter, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., Jim´ enez-Rosales, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2288 2020
[6]

Dhang, P., Bai, X.-N., & White, C. J. 2023, ApJ, 944, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb534

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb534 2023
[7]

Dhang, P., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada76e Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada76e 2025
[8]

2022a, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —

Alberdi, A., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —. 2022b, ApJL, 930, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6736 —. 2024, ApJL, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1 15

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 2024

Show all 28 references

[9]

G., & Moncrief, V

Fishbone, L. G., & Moncrief, V. 1976, ApJ, 207, 962, doi: 10.1086/154565

1976 doi
[10]

2024, Strongly magnetized accretion with low angular momentum produces a weak jet

Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., Quataert, E., Chatterjee, K., & Liska, M. 2024, Strongly magnetized accretion with low angular momentum produces a weak jet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11486

2024 arXiv
[11]

V., & Narayan, R

Igumenshchev, I. V., & Narayan, R. 2002, ApJ, 566, 137, doi: 10.1086/338077

2002 doi
[12]

D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1...

2024 doi
[13]

M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A

Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc334

2023 doi
[14]

2024, ApJ, 964, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Bromberg, O., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

2024 doi
[15]

J., & Ressler, S

Murchikova, L., White, C. J., & Ressler, S. M. 2022, ApJL, 932, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75c3

2022 doi
[16]

2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

2022 doi
[17]

F., & Kulkarni, A

Narayan, R., Sadowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

2012
[18]

D., Green, S

Pang, B., Pen, U.-L., Matzner, C. D., Green, S. R., & Liebend¨ orfer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1228, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18748.x

2011
[19]

D., & Wong, S

Pen, U.-L., Matzner, C. D., & Wong, S. 2003, ApJL, 596, L207, doi: 10.1086/379339

2003 doi
[20]

Porth, O., Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., & Fromm, C. M. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab163

2021 doi
[21]

Proga, D., & Begelman, M. C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 767, doi: 10.1086/375773

2003 doi
[22]

M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J

Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1146 —. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3605

2018 doi
[23]

M., Quataert, E., White, C

Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., White, C. J., & Blaes, O. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab311

2021 doi
[24]

C., & Dexter, J

Scepi, N., Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3299

2024 doi
[25]

M., Tomida, K., White, C

Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

2020 doi
[26]

Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

2011
[27]

J., Stone, J

White, C. J., Stone, J. M., & Quataert, E. 2019a, ApJ, 874, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c0c —. 2019b, ApJ, 874, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c0c

doi
[28]

S., & Colbert, E

Wilson, A. S., & Colbert, E. J. M. 1995, ApJ, 438, 62, doi: 10.1086/175054

1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022

[2] [2]

D., & Znajek, R

Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

[3] [3]

2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04132

Chan, H.-S., & Chan, C.-k. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04132

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454

Gammie, C. 2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454 2024

[5] [5]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

Dexter, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., Jim´ enez-Rosales, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2288 2020

[6] [6]

Dhang, P., Bai, X.-N., & White, C. J. 2023, ApJ, 944, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb534

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb534 2023

[7] [7]

Dhang, P., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada76e Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada76e 2025

[8] [8]

2022a, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —

Alberdi, A., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —. 2022b, ApJL, 930, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6736 —. 2024, ApJL, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1 15

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 2024