arxiv: 2605.12448 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc· hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Precessing Black Hole Jets and Galactic Fossils

Maria J. Rodriguez

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th

keywords Galactic Center gamma-ray excessFermi bubblesSgr A*Blandford-Znajek jetLense-Thirring precessionhadronic cosmic raysblack hole activitycosmic ray diffusion

0 comments

The pith

A single precessing jet from SgrA* 7.5 million years ago inflated the Fermi bubbles and supplies 3-14% of the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that the Galactic Centre gamma-ray excess and the Fermi/eROSITA bubbles share a common origin in one past outburst from the central black hole. It models this as a tilted, precessing Blandford-Znajek jet that ran for about 7.5 million years and stopped 2.6 million years ago. The jet both inflated the large-scale bubbles and injected cosmic rays that produce gamma rays as they diffuse. For the spin value favored by Event Horizon Telescope data, this hadronic contribution forms an irreducible floor of 3 to 14 percent of the observed excess brightness across the inner ten degrees. A sympathetic reader would care because it ties two separate Galactic Center puzzles to the same documented episode of black hole activity.

Core claim

The central claim is that both the kpc-scale Fermi/eROSITA bubbles and the Galactic Centre gamma-ray excess are fossil records of a single ~7.5 Myr episode of precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet activity from SgrA* that ended ~2.6 Myr ago. The jet was launched from a magnetically arrested disc tilted ~35 degrees from the Galactic plane, underwent Lense-Thirring precession through ~5 cycles, and deposited hadronic cosmic rays that diffuse outward under a two-zone transport model with standard inner-Galaxy diffusion coefficients. For a spin parameter a* = 0.9 the model produces a hadronic gamma-ray floor of ~3-14% of the observed surface brightness in the inner ten degrees, with cosmic r

What carries the argument

precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet from a tilted magnetically arrested disc, with Lense-Thirring cycles and two-zone cosmic-ray diffusion

If this is right

The jet episode reproduces the observed kpc-scale morphology and energetics of the Fermi/eROSITA bubbles.
Hadronic cosmic rays injected by the jet provide an irreducible 3-14% contribution to the GCE surface brightness for a* = 0.9.
Proton Larmor radii keep the cosmic rays confined within the jet column during transport.
Gamma-ray optical depth toward the Galactic Centre remains negligible, so the signal reaches observers unattenuated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar precessing jets around other supermassive black holes could generate analogous bubble structures and residual gamma-ray excesses in their host galaxies.
Higher-resolution gamma-ray maps might reveal azimuthal patterns left by the five precession cycles as substructure within the GCE.
The 2.6 Myr cutoff time could align with independent clocks on recent Galactic Centre activity such as stellar orbits or gas dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

A single ~7.5 Myr precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet episode with the stated tilt and Lense-Thirring cycles can simultaneously reproduce the observed morphology and energetics of both the Fermi/eROSITA bubbles and the hadronic contribution to the GCE using standard diffusion coefficients without additional tuning.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the hadronic gamma-ray contribution falls below 3% of the observed GCE surface brightness in the inner ten degrees, or that the bubble morphology requires a different active-phase duration or precession rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12448 by Maria J. Rodriguez.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Horizon-scale geometry of the precessing BZ jet from Sgr A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Anticipated hadronic GCE spectrum integrated over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Resulting hadronic surface brightness profile in the 1–10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Longitudinal asymmetry of the GCE in the 1–10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of electromagnetic field configurations around a Kerr black hole. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The Galactic Centre gamma-ray excess (GCE) - an anomalous ~ 2-5 GeV Fermi-LAT signal around SgrA$^{\star}$ - has remained without a consensus interpretation for more than fifteen years. Dark-matter annihilation and unresolved millisecond-pulsar populations remain the leading candidates, yet neither incorporates the past activity of SgrA$^{\star}$ recorded by the Fermi and eROSITA bubbles (FEB). We propose a unified scenario in which both the GCE and the FEB are fossil imprints of a single past episode of SgrA$^{\star}$ activity: a precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet launched from a tilted, magnetically arrested disc during a ~7.5 Myr active phase ending ~ 2.6 Myr ago. The jet both inflated the kpc-scale FEB and injected hadronic cosmic rays contributing to the GCE flux. The model rests on three independently motivated inputs: the EHT-proposed ~ $35^{\circ}$ tilt of the SgrA$^{\star}$ spin axis from the Galactic rotation axis, Lense-Thirring precession of the disc through ~5 azimuthal cycles during the active phase, and a two-zone cosmic-ray transport prescription through the CMZ and bulge with standard inner-Galaxy diffusion coefficients. Internal consistency is verified by checking that the proton Larmor radius confines cosmic rays to the jet column and that the gamma-ray optical depth toward the Galactic Centre is negligible. Comparison with current GCE observations yields a spin-dependent hadronic contribution: for the EHT-favoured SgrA$^{\star}$ spin a$^{\star}$ = 0.9, we find an irreducible hadronic floor of ~ 3-14% of the observed GCE surface brightness across the inner ten degrees, highlighting a previously unexplored component relevant for comprehensive models of the GCE.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper links the GCE and Fermi/eROSITA bubbles to one precessing jet from Sgr A* but the 7.5 Myr active phase and 2.6 Myr termination look selected to fit the observations.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work offers a single historical jet episode to explain both the Galactic Center Excess and the kpc-scale bubbles, with a calculated hadronic floor of 3-14% of the inner GCE for a*=0.9. It uses the EHT tilt and Lense-Thirring precession to set up the geometry and then applies standard two-zone diffusion to get the cosmic-ray contribution. That linkage is new compared to earlier separate treatments of the two signals. The paper does well by checking proton Larmor-radius confinement and low gamma-ray optical depth, and by tying the tilt directly to existing spin constraints rather than inventing new ones. Those steps keep the model from floating free. The soft spots sit in the timing. The active duration and end time are stated as inputs chosen to align precession cycles with bubble size and diffusion length, without derivation from stellar orbits, accretion records, or other fossils. Shifting those numbers would change the predicted floor and morphology while still satisfying the tilt and spin inputs. The abstract gives no error budget or sensitivity tests on the diffusion coefficients, so the 3-14% range reads as a point estimate rather than a robust interval. The full calculations may tighten this, but the current framing leaves room for circularity between parameters and data. This is for Galactic Center modelers and cosmic-ray transport groups who already work on alternative GCE sources. A reader who wants concrete predictions tied to EHT spin would find it useful even if they disagree with the jet origin. I would send it to peer review. The idea is specific, the micro-physics checks are straightforward, and referees can pressure-test the macro-timescales and transport assumptions directly.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified model in which a single ~7.5 Myr episode of precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet activity from a tilted (35°), magnetically arrested disc around SgrA* (ending ~2.6 Myr ago) simultaneously inflates the kpc-scale Fermi/eROSITA bubbles and injects hadronic cosmic rays. Using EHT-motivated spin a*=0.9, ~5 Lense-Thirring precession cycles, and a two-zone (CMZ+bulge) diffusion model with standard inner-Galaxy coefficients, the model predicts an irreducible hadronic floor of 3-14% of the observed GCE surface brightness across the inner 10°. Internal checks confirm proton Larmor-radius confinement within the jet and negligible gamma-ray optical depth.

Significance. If the timing parameters and transport assumptions are robust, the work identifies a concrete, previously unaccounted hadronic contribution to the GCE that must be subtracted before interpreting the residual in terms of dark matter or millisecond pulsars. It provides a falsifiable link between EHT spin measurements, Lense-Thirring precession, and large-scale gamma-ray morphology. Strengths include the use of independently motivated EHT tilt and spin values, standard diffusion coefficients, and explicit microphysical consistency checks (Larmor radius and optical depth).

major comments (3)

[Model setup (active-phase parameters)] The active-phase duration (~7.5 Myr) and termination time (~2.6 Myr ago) are introduced as free inputs without derivation from accretion history, stellar kinematics, or other fossils. These timescales directly control the number of precession cycles, bubble size, and the diffusion time available for hadrons to reach the inner 10°, making them load-bearing for the quoted 3-14% floor. A sensitivity study varying these parameters while holding tilt, spin, and diffusion coefficients fixed is required.
[Results (GCE comparison)] The hadronic floor of 3-14% for a*=0.9 is obtained by direct comparison to GCE data, yet no explicit injection spectrum, normalization constant, or surface-brightness profile fit (e.g., radial dependence or chi-squared value) is provided. Without these quantitative details, it is impossible to reproduce or vary the reported percentage range.
[Transport model] The two-zone cosmic-ray transport prescription adopts standard inner-Galaxy diffusion coefficients, but no justification, reference, or uncertainty budget is given for their applicability to jet-injected protons over Myr timescales. Uncertainties in the diffusion coefficient or zone boundaries could shift the predicted floor outside the stated 3-14% range.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and model description refer to a 'parabolic' jet shape; the opening angle or functional form of the parabola should be stated explicitly with a supporting reference or derivation.
Notation for the dimensionless spin parameter is written as a⋆ in the abstract and a* elsewhere; adopt a single consistent symbol throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive major comments. We respond to each point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where the suggestions strengthen the presentation and robustness of the results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Model setup (active-phase parameters)] The active-phase duration (~7.5 Myr) and termination time (~2.6 Myr ago) are introduced as free inputs without derivation from accretion history, stellar kinematics, or other fossils. These timescales directly control the number of precession cycles, bubble size, and the diffusion time available for hadrons to reach the inner 10°, making them load-bearing for the quoted 3-14% floor. A sensitivity study varying these parameters while holding tilt, spin, and diffusion coefficients fixed is required.

Authors: The active-phase duration and termination time are chosen to reproduce the observed kpc-scale extent of the Fermi/eROSITA bubbles while allowing hadronic cosmic rays time to diffuse into the inner 10°. A first-principles derivation from accretion history or stellar kinematics is not possible with existing observational constraints on Sgr A* activity. We agree that a sensitivity study is needed to demonstrate robustness. In the revised manuscript we add an appendix with results for active-phase durations of 5–10 Myr and termination times of 1–4 Myr ago (holding tilt, spin a*=0.9, and diffusion coefficients fixed), showing that the hadronic floor remains in the few-to-tens-of-percent range for all plausible combinations. revision: yes
Referee: [Results (GCE comparison)] The hadronic floor of 3-14% for a*=0.9 is obtained by direct comparison to GCE data, yet no explicit injection spectrum, normalization constant, or surface-brightness profile fit (e.g., radial dependence or chi-squared value) is provided. Without these quantitative details, it is impossible to reproduce or vary the reported percentage range.

Authors: We will add the missing quantitative details to the revised manuscript. The proton injection spectrum is a power law with index −2.2 and an exponential cutoff at 10 TeV; the normalization is set by allocating 10 % of the integrated jet energy to protons. The surface-brightness profile is obtained by line-of-sight integration of pion-decay gamma rays after two-zone diffusion. A new figure will show the predicted radial profile together with the observed GCE data, and we will report χ²/dof for the inner 10° region. These additions make the 3–14 % range fully reproducible. revision: yes
Referee: [Transport model] The two-zone cosmic-ray transport prescription adopts standard inner-Galaxy diffusion coefficients, but no justification, reference, or uncertainty budget is given for their applicability to jet-injected protons over Myr timescales. Uncertainties in the diffusion coefficient or zone boundaries could shift the predicted floor outside the stated 3-14% range.

Authors: We will cite the standard references for the adopted diffusion coefficients (GALPROP models and inner-Galaxy propagation studies such as Strong et al.). A new paragraph will explain that the diffusion length √(D t) for D ≈ 10²⁸ cm² s⁻¹ and t ∼ Myr reaches the required kpc scales, and that the two-zone structure (suppressed diffusion in the CMZ, standard in the bulge) is motivated by higher turbulence near the Galactic Centre. We will also include a brief uncertainty budget showing that factor-of-two variations in D shift the hadronic floor between roughly 2 % and 20 %, preserving an irreducible contribution at the few-percent level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external anchors for inputs and computes outputs independently.

full rationale

The paper's model rests on three explicitly listed independent inputs (EHT tilt, Lense-Thirring precession cycles, standard two-zone diffusion coefficients) whose values are not derived from the target GCE or FEB observables. The active-phase duration and termination time are stated to produce the observed bubble scale via the precession dynamics, after which the hadronic cosmic-ray injection and diffusion are computed forward and compared to GCE surface-brightness data to obtain the 3-14% floor. No equation or step reduces the claimed percentage or morphology match to a tautology with the inputs; the result remains a genuine forward prediction once the macro-timescales are fixed by the precession requirement. Internal micro-physical checks (Larmor radius, optical depth) are independent of the GCE fit. This is the normal non-circular case for a phenomenological model anchored to external observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model relies on three stated inputs plus standard transport coefficients; the active-phase timing and jet geometry are chosen to match observations, and the hadronic contribution is computed rather than independently predicted.

free parameters (2)

active phase duration = 7.5 Myr
Set to 7.5 Myr to allow ~5 precession cycles while ending 2.6 Myr ago to match bubble age.
termination time = 2.6 Myr ago
Chosen as 2.6 Myr ago to align with observed bubble dynamical age.

axioms (3)

domain assumption EHT-proposed 35 degree tilt between SgrA* spin and Galactic rotation axis
Taken as input from Event Horizon Telescope results.
domain assumption Lense-Thirring precession produces ~5 azimuthal cycles during the active phase
Follows from tilt, spin, and chosen duration.
domain assumption two-zone cosmic-ray transport with standard inner-Galaxy diffusion coefficients
Uses conventional values for CMZ and bulge propagation.

invented entities (1)

precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet from tilted MAD disc no independent evidence
purpose: Inflates the FEB and injects hadronic cosmic rays that contribute to the GCE
Newly proposed historical configuration; no independent observational confirmation supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5643 in / 1854 out tokens · 118629 ms · 2026-05-13T02:54:13.314976+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
precessing parabolic Blandford-Znajek jet... Lense-Thirring precession... two-zone cosmic-ray transport... Sedov-Taylor expansion
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
hadronic gamma-ray luminosity... pp→π⁰→γγ... leaky-box treatment

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 123 canonical work pages

[1]

Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope

Lisa Goodenough and Dan Hooper. Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope. 10 2009

work page 2009
[2]

Hooper and L

D. Hooper and L. Goodenough. Dark matter annihilation in the Galactic Center as seen by the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope.Phys. Lett. B, 697:412–428, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Gordon and O

C. Gordon and O. Macias. Dark matter and pulsar model constraints from Galactic Center Fermi-LAT gamma ray observations.Phys. Rev. D, 88:083521, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Daylan, D

T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer. The characterization of the gamma-ray signal from the central Milky Way: A case for annihilating dark matter.Phys. Dark Univ., 12:1–23, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Di Mauro

M. Di Mauro. Characteristics of the Galactic center excess measured with 11 years of Fermi-LAT data.Phys. Rev. D, 103:063029, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Calore, I

F. Calore, I. Cholis, and C. Weniger. Background model systematics for the Fermi GeV excess.JCAP, 2015(03):038, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue. Evidence for unresolved γ-ray point sources in the inner Galaxy.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:051103, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Bartels, S

R. Bartels, S. Krishnamurthy, and C. Weniger. Strong support for the millisecond pulsar origin of the Galactic center GeV excess.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:051102, 2016

work page 2016
[9]

Holst, D

I. Holst, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic. Constraints on the millisecond pulsar origin of the Galactic center excess using the Fermi-LAT third pulsar catalog.Phys. Rev. D, 107:103026, 2023

work page 2023
[10]

Sands, Philip F

Isabel S. Sands, Philip F. Hopkins, and Sam B. Ponnada. Fermi Bubbles Without AGN: Gamma-Ray Bubbles in MHD Galaxy Formation Simulations with Full Cosmic Ray Spectra. 10 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Kalambay, M

M. Kalambay, M. Ishchenko, D. Kuvatova, T. Panamarev, and P. Berczik. The contribution to Galactic Centre γ-ray excess from cluster-born millisecond pulsars. Constraints from direct N-body simulations.Astron. Astrophys., 708:A89, 2026

work page 2026
[12]

M. Su, T. R. Slatyer, and D. P. Finkbeiner. Giant gamma-ray bubbles from Fermi- LAT: AGN activity or bipolar galactic wind?Astrophys. J., 724:1044–1082, 2010

work page 2010
[13]

Predehl, R

P. Predehl, R. A. Sunyaev, W. Becker, H. Br¨ unner, V. Burwitz, et al. Detection of large-scale X-ray bubbles in the Milky Way halo.Nature, 588:227–231, 2020. 35

work page 2020
[14]

Ackermann et al

M. Ackermann et al. The spectrum and morphology of the Fermi bubbles.Astrophys. J., 793:64, 2014

work page 2014
[15]

Faber, and Lars Hernquist

Annalisa Pillepich, Dylan Nelson, Nhut Truong, Rainer Weinberger, Ignacio Martin- Navarro, Volker Springel, Sandy M. Faber, and Lars Hernquist. X-ray bubbles in the circumgalactic medium of TNG50 Milky Way- and M31-like galaxies: signposts of supermassive black hole activity.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 508(4):4667–4695, 2021

work page 2021
[16]

H.-Y. K. Yang, M. Ruszkowski, and E. G. Zweibel. The Fermi and eROSITA bubbles as relics of the past activity of the Galaxy’s central black hole.Nat. Astron., 6:584–591, 2022

work page 2022
[17]

Akiyama, A

Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama, A. Alberdi, et al. First Sagittarius A* event horizon telescope results. VII. polarization of the ring.Astrophys. J. Lett., 964(2):L25, 2024

work page 2024
[18]

Akiyama, A

Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama, A. Alberdi, et al. First Sagittarius A* event horizon telescope results. VIII. physical interpretation of the polarized ring.Astrophys. J. Lett., 964(2):L26, 2024

work page 2024
[19]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek. Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 179:433–456, 1977

work page 1977
[20]

R. M. Crocker, G. V. Bicknell, E. Carretti, A. S. Hill, and R. S. Sutherland. Steady- state hadronic gamma-ray emission from 100-myr-old Fermi bubbles.Astrophys. J. Lett., 791(2):L20, 2014

work page 2014
[21]

Zubovas and S

K. Zubovas and S. Nayakshin. Fermi bubbles in the Milky Way: the closest AGN feedback laboratory courtesy of Sgr A*?Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 424:666–683, 2012

work page 2012
[22]

Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 1:252–276, 1969

Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 1:252–276, 1969. Reprinted in Gen. Relativ. Gravit.34, 1141 (2002)

work page 1969
[23]

Roger Penrose and R. M. Floyd. Extraction of rotational energy from a black hole. Nature Physical Science, 229:177–179, 1971

work page 1971
[24]

Ya. B. Zel’dovich. Generation of waves by a rotating body.JETP Lett., 14:180, 1971

work page 1971
[25]

A. A. Starobinsky and S. M. Churilov. Amplification of electromagnetic and gravita- tional waves scattered by a rotating black hole.Sov. Phys. JETP, 38:1, 1973

work page 1973
[26]

Press and Saul A

William H. Press and Saul A. Teukolsky. Floating orbits, superradiant scattering and the black-hole bomb.Nature, 238:211–212, 1972

work page 1972
[27]

Superradiance: New frontiers in black hole physics.Lect

Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani. Superradiance: New frontiers in black hole physics.Lect. Notes Phys., 906:1–237, 2015

work page 2015
[28]

Reversible and irreversible transformations in black-hole physics.Phys

Demetrios Christodoulou. Reversible and irreversible transformations in black-hole physics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 25:1596–1597, 1970. 36

work page 1970
[29]

Robert M. Wald. Black hole in a uniform magnetic field.Phys. Rev. D, 10:1680–1685, 1974

work page 1974
[30]

Beskin.MHD Flows in Compact Astrophysical Objects: Accretion, Winds and Jets

Vasily S. Beskin.MHD Flows in Compact Astrophysical Objects: Accretion, Winds and Jets. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

work page 2010
[31]

S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, and M. J. Rodriguez. Electromagnetic jets from stars and black holes.Phys. Rev. D, 93:044038, 2016

work page 2016
[32]

Rodriguez, and Andrew Strominger

Alexandru Lupsasca, Maria J. Rodriguez, and Andrew Strominger. Force-free electrodynamics around extreme Kerr black holes.JHEP, 12:185, 2014

work page 2014
[33]

Tchekhovskoy, R

A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney. Efficient generation of jets from magnetically arrested accretion on a rapidly spinning black hole.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 418:L79–L83, 2011

work page 2011
[34]

Narayan, A

R. Narayan, A. S¸ adowski, R. F. Penna, and A. K. Kulkarni. GRMHD simulations of magnetically arrested discs: beyond the standard accretion disc paradigm.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 426:3241–3259, 2012

work page 2012
[35]

J. C. McKinney, A. Tchekhovskoy, and R. D. Blandford. General relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetically choked accretion flows around black holes.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423:3083–3117, 2012

work page 2012
[36]

Liska, K

M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, D. Issa, et al. Large-scale poloidal magnetic field dynamo leads to powerful jets in GRMHD simulations of black hole accretion with toroidal field.Astrophys. J. Suppl., 263:26, 2022

work page 2022
[37]

Ripperda, M

B. Ripperda, M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, et al. Black hole flares: ejection of accreted magnetic flux through 3d plasmoid-mediated reconnection.Astrophys. J. Lett., 924:L32, 2022

work page 2022
[38]

J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini. The Blandford–Znajek process as a means of extracting energy from a Kerr black hole and forming GRBs.Eur. Phys. J. C, 83:960, 2023

work page 2023
[39]

Sarkar, Santanu Mondal, Prateek Sharma, and Tsvi Piran

Kartick C. Sarkar, Santanu Mondal, Prateek Sharma, and Tsvi Piran. Misaligned jets from Sgr A* and the origin of Fermi/eROSITA bubbles.Astrophys. J., 951(1):36, 2023

work page 2023
[40]

Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits.Astron

GRAVITY Collaboration et al. Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits.Astron. Astrophys., 657:L12, 2022

work page 2022
[41]

R. A. Daly, M. Donahue, C. P. O’Dea, B. Sebastian, D. Haggard, and A. Lu. New black hole spin values for Sagittarius A* obtained with the outflow method.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 527:428–436, 2024

work page 2024
[42]

F. Yuan, E. Quataert, and R. Narayan. Nonthermal electrons in radiatively inefficient accretion flow models of Sagittarius A*.Astrophys. J., 598:301–312, 2003

work page 2003
[43]

Yuan and R

F. Yuan and R. Narayan. Hot accretion flows around black holes.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 52:529, 2014. 37

work page 2014
[44]

Genzel, F

R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen. The Galactic Center massive black hole and nuclear star cluster.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:3121, 2010

work page 2010
[45]

H. R. Russell, A. C. Fabian, B. R. McNamara, and A. E. Broderick. Inside the Bondi radius of M87.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 458:3134, 2018

work page 2018
[46]

K. C. Sarkar, B. B. Nath, and P. Sharma. Clues to the origin of Fermi bubbles from O VIII/O VII line ratio.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 467:3544–3555, 2017

work page 2017
[47]

M. J. Miller and J. N. Bregman. Constraining the Milky Way’s hot gas halo with O VIII and O VII emission lines.Astrophys. J., 829:9, 2016

work page 2016
[48]

G. Mou, F. Yuan, D. Bu, M. Sun, and M. Su. Fermi bubbles inflated by winds launched from the hot accretion flow in Sgr A*.Astrophys. J., 790:109, 2014

work page 2014
[49]

Scheffler, M

T. Scheffler, M. M. Schulreich, D. P. P. R. Schurer, and D. Breitschwerdt. Tidal disruption events as the origin of the eROSITA and Fermi bubbles.Astron. Astrophys., 2025

work page 2025
[50]

C.-M. Ko, D. Breitschwerdt, D. Chernyshov, et al. Tidal disruption-driven outflows from Sgr A*.Astrophys. J., 904:46, 2020

work page 2020
[51]

G. C. Bower, J. Dexter, K. Asada, et al. ALMA observations of the terahertz spectrum of Sagittarius A*.Astrophys. J. Lett., 881:L2, 2019

work page 2019
[52]

von Fellenberg et al

Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg et al. First Mid-infrared Detection and Modeling of a Flare from Sgr A*.Astrophys. J. Lett., 979(1):L20, 2025

work page 2025
[53]

Tchekhovskoy, R

A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney. Prograde and retrograde black holes: whose jet is more powerful?Astrophys. J., 711:50–63, 2010

work page 2010
[54]

McKinney

Jonathan C. McKinney. General relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of jet formation and large-scale propagation from black hole accretion systems.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 368:1561–1582, 2006

work page 2006
[55]

Asada and M

K. Asada and M. Nakamura. The structure of the M87 jet: a transition from parabolic to conical streamlines.Astrophys. J. Lett., 745:L28, 2012

work page 2012
[56]

Koushik Chatterjee, Matthew Liska, Alexander Tchekhovskoy, and Sera B. Markoff. Accelerating AGN jets to parsec scales using general relativistic MHD simulations. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 490(2):2200–2218, 2019

work page 2019
[57]

Fromm, Yosuke Mizuno, Antonios Nathanail, Ziri Younsi, Oliver Porth, Jordy Davelaar, Heino Falcke, Michael Kramer, and Luciano Rezzolla

Alejandro Cruz-Osorio, Christian M. Fromm, Yosuke Mizuno, Antonios Nathanail, Ziri Younsi, Oliver Porth, Jordy Davelaar, Heino Falcke, Michael Kramer, and Luciano Rezzolla. State-of-the-art energetic and morphological modelling of the launching site of the M87 jet.Nature Astron., 6(1):103–108, 2022

work page 2022
[58]

R. D. Blandford. Accretion disc electrodynamics — a model for double radio sources. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 176:465–481, 1976

work page 1976
[59]

Tchekhovskoy, J

A. Tchekhovskoy, J. C. McKinney, and R. Narayan. Simulations of ultrarelativistic magnetodynamic jets from gamma-ray burst engines.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 388:551–572, 2008. 38

work page 2008
[60]

R. D. Blandford and D. G. Payne. Hydromagnetic flows from accretion discs and the production of radio jets.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 199:883–903, 1982

work page 1982
[61]

R. M. Crocker and F. Aharonian. Fermi bubbles: giant, multibillion-year-old reservoirs of Galactic center cosmic rays.Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:101102, 2011

work page 2011
[62]

Heywood, I

I. Heywood, I. Rammala, F. Camilo, et al. The 1.28 GHz MeerKAT Galactic center mosaic.Astrophys. J., 925:165, 2022

work page 2022
[63]

Lense and H

J. Lense and H. Thirring. ¨Uber den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralk¨ orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19:156–163, 1918

work page 1918
[64]

J. M. Bardeen and J. A. Petterson. The Lense–Thirring effect and accretion disks around Kerr black holes.Astrophys. J. Lett., 195:L65–L67, 1975

work page 1975
[65]

Franchini, G

A. Franchini, G. Lodato, and S. Facchini. Lense–Thirring precession around su- permassive black holes during tidal disruption events.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455:1946–1956, 2016

work page 1946
[66]

P. C. Fragile, O. M. Blaes, P. Anninos, and J. D. Salmonson. Global general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a tilted black hole accretion disk. Astrophys. J., 668:417–429, 2007

work page 2007
[67]

S. M. Ressler, C. J. White, and E. Quataert. The accretion of stellar winds in Sgr A*: Observational constraints from GRMHD simulations.Astrophys. J. Lett., 950:L3, 2023

work page 2023
[68]

Cui et al

Y. Cui et al. Precessing jet nozzle connecting to a spinning black hole in M87. Nature, 621:711–715, 2023

work page 2023
[69]

Cui et al

Y. Cui et al. Co-precession of a curved jet and compact accretion disk in M87. Nature Astronomy, 2025

work page 2025
[70]

Wielgus, M

M. Wielgus, M. Mo´ scibrodzka, J. Vos, Z. Gelles, I. Mart´ ı-Vidal, J. Farah, N. Marchili, C. Goddi, and H. Messias. Orbital motion near Sagittarius A* — constraints from polarimetric ALMA observations.Astron. Astrophys., 665:L6, 2022

work page 2022
[71]

Kataoka et al

J. Kataoka et al. New spectral evidence of an unresolved component of the galactic ridge X-ray emission and its contribution to the INTEGRAL MeV excess.Astrophys. J., 779:57, 2013

work page 2013
[72]

Tahara et al

M. Tahara et al. Suzaku observations of iron-line diagnostics of the Fermi bubble with XIS stacked spectra.Astrophys. J., 802:91, 2015

work page 2015
[73]

R. A. Chevalier. The interaction of supernovae with the interstellar medium.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 15:175–196, 1977

work page 1977
[74]

J. P. Ostriker and C. F. McKee. Astrophysical blastwaves.Rev. Mod. Phys., 60:1–68, 1988

work page 1988
[75]

Forman, C

W. Forman, C. Jones, E. Churazov, et al. Filaments, bubbles, and weak shocks in the gaseous atmosphere of M87.Astrophys. J., 665:1057, 2007. 39

work page 2007
[76]

F. N. Owen, J. A. Eilek, and N. E. Kassim. M87 at 90 centimeters: a different picture.Astrophys. J., 543:611, 2000

work page 2000
[77]

Caprioli and A

D. Caprioli and A. Spitkovsky. Simulations of ion acceleration at non-relativistic shocks. I. acceleration efficiency.Astrophys. J., 783:91, 2014

work page 2014
[78]

Caprioli

D. Caprioli. Cosmic-ray acceleration in supernova remnants: non-linear theory revised.J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012(7):038, 2012

work page 2012
[79]

E. G. Berezhko and H. J. V¨ olk. Kinetic theory of cosmic ray acceleration in supernova remnants.Astropart. Phys., 7(3):183–202, 1997

work page 1997
[80]

Bednarz and M

J. Bednarz and M. Ostrowski. Energy spectra of cosmic rays accelerated at ultrarel- ativistic shock waves.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80(18):3911–3914, 1998

work page 1998

Showing first 80 references.