Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Thermal Spectra of Warped and Broken Accretion Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Warped and broken accretion disks around black holes should produce thermal spectra that deviate from the standard multicolor blackbody, and only if the warp or break sits at least 50 Schwarzschild radii out does the classic 4/3 power law…

desk verdict Careful forward calculation of warped and broken disk spectra, but the headline constraint rf >= 50 rs is not calibrated against any real spectral fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14629 v1 pith:3VFEOMQH submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE

J. Speicher (1) , O. Blaes (2) ((1) Center for Relativistic Astrophysics , School of Physics , Georgia Institute of Technology , (2) Department of Physics , University of California , Santa Barbara) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretiondisksblackholeswarpedbrokenLense-ThirringprecessionmulticolorblackbodyX-rayspectrathermalemission
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

The paper asks whether the warped and broken accretion disks produced by Lense-Thirring precession can match the multicolor blackbody spectra observed in the soft state of stellar-mass black holes. It computes thermal emission from idealized warped and broken disk geometries, including self-irradiation among surface elements and the changing projected area of inclined regions. The central result is that for a warp or break radius of about $10\,r_s$, as found in GRMHD simulations, the low-energy ($0.2$–$0.5$ keV) spectral slope differs from the multicolor blackbody value $\gamma=4/3$ by enough to be observationally relevant. The slope converges toward $4/3$ only when the warp or break radius is at least $50\,r_s$, which would put the warping far outside current simulation predictions or require that soft-state disks are not misaligned.

What carries the argument

The central object is a parameterized thin-disk geometry with a warp radius or break radius $r_f$, using a steady-state warp profile for the warped case and a flat inner disk joined to an inclined flat outer disk for the broken case. The mechanism that carries the argument is a self-irradiation integral: every surface element is heated by radiation from every other element in its line of sight, and this heating together with the projected area $\cos\beta$ entering the observed flux changes the radial temperature profile and therefore the spectral slope at low energies. The comparison target is the multicolor blackbody law, which at low frequencies gives $\nu L_\nu \propto \nu^\gamma$ with $\gamma = 4/3$; the paper computes $\gamma$ in the $0.2$–$0.5$ keV band as a function of viewing angle, inclination, and $r_f$.

What would settle it

Fit the $0.2$–$0.5$ keV power-law index of a stellar-mass black hole in the soft state whose orbital inclination is known from dynamical measurements. The broken-disk model with $r_f=10\,r_s$ predicts $\gamma$ between about $1.15$ and $2.66$ depending on viewing angle, while the flat disk gives $\gamma\approx1.36$; a measured index within a few percent of $4/3$ would rule out warp or break radii of order $10\,r_s$, whereas a value near $1$ for a low-inclination source would support them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the thermal spectrum of a misaligned thin disk depends sensitively on the radius $r_f$ where the disk warps or breaks. For $r_f = 10\,r_s$, the low-frequency power-law index $\gamma$ fitted between $0.2$ and $0.5$ keV varies with viewing angle and disk inclination: roughly $0.91$–$1.26$ for warped disks and $1.37$–$1.54$ for broken disks when viewed face-on, against a flat-disk value of $\gamma \approx 1.36$. The deviations arise from self-irradiation in the concave part of the warp and from the projected area of the inclined outer disk, which together change the low-energy emission. Moving $r_f$ to $50\,r_s$ reduces but does not erase the deviation, and for these geometries only $r_f \geq 50\,r_s$ brings the low-energy spectrum back to the multicolor blackbody law. The paper therefore concludes that soft-state black holes with misaligned disks must warp or break at radii larger than GRMHD simulations suggest, or that such misalignment is uncommon.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that current observations pin down the low-energy slope of soft-state black hole spectra accurately enough to detect the deviation from the standard $4/3$ power law, something the paper does not demonstrate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The low-energy power-law index $\gamma$ between $0.2$ and $0.5$ keV becomes a diagnostic of warp or break radius and viewing angle, rather than a fixed $4/3$, for misaligned disks.
  • Observed soft-state spectra that are well described by multicolor blackbodies are incompatible with warps or breaks at about $10\,r_s$; the warp or break must sit at or beyond about $50\,r_s$, or the disk must be effectively aligned.
  • The GRMHD-derived warp and break radii near $10\,r_s$ would predict spectral deviations that should be visible in the X-ray band for stellar-mass black holes at moderate inclinations.
  • High-energy emission (for example at 8 keV) is far less affected than low-energy emission, so the discrepancy is best sought in the soft X-ray band.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the $0.2$–$0.5$ keV slope of a known-inclination soft-state source is the cheapest observational test: the model makes specific predictions for $\gamma(\mu,\theta_{\max})$ that can be checked against existing spectra without a full self-irradiation calculation.
  • We infer that the paper's neglect of twist in the warped geometry (its Equation 4) is probably conservative, but a fully twisted warp could change irradiation patterns enough to matter at intermediate radii and is worth testing numerically.
  • We infer that the same argument should scale to supermassive black holes: since disk temperatures scale as $M^{-1/4}$, the diagnostic $\gamma$ could be sought in the UV/optical band of disk-dominated AGN rather than the X-ray band of X-ray binaries.
  • We infer that if future GRMHD simulations with larger domains produce warp radii in the $50$–$1000\,r_s$ range, the spectral method here would distinguish them from small-radius warps using data already in hand.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes thermal continuum spectra of geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disks that are warped or broken due to Lense-Thirring misalignment. The authors construct two analytic disk geometries (Scheuer-Feiler warp and a flat-outer tilted broken disk), include viscous heating, and iteratively include self-irradiation with a ray-tracing-like visibility treatment. They then compute observer-dependent spectra and characterize the low-energy (0.2-0.5 keV) power-law index gamma of nu L_nu. The central finding is that for warp/break radii rf = 10 rs, inclined disks deviate strongly from the multicolor blackbody gamma = 4/3, while the deviation shrinks as rf increases. The paper concludes that for stellar-mass black holes in the soft state, whose spectra are generally modeled as multicolor blackbodies, the warp/break radius must be >= 50 rs, contradicting GRMHD simulation-derived values near 10 rs.

Significance. If the forward model is sound, this is a potentially important result: it offers a spectral diagnostic of warp/break geometry that could discriminate between GRMHD-derived small warp radii and larger radii favored by some analytic and SPH treatments. The paper's numerical checks (energy conservation within <10%, irradiation iteration convergence within <5%) and the clear specification of the geometry are genuine strengths, as is the parameter exploration in theta_max, mu, rf, and Mdot. The main weakness is that the headline observational claim is not calibrated against any real spectrum or observational tolerance, leaving the threshold 'rf >= 50 rs' unproven.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (Fig. 8 discussion) and Section 5] The claim that 'rf needs to be >= 50 rs to agree with observations of stellar-mass black holes in the soft state' is not supported as stated because the paper never establishes that the computed gamma deviations are larger than the observational uncertainty in gamma for real soft-state spectra. The manuscript's own numbers show that at rf = 50 rs the warped-disk gamma still deviates by >=15% from 4/3 for many viewing angles, and the authors do not quote any observational tolerance from fits to sources that are 'well modeled as multicolor blackbodies.' Without a demonstration that a 15-30% deviation in the 0.2-0.5 keV power-law index is actually detectable (given typical spectral fitting uncertainties and contaminating components), the threshold '>=50 rs' is not derivable from the calculations alone. I recommend either adding a concrete comparison to published soft-state spectra (e.g., with diskbb or other multicolor disk models) or deriving an explicit detectability criterion based on signal-to-noise and model-selection arguments.
  2. [Section 4 (last paragraph)] The statement that 'the discrepancy from a multicolor blackbody should be noticeable' is asserted without a detection metric. The calculation shows model spectra, but the soft X-ray band (0.2-0.5 keV) is often dominated by absorption and other components; moreover, real observations bin the spectrum with finite energy resolution and sensitivity. The authors should specify a statistic (e.g., delta chi^2 or Bayesian evidence) that could separate a warped/broken disk from a flat disk, and estimate whether current or near-future instruments (e.g., XMM-Newton, NICER, Athena) could achieve it for representative parameters.
  3. [Equation (4) and accompanying text] The warped disk geometry defined by Eq. (4) neglects the twist implicit in Eq. (2), as the authors acknowledge in a parenthetical note. This is more than a cosmetic simplification: the twist changes the local azimuthal orientation of the normal vector, which directly enters the irradiation integral (Eq. 17) and the projected-area factor (Eq. 21). The authors argue the twist is important only at small radii, but a quantitative justification is needed, since the projected area of outer regions is a load-bearing part of the spectral differences. A simple check would be to include the twist (using l from Eq. 2 in the normal vector) and compare the resulting gamma values for at least one representative case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typographical errors: 'GRHMD' in the Abstract and Section 5 should be 'GRMHD'; 'eradiacate' in Section 4 should be 'eradicate'; the title in the manuscript source has 'W arped' with an extra space. Please correct these throughout.
  2. [Section 2.1.2] The rotation matrix subscript in Eq. (11) is inconsistent with the text: the text says 'we will call the rotation matrix (eq. 11) by theta_max R', but Eq. (12) uses R without a subscript. Please clarify the notation, e.g., define R_alpha consistently.
  3. [Figure 8 and Section 3] In the sentence 'the broken disk with theta_max = 0.3pi had gamma varying between ... (blue dashed line in the right panel of Fig. 7)', the reference should be to the red or blue line depending on the line style; please check the figure references for consistency between the text and the actual plotted curves.
  4. [Section 4] The discussion of the black hole mass dependence says that a significant increase in mass 'would disqualify the black hole from the stellar-mass category'; it would be helpful to state the assumed mass range explicitly (the methods set M=10 solar masses, but the conclusion is phrased generally).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a forward calculation whose benchmark gamma=4/3 is external and whose rf>=50rs conclusion is a model comparison, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The warped and broken geometries (Eqs. 2-14) are defined from external warp theory (Scheuer & Feiler 1996) and explicit rotation matrices; the disk temperature is obtained from the standard Shakura-Sunyaev viscous heating (Eq. 15) plus self-irradiation computed from Eq. 17; the spectra follow from Eq. 19 with the Done et al. 2012 color-correction factor. The load-bearing diagnostic gamma is not an input: it is computed after the fact by fitting power laws to the model spectra in the 0.2-0.5 keV band, and the comparison value gamma=4/3 is an external multicolor-blackbody result (Makishima et al. 1986), not derived from the paper's own parameters. The statement that rf must be >=50rs is a forward-model inference from varying rf and observing convergence of gamma toward 4/3, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The absence of an observational tolerance on gamma means the astrophysical conclusion is uncalibrated, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The only self-citation is the Done et al. 2012 color-correction model, which includes one author; it is a standard externally published model applied identically to flat and inclined disks, so it does not make the central claim reduce to its own input. Equation 4's neglect of twist is an explicit modeling approximation, not a circular definition. No step in the derivation defines its target in terms of its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a forward model with several stated assumptions: thin disk, Shakura-Sunyaev heating, blackbody emissivity, zero albedo, no light bending, and a specific warped geometry. The parameters theta_max, rf, Mdot, M, a* and the fit band are chosen by hand and scanned; none are fitted to observations. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • theta_max (maximum disk inclination) = 0.1pi, 0.2pi, 0.3pi, 0.4pi (scanned)
    Sets the amplitude of the warp/break; not fitted to data, but the spectral deviations depend on it.
  • rf (warp/break radius) = 10 rs default; also 50, 500, 1000 rs
    Central parameter of the study; the conclusion about where warping must occur depends on scanning this.
  • Mdot (mass accretion rate) = 0.05 Mdot_Edd; one case at 0.02
    Sets the disk temperature scale; the 0.02 case is used to argue the deviation persists at lower accretion rates.
  • M (black hole mass) = 10 M_sun
    Standard stellar-mass black hole choice; the spectrum shifts with M but the gamma deviations are not strongly mass-dependent.
  • a* (black hole spin) = ~0.95
    Sets risco = rs, the inner disk edge; a standard choice for high-spin stellar-mass black holes.
  • Power-law fitting band = 0.2-0.5 keV
    The reported gamma values and the comparison to 4/3 depend on this chosen band.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Viscous heating follows the Shakura and Sunyaev (1973) profile (Eq. 15)
    Basis of the flat-disk temperature profile used for the inner regions and as the initial condition for irradiation iterations.
  • domain assumption Each disk element emits as a blackbody with I = sigma T^4 / pi
    Used in the irradiation integral (Eq. 17) and in the spectrum integral (Eq. 19). The paper states this and discusses deviations.
  • domain assumption Warp profile of Scheuer and Feiler (1996), Eq. 2, with twist neglected in the position parameterization (Eq. 4)
    The geometry of the warped disk is taken from prior analytical work; the paper explicitly neglects the twist, arguing it mainly affects small radii.
  • domain assumption Zero albedo and no light bending in irradiation (Eq. 17)
    Stated simplifications; the paper argues albedo is small in outer regions and light bending mostly affects inner regions.
  • domain assumption Color correction factor fc from Done et al. 2012 (Eq. 20)
    Accounts for scattering; this is an external fitted model used for all disk geometries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Spectra of Warped and Broken Accretion Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VFEOMQH

@misc{pith2026250114629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Spectra of Warped and Broken Accretion Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VFEOMQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14629}
}
abstract

Black holes may accrete gas with angular momentum vectors misaligned with the black hole spin axis. The resulting accretion disks are subject to Lense-Thirring precession, and hence torque. Analytical calculations and simulations show that Lense-Thirring precession will warp, and, for large misalignments, fracture the disk. In GRMHD simulations, the warping or breaking occurs at $\lesssim10r_s$, where $r_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius. Considering that accretion disk spectra in the soft state of stellar-mass black holes are generally well modeled as multicolor blackbodies, the question arises as to how consistent warped and broken disks are with observations. Here, we analytically calculate thermal spectra of warped and broken disks with a warp or break radius at $10r_s$ for various disk inclinations. Due to self-irradiation and the projected area of the inclined disk regions, the spectra of inclined disks significantly deviate from multicolor blackbodies and do not follow the multicolor blackbody relation $\nu L_\nu\propto\nu^{\gamma}=\nu^{4/3}$ at low frequencies $\nu$. The power-law indices at low frequencies of the inclined disks vary with viewing angle; when viewed face-on, they vary between $\gamma\approx0.91-1.26$ for the warped disks and $\gamma\approx1.37-1.54$ for the broken disks depending on the inclination angle. The differences decrease when moving the location of the disk warp and break to larger radii; for inclined disks to emit as multicolor blackbodies, they must warp or break at radii $\geq50r_s$. Our results imply that accretion disks around black holes in the soft state warp or break at larger radii than suggested in GRHMD simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inner r ≤ 30rs of a warped disk with a maximum inclination of θmax = 0.3π. The color changes for visualization. Eq.4 neglects the twisting of the disk implicit in eq.2; the twist is mainly present at small radii (where the inclination is in any case small) and will thus not majorly impact the implications of the warping at larger radii. Setting eq.4 equal to the standard definition of spherical coordinates, {x, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A broken disk setup, where the disk is flat within r ≤ rf (black region) and inclined by θmax = 0.3π otherwise (cyan region). For better visualization, we only plot the region r ≤ 30rs. The unit normal vector n 1 is the normalized cross product of vr and vϕ, n = vr × vϕ |vr| |vϕ| . (9) 2.1.2. Broken Disk Geometry The broken disk inclination is discontinuous at rf , i = ( 0 r ≤ rf θmax r > rf . (10) The region within… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Irradiation of P(r, ϕ) by disk element dA (see also Fukue 1992). The point P(r, ϕ) and dA are a distance R (grey dot-dashed line) apart. The unit vector d (blue vector) points from P(r, ϕ) to dA. The normal vectors at P(r, ϕ) and dA are nP (green dashed vector) and ni (red striped vector) respectively. Right panel: Illustration of the visibility between points on the upper warped disk surface. Points on … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heating of warped (left panel) and broken (right panel) disks with θmax = 0.3π. The accretion disks are heated through viscous heating (black lines, eq. 15), and self-irradiation (eq. 18). We iterated eq. 18 three times to account for the self-irradiation increasing th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectra of the warped disk with θmax = 0.3π (black solid lines) and flat disk (blue dashed lines) when viewed at an angle of µ = 0 (a), µ = 0.2π (b), and µ = 0.4π (c), and µ = 0.6π (d). The warped-disk emission at low energies is enhanced due to self-irradiation and a …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig.5, but for a broken disk with θmax = 0.3π. The large inclination of the majority of the broken disk region leads to palpable differences between the broken (black solid lines) and flat spectra (blue dotted lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: The power-law indices of νLν between 0.2 keV and 0.5 keV for warped disks for different viewing angles. The indices decrease with decreasing visibility of the innermost disk region and increase again with its regained visibility. Right panel: Same as the le…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectra of warped (left panel) and broken (right panel) disks for rf = 10rs (black solid lines, same as in panels c of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., P´ erez, L

    ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  3. [3]

    M., & Petterson, J

    Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 195, L65, doi: 10.1086/181711

    doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  4. [4]

    Stone, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1402, doi: 10.1086/503741

    doi:10.1086/503741 2006

  5. [5]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  6. [6]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  7. [7]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 2016

  8. [8]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 13

    Cui, Y., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 13

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    2012

  2. [10]

    1997, ApJL, 485, L87, doi: 10.1086/310816 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    Dotani, T., Inoue, H., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1997, ApJL, 485, L87, doi: 10.1086/310816 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Liska, M

    Fragile, P. C., & Liska, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10052, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10052

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    A., et al

    Frontera, F., Palazzi, E., Zdziarski, A. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 1027, doi: 10.1086/318304

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, PhRvD, 87, 104028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104028 Gierli´ nski, M., & Done, C

    Sperhake, U. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 104028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104028 Gierli´ nski, M., & Done, C. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 885, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07266.x

    2013

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/118

    Gu, W.-M. 2012, ApJ, 753, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/118

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Rupen, M

    Hjellming, R. M., & Rupen, M. P. 1995, Nature, 375, 464, doi: 10.1038/375464a0

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x

    2009

  10. [18]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  11. [19]

    Kaaz, N., Liska, M. T. P., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace051

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2000, ApJ, 541, 319, doi: 10.1086/309400

    Kalogera, V. 2000, ApJ, 541, 319, doi: 10.1086/309400

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Pringle, J

    King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L90, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x

    2006

  14. [22]

    Kumar, S., & Pringle, J. E. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/213.3.435

    1985 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa099

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa099

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz834

    Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Ingram, A., & van der Klis, M. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz834

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Liska, M. T. P., Kaaz, N., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Porth, O. 2023, ApJL, 944, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Liska, M. T. P., Chatterjee, K., Issa, D., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9966

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2003, A&A, 409, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    Makishima, K., Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    1986 doi

  21. [29]

    F., & Garc ´ ıa, J

    Mall, G., Liu, H., Bambi, C., Steiner, J. F., & Garc ´ ıa, J. A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12053, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3933

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Motta, S. E. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 398, doi: 10.1002/asna.201612320 Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Jim´ enez-Ibarra, F., Panizo-Espinar, G., et al. 2019, ApJL, 879, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2768

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Nixon, C

    Nealon, R., Price, D. J., & Nixon, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv014

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    P., & Papaloizou, J

    Nelson, R. P., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 570, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03478.x

    2000

  25. [33]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    Nixon, C., King, A., Price, D., & Frank, J. 2012, ApJL, 757, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & Bailyn, C

    Orosz, J. A., & Bailyn, C. D. 1997, ApJ, 477, 876, doi: 10.1086/303741 O’Shaughnessy, R., Gerosa, D., & Wysocki, D. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.011101

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    Scheuer, P. A. G., & Feiler, R. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.1.291

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Narayan, R., et al

    Shafee, R., McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., et al. 2006, ApJL, 636, L113, doi: 10.1086/498938

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, AAP, 24, 337

    1973

  30. [38]

    J., McClintock, J

    Sobczak, G. J., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., Bailyn, C. D., & Orosz, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 776, doi: 10.1086/307474

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    Spruit, H. C. 1989, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 290, Theory of Accretion Disks, ed. F. Meyer, 325–340

    1989

  32. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa598 van den Eijnden, J., Degenaar, N., Ludlam, R

    Taverna, R., Zhang, W., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa598 van den Eijnden, J., Degenaar, N., Ludlam, R. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa423

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    N., Ebisawa, K., Sunyaev, R., et al

    Zhang, S. N., Ebisawa, K., Sunyaev, R., et al. 1997, ApJ, 479, 381, doi: 10.1086/303870

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.