Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Polarimetric Signatures of Bulk Comptonization from within the Plunging Region of Accreting Black Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Free-falling plasma inside the ISCO can imprint up to 7–8 percent linear polarization on black-hole X-rays, exceeding the disk's thermal scattering signal.

desk verdict New polarization channel from the plunging region, with an honest but parameter-dependent 7–8% max; worth citing and refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15486 v1 pith:SL2RN2FD submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Ho-Sang Chan , Mitchell C. Begelman , Jason Dexter This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords highenergyastrophysicsblackholephysicspolarimetrygeneralrelativityradiativetransferbulkComptonizationplungingregionX-raypolarization
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

Free-falling plasma inside the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of an accreting black hole can up-scatter background photons and imprint a linear polarization that reaches roughly 7–8 percent for a near edge-on observer, with spatially resolved polarization up to about 50 percent. The paper constructs a toy model of a geometrically thin, marginally optically thick plunging region in the Kerr metric, applies bulk Comptonization (scattering by the coherent relativistic inflow, not random thermal motions), and ray-traces the resulting Stokes parameters to a distant observer. If the predictions are right, X-ray polarimetry becomes a direct probe of the plunging region, offering new constraints on plasma properties in the immediate vicinity of the event horizon. The effect can exceed the polarization from thermal electron scattering in a standard thin disk, providing a new interpretation of high X-ray polarization in black-hole binaries and active galactic nuclei.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bulk Comptonization scattering formalism, originally written for a moving electron, in which the emergent Stokes parameters $i'$, $q'$, $u'$ are angular integrals over the incident photon direction weighted by $(1+\cos^2 w')$ and $(1-\cos^2 w')$; the polarization arises from the angular dependence of Thomson scattering combined with the Doppler-boosted intensity $D^3 i_0$. The paper embeds this in a polarized general-relativistic ray-tracing calculation: photon geodesics are integrated in the Kerr metric, the plasma four-velocity and background radiation are treated in the locally non-rotating (ZAMO) frame, the Walker–Penrose constant supplies the polarization basis, and the Stokes fluxes are summed over a camera. The key mechanism that sets the unresolved signal is the near-cancellation of positive and negative Stokes $Q$ and $U$ patches, which leaves a net polarization far smaller than the resolved value.

What would settle it

Measure the 2–8 keV linear polarization of a near edge-on black-hole binary in the hard state with a sensitive X-ray polarimeter and compare the magnitude and angle to the model's prediction of ~7–8 percent at ~80 degrees inclination with the angle near 90 degrees; a detection below ~2 percent or a polarization angle far from 90 degrees would falsify the steep-profile version of the model. Alternatively, a frequency-dependent radiative transfer simulation that yields a flat or decreasing C(r) toward the horizon would produce unresolved polarization at the 1–4 percent level, contradicting the fiducial result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that bulk Comptonization inside the plunging region produces a characteristic, observable X-ray polarization that is sensitive to black hole spin, optical depth, and the radial profile of the background radiation. In the fiducial models, the unresolved linear polarization reaches about 7–8 percent for a rapidly spinning black hole viewed near edge-on, while the resolved map shows roughly 50 percent polarization. The authors show that the large gap between resolved and unresolved values arises from dilution by unscattered disk radiation and from cancellation of alternating-sign Stokes Q and U fluxes, an effect of parallel transport in the Kerr spacetime. The bulk-Comptonization polarization can exceed the thermal-scattering polarization of a Novikov–Thorne disk, making the plunging region a plausible source of the observed high polarization in sources like Cygnus X-1.

Load-bearing premise

The 7–8 percent maximum is produced by assuming the background radiation field increases steeply toward the event horizon; if the real inward radiation profile is flatter, the unresolved polarization falls to roughly 1–4 percent and the observational claim weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • X-ray polarization measurements of black-hole binaries and active galactic nuclei could directly detect the plunging region and constrain its optical depth.
  • The unresolved polarization depends strongly on the radial gradient of the background radiation, so measured polarization can probe the emissivity profile inside the ISCO.
  • The polarization angle stays near 90 degrees for most inclinations, giving a geometric signature that can separate bulk Comptonization from other polarization mechanisms.
  • When both bulk and thermal Comptonization are included, the net polarization differs from the toy result by an order-unity amount, so realistic models must combine both processes.
  • A polarization of roughly 4 percent can persist even when the plunging region contributes only 25–30 percent of the total flux, so the effect is observable without a dominant flux excess.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steep inward radiation profile required for the 7–8 percent peak is not generic in real accretion flows, the unresolved polarization would drop to the 1–4 percent range, suggesting that observational tests should target hard-state sources where the emissivity is concentrated near the ISCO.
  • The resolved polarization maps imply that a future instrument with micro-arcsecond resolution or X-ray interferometry could map the plasma velocity field inside the ISCO, an entirely new probe of strong gravity.
  • The cancellation of Stokes fluxes is sensitive to parallel transport and the assumed free-fall geodesic; magnetic pressure or non-geodesic inflow could change the sign pattern and either suppress or enhance the net polarization beyond the toy-model values.
  • The model offers a candidate explanation for the unexpectedly high X-ray polarization reported in the black-hole binaries Cygnus X-1 and 4U 1630–47, a connection the authors raise but leave for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a general-relativistic ray-tracing study of linear polarization produced by bulk Comptonization of seed photons by free-falling plasma between the ISCO and the event horizon. The model assumes a geometrically thin plunging region with constant optical depth, a power-law or exponential radial background intensity C(r), and isotropic or anisotropic seed radiation. Using the grtrans code, the authors compute resolved and unresolved Stokes images and find unresolved polarization up to roughly 7–8% for near-edge-on views with steep inward C(r) and rapid spin, resolved polarization of about 50%, and a comparison suggesting that bulk Comptonization can exceed the polarization of a Novikov–Thorne disk. They attribute the resolved/unresolved discrepancy to dilution by disk radiation and cancellation of alternating-sign Stokes Q and U fluxes.

Significance. If the predicted 7–8% unresolved polarization is realized in real accreting systems, X-ray polarimetry with instruments like IXPE could directly probe the plunging region, which is a novel and observationally relevant result. The paper's strengths are its use of the established grtrans code, a transparent forward model, and explicit acknowledgment of assumptions and limitations, including the arbitrary C(r), constant tau, unpolarized seed photons, and neglect of returning radiation. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, such as higher polarization for near-edge-on, high-spin systems with steep inner radiation profiles. However, the headline number is conditional on an unconstrained C(r) and on tau = 1 in a single-scattering formalism, so the quantitative claim is not generic; it is a model-dependent upper envelope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6), Section 2.1] The Stokes rotation formula as printed is algebraically inconsistent: the second line reads u -> q sin(2xi) + u sin(2xi), which is not an orthogonal rotation; it should be u -> q sin(2xi) + u cos(2xi). Because this rotation is applied to the Stokes vector of every scattered photon, the authors must confirm that the grtrans implementation uses the correct form and state the correction; as printed, the bug would corrupt all Q and U results.
  2. [Eq. (11), Section 2.2] The third line of the ISCO smoothing formula reads q -> u [1 - sigma(...)]; this should be u -> u [1 - sigma(...)], because the Stokes U component is being smoothed rather than overwritten with Q. Please correct the typo and confirm that the code implements the intended smoothing.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Figures 6, 10] The abstract's headline 7-8% unresolved polarization appears only for the steepest power-law profile with alpha_gamma = 4 or for the exponential C(r) model; the more moderate alpha_gamma = 3 models used throughout most of the paper peak at about 4% (Figure 4). Since C(r) is an unconstrained hyperparameter and Section 4.2 concedes that a steep inward increase may be inconsistent with soft-state black-hole binaries and luminous AGN, the 7-8% figure should be presented in the abstract and conclusions as a model-dependent upper envelope, not as the typical model prediction.
  4. [Section 2.1 and Figure 5] The single-scattering formalism is applied at tau = 1, where multiple scattering is not negligible. Figure 5 shows polarization scaling linearly with tau, which is only exactly valid in the optically thin limit. The paper should justify why tau = 1 results are not significantly altered by multiple scattering, or explicitly state as a limitation that the quoted numbers rely on the single-scattering approximation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1 heading] The heading 'Comparsion to Thermal Scattering' contains a typo; it should be 'Comparison to Thermal Scattering'.
  2. [Section 5, item 5] The phrase 'an order unity change change' contains a duplicated word; it should read 'an order-unity change'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Model with a = +0.94 has an flux from within the ISCO contributing only...' should be 'has a flux' rather than 'has an flux'.
  4. [Section 1] The phrase 'the black hole spina' appears near the end of the introduction; it should be 'the black hole spin'.
  5. [Before Eq. (1) and after Eq. (6)] The text before Eq. (1) says the z-axis of the electron rest frame coincides with the electron direction, while the discussion of Eq. (6) says the direction of electron motion coincides with the y-axis of the local polarization plane; please reconcile these two coordinate conventions.
  6. [Figure 13 caption] The caption specifies M = 10 solar masses and Mdot = 0.1 Eddington for the thermal disk; since the standard Novikov-Thorne thermal polarization is usually independent of Mdot, please state explicitly whether the comparison depends on these choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization values are forward-model outputs conditioned on explicitly scanned input profiles, not fitted or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper computes Stokes I, Q, and U by direct ray-tracing with single-scattering bulk Comptonization (Equations 1-5) for a toy plunging-region model. The input intensity profile C(r) is admittedly unconstrained ("There is no commonly agreed-upon choice on the functional form of C(r)"), and the headline 7-8% unresolved polarization is obtained only for steep power-law (alpha_gamma = 4) or exponential profiles, which the paper states explicitly in Sections 3.1 and 3.4. That is parameter dependence, not circularity: no parameter is fitted to the polarization output it is said to predict, and no equation defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself. The scattering formalism is taken from Begelman & Sikora (1987) and Dexter & Begelman (2024), which include the present authors, but it is a standard analytic scattering result applied to a new geometry; the new claim that plunging-region bulk Comptonization can imprint approximately 4-8% unresolved polarization is not contained in those citations and is computed here for the first time. The paper's own caveats (unpolarized seed photons, constant tau, no returning radiation, arbitrary C(r), and possible non-geodesic infall) are limitations on astrophysical robustness, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs. No circular step can be exhibited from the text, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The model is a forward radiative-transfer toy model. It introduces no new particles or forces, but the magnitude of the predicted polarization is controlled by freely chosen profiles (C(r), tau, spin, alpha_gamma, anisotropy). The strongest output numbers are therefore conditional on these input choices, not derived from independent constraints.

free parameters (6)
  • tau (plunging region optical depth) = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 (Fig. 5 legend also shows 2.0)
    Assumed constant inside ISCO; polarization scales with tau; not derived from an accretion model.
  • alpha_gamma (power-law index of C(r)) = 2, 3, 4
    Steeper profile shifts scattering inward and reduces dilution; the 7 to 8 percent maximum requires alpha_gamma = 4.
  • black hole spin a = 0.0, +0.5, +0.94
    Spin sets the ISCO radius and inflow Lorentz factor, and controls the peak polarization level and viewing angle.
  • C(r) radial profile shape = power-law (Eq. 12) or exponential (Eq. 13)
    No ab initio calculation; profile determines where scattering contributes and how much disk dilution remains.
  • spectral index s of seed photons = 1
    The polarization is independent of s because q', u', and i' share the same nu^-s dependence, so this choice affects spectra, not polarization.
  • anisotropy function B(rho') = sin^2(rho') (perpendicular) or cos^2(rho') (comoving)
    Added as a multiplicative angular factor; changes polarization by enhancing or suppressing head-on collisions.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kerr spacetime and geodesic photon propagation, as implemented in grtrans.
    Used throughout Section 2.2; polarization basis and redshift factors come from Walker-Penrose constants.
  • domain assumption The single-scattering, Thomson-regime bulk Comptonization formalism of Begelman and Sikora (1987), Eqs. 1 to 5.
    Assumes each photon scatters at most once and the background radiation is unpolarized; used for all ISCO polarization.
  • domain assumption Plasma inside the ISCO follows a geodesic free-fall 4-velocity (Eqs. 15 and 16).
    The bulk Lorentz factor, which drives the polarization, follows from this velocity profile; magnetic pressure could slow the inflow, as acknowledged in Section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper Optical depth tau is constant inside the ISCO and scattering is switched off outside the ISCO (Eq. 11 smoothing).
    The single-scattering approximation fails at high optical depth beyond ISCO; the disk optical depth is not calculated from a physical model.
  • domain assumption The seed radiation field is unpolarized with a power-law spectrum i0 = C(r) nu^-s, s = 1, isotropic in the ZAMO frame unless anisotropy B(rho') is added.
    Any pre-existing polarization from synchrotron or coronal scattering is neglected; acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiation anisotropy can be modeled as B(rho') proportional to sin^2(rho') or cos^2(rho') in the electron rest frame.
    Used for the hyperparameter study; presented as a first-order estimate only.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarimetric Signatures of Bulk Comptonization from within the Plunging Region of Accreting Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SL2RN2FD

@misc{pith2026250415486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarimetric Signatures of Bulk Comptonization from within the Plunging Region of Accreting Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SL2RN2FD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15486}
}
abstract

Inverse Compton scattering by the thermal motions of electrons is believed to produce polarized hard X-rays in active galactic nuclei and black-hole binaries. Meanwhile, plasma within the plunging region of the black hole free falls into the event horizon with a bulk relativistic speed, which could also imprint polarization on up-scattered photons but has not been discussed in detail. To examine this, we computed polarimetric signatures via general relativistic ray-tracing of a toy model consisting of an accreting, geometrically thin plasma with moderate optical depth, falling onto the black hole with a bulk relativistic speed within the plunging region. We show that the maximum spatially unresolved linear polarization could be as large as approximately $7 - 8$ percent when the black hole is viewed near edge-on, while the corresponding resolved linear polarization could be roughly $50$ percent. The large discrepancy between the two is due to 1) dilution from the radiation outside the plunging region and 2) substantial cancellations of the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ fluxes. The resultant polarization contributed by bulk Comptonization could nevertheless exceed that of thermal electron scattering in a Novikov-Thorne disk. Our results thus suggest a new model for imprinting considerable polarization on the electromagnetic observables of accreting black holes. Measurements of X-ray polarization from black-hole binaries and the central black hole of active galactic nuclei could provide direct detection of the plunging region and help constrain plasma properties in the immediate vicinity of the event horizon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The setup of our toy plasma model. The plasma inside the ISCO is geometrically thin, has a bulk velocity (described by the bulk 4-vector u µ , assuming spherical Boyer-Lindquist coordinates), and is characterized by the black hole spin a, the plunging region optical depth τ , and the background intensity Iν. We assume that Iν follows a power-law spectrum, and the proportionality constant C(r) is a function of the ra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The functional form C(r) of the background ra￾diation field for the power-law model (Equation 12) and the exponential model (Equation 13). We set the maximum of C(r) = 1. The grey region represents the space within the black hole horizon, while the blue region indicates the region within the ISCO. plasma position. After this, one obtains ξ by the vector product between the local polarization basis vector and f µ. On… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Lorentz factor Γ of the free-falling plasma as measured in the ZAMO frame for different spin a of the black hole. The shaded region represents the space inside the event horizon. The vertical orange line represents the boundary of the plunging region. The Lorentz factor diverges as r → rBH. Next, we need to specify the functional form of C(r). There is no commonly agreed-upon choice on the func￾tional form of C(… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The spatially unresolved linear polarization (up￾per panel) and the spatially unresolved polarization angle (lower panel) against the observer inclination θ for models with different black hole spins. Here, we assumed the power￾law background radiation field being isot…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Stokes I images across different observer inclinations θ (shown at the top of each column) for models with varying spins (which are listed along the first column). Here, we assumed the power-law background radiation field being isotropic in the ZAMO frame, and fixe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between models with the power￾law (red lines) and the exponential (blue lines) background radiation field (both being ZAMO isotropic) across different black hole spins (shown as different linestyles). Here, αγ = 3 for the power-law model, and τ = 1.0 for bo…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of models with and without anisotropy (listed at the top of each image) in the background radiation field, in terms of Stokes I (a) and Stokes Q (b) images. The black hole is viewed at 80◦ , fixed τ = 1.0, and assumed the power-law background radiation fiel…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ratio of the observed radiation flux from within the ISCO to the total from all plasma (in %) across different black hole spins. Here, we assumed the (ZAMO isotropic) power-law background radiation field, and fixed τ = 1.0 and αγ = 3.0. The shaded region represents fl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1997, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara

    Agol, E. 1997, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Agol, E., & Krolik, J. H. 2000, ApJ, 528, 161, doi: 10.1086/308177

    doi:10.1086/308177 2000

  3. [3]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347, doi: 10.1086/151796

    doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  4. [4]

    C., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., & Sikora, M. 1987, ApJ, 322, 650, doi: 10.1086/165760 C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., Zhou, M., & Bambi, C. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123014

    doi:10.1086/165760 1987

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/1

    Chan, C.-K., Psaltis, D., ¨Ozel, F., Narayan, R., & Sadowski, A. 2015, ApJ, 799, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/1 2015

  6. [6]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04132

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

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454 2 See, for example, Figure 1 in Hankla et al

    Gammie, C. 2024, ApJ, 964, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454 2 See, for example, Figure 1 in Hankla et al. (2022)

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2454 2022

  8. [8]

    2013, Radiative transfer (Courier Corporation)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 2013, Radiative transfer (Courier Corporation)

    work page 2013

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    2016a, MNRAS, 462, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526 —

    Dexter, J. 2016a, MNRAS, 462, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526 —. 2016b, grtrans: Polarized general relativistic radiative transfer via ray tracing, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1605.013

    doi

  2. [10]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 1616, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1616 —

    Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1616, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1616 —. 2010, Geokerr: Computing Photon Orbits in a Kerr

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L157, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad182

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Dexter, J., Scepi, N., & Begelman, M. C. 2021, ApJL, 919, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    A., et al

    Dong, J., Mastroserio, G., Garcıa, J. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.09210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.09210 15 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6756

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6756

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Dexter, J

    Grigorian, A. A., & Dexter, J. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae934

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

    Hankla, A. M., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1785

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Agrawal, V

    Kushwaha, A., Jayasurya, K. M., Agrawal, V. K., & Nandi, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad070

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Zdziarski, A

    McConnell, M. L., Zdziarski, A. A., Bennett, K., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 984, doi: 10.1086/340436

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1160

    Mummery, A., Ingram, A., Davis, S., & Fabian, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1160

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, Black holes (Les astres occlus), 1, 343

    1973

  15. [23]

    Potter, W. J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab636

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1175 —. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    V., & Huang, L

    Shcherbakov, R. V., & Huang, L. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1052, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17502.x

    2011

  18. [26]

    1970, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 18, 265, doi: 10.1007/BF01649445

    Walker, M., & Penrose, R. 1970, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 18, 265, doi: 10.1007/BF01649445

    1970 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Reynolds, C

    Wilkins, D. R., Reynolds, C. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa628

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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