Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Short-duration gamma-ray bursts from Kerr-Newman black hole mergers

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the merger of two black holes can leave a charged, spinning remnant whose magnetized disk drives a Blandford-Znajek jet, making binary black hole mergers viable short gamma-ray burst engines.

desk verdict The quantitative match to GW150914 is assembled from adjustable parameters, not derived; the qualitative scenario is standard, but the numbers don't hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17205 v1 pith:BCDBTKOO submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-th

Shad Ali This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th
keywords gamma-rayburstsbinaryblackholemergersKerr-NewmanholesBlandford-Znajekmechanismmagneto-rotationalinstabilityGW150914Poyntingfluxaccretiondisks
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 argues that a binary black hole merger such as GW150914 can leave behind a charged, rapidly spinning Kerr-Newman black hole surrounded by a magnetized accretion disk, and that this remnant can power a short gamma-ray burst. The engine feeds on magneto-rotational instability in the disk to amplify magnetic fields to about $10^{16}$ G, then extracts rotational energy through the Blandford-Znajek process as a collimated Poynting-flux jet. Applied to GW150914, the model yields a Blandford-Znajek luminosity of $9.2\times 10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which beaming reduces to the observed $1.8\times 10^{49}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at a viewing angle of $24^\circ$. If correct, the paper establishes that merging binary black holes, not only neutron-star mergers, can act as short gamma-ray burst central engines.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Kerr-Newman remnant with its gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma_{\rm KNBH}=q/M$: the retained charge amplifies the magnetic field of the rotating ionized disk, which lets the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) drive turbulence and, via the Blandford-Znajek process, launch a Poynting-flux jet along the rotation axis. The load-bearing identities are the field angular velocity $\Omega_F=a/(r_+^2+a^2)$ in Kerr-Newman geometry and the beaming conversion $L_{\rm ob}=f_b L_{\rm BZ}$ with $f_b=1-\cos\theta_o$, which turn extracted spin energy into a detectable short gamma-ray burst.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the GW150914 gamma-ray transient: if it is shown to be instrumental rather than astrophysical, the specific association collapses; more generally, a well-localized binary black hole merger with its jet near the line of sight that shows no $\sim 1.8\times10^{49}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $\sim1$ s gamma-ray burst at $\sim410$ Mpc would falsify the engine claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the GW150914 remnant, a $\sim 62\,M_\odot$ black hole with spin $a=0.67$, can be described as a Kerr-Newman black hole retaining a small electric charge, and that this charge, through the gyromagnetic effect, boosts the magnetic field of the hyperaccretion disk formed during the merger. MRI-driven turbulence seeds the instability that channels the amplified field into a narrow jet; the Blandford-Znajek mechanism then converts the black hole's rotational energy into a Poynting flux of $9.2\times 10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$. With a jet opening angle of $11.36^\circ$, the observable luminosity becomes $1.8\times 10^{49}$ erg s$^{-1}$, matching the weak $\sim1$ s transient associated with GW150914 when viewed at $24^\circ$ off the jet axis. The central claim is that a magnetized, charged black hole remnant from a binary black hole merger can serve as a short gamma-ray burst central engine.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the remnant black hole retains a nonzero electric charge and is promptly surrounded by a magnetized accretion disk; in a clean vacuum merger neither exists, and without them no jet-launching magnetic configuration forms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Binary black hole mergers become viable progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts, so gravitational-wave detections can be used to predict electromagnetic counterparts.
  • For GW150914 the model fixes the intrinsic and observed luminosities ($9.2\times10^{50}$ and $1.8\times10^{49}$ erg s$^{-1}$), the opening angle ($11.36^\circ$), and the viewing angle ($24^\circ$), all checkable against future coincident detections.
  • The extracted energy is about $3\,M_\odot$ ($4.6\%$ of the initial mass), so the same machinery may explain unusual mass deficits inferred in binary black hole mergers.
  • Because the observed luminosity depends on viewing angle, most mergers with off-axis jets will show no detectable electromagnetic counterpart, explaining why GW-associated transients are rare.
  • A strongly magnetized disk rather than neutrino annihilation can power the jet, extending the central-engine window to black hole masses above $\sim50\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If charge retention is the bottleneck, binary black hole mergers in gas-rich environments (for example inside active galactic nucleus disks) should produce short gamma-ray bursts far more often than vacuum mergers, a testable population-level prediction the paper leaves implicit.
  • The gyromagnetic ratio saturating near unity suggests a natural charge-neutralization timescale; one could look for a prompt counterpart whose duration tracks the magnetic threading time rather than the disk viscous time.
  • Combining the model's luminosity-versus-viewing-angle curve with gravitational-wave inclination measurements from a detector network could identify on-axis binary black hole jets statistically before any single electromagnetic counterpart is unambiguously detected.
  • A systematic search for weak $\sim1$ s gamma-ray transients associated with future binary black hole mergers, especially those with high remnant spin, would test the engine claim on a larger sample than GW150914 alone.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the remnant of the binary black hole merger GW150914, modeled as a charged, rotating (Kerr–Newman) black hole surrounded by a strongly magnetized hyperaccretion disk, can produce the short gamma-ray burst candidate associated with the event. The argument chains magneto-rotational instability in the disk to turbulent amplification of the magnetic field, and then to Blandford–Znajek extraction of rotational energy as a Poynting-flux jet. Section 5 reports L_BZ = 9.2e50 erg/s, beaming-corrected L_ob = 1.8e49 erg/s, an opening angle θ_o = 11.36°, a viewing angle θ_v = 24°, and a remnant mass M = 62 M⊙, presented as a fit to GW150914.

Significance. The qualitative outline—MRI-driven turbulence feeding a BZ jet—is a standard mechanism in the GRB literature, and the paper's ambition to apply it to a BBH merger is topical. The paper also cites and contrasts with earlier work on charged black hole mergers (Bing Zhang; Liu et al.). However, the quantitative claims are not derived from a first-principles model: the magnetic field strength, beaming fraction, and Lorentz factor are inputs chosen to match the observed luminosity, and the physical precondition of a charged remnant with a hyperaccretion disk is asserted without a mass/charge budget. The remnant mass is effectively taken from the observed radiated mass. There is no code or machine-checked derivation. As a result, the claimed concordance with GW150914 does not constitute a testable prediction; the paper's significance, if the mechanism could be placed on a self-consistent footing, would be moderate, but the present version does not achieve it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (23)–(25)] The quantity x is introduced in Eq. (23) without definition, and Eq. (24) is algebraically wrong: differentiating J^2 = M^4(2x−x^2)+γ yields a factor of 4 multiplying the (2x−x^2)M^3 dM term, not 1. Eq. (25), dM/dt = J/(2xM^3) dJ/dt ⇒ M ≈ M0√(x0/x), is presented without the steps that eliminate q or γ, and the 'series expansion of the exponential term' is not shown. In Section 6 the remnant mass M = 62 M⊙ is instead obtained by asserting a 4.616% energy loss from 65 M⊙, which is exactly the observed 3 M⊙ radiated mass. Thus the derivation is circular and the equations do not support the quoted remnant mass.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (32)] The BZ luminosity is quoted as 9.2e50 erg/s with r_s ~ 10^6 cm, but the Schwarzschild radius of a 62 M⊙ BH is 1.8e7 cm. For a 10 M⊙ BH it is ~3e6 cm. Using r_s = 10^6 cm underestimates the geometric factor by roughly an order of magnitude. The magnetic field strength B is not specified in Eq. (32); the text later states B ~ 10^15 G (Section 6) or up to 10^16 G (Section 2). With the stated r_s and B = 10^15 G, Eq. (32) gives L_BZ ~ 10^49–10^50 erg/s, not 9.2e50, so the quoted value must rely on a different B and an incorrect r_s. The luminosity is therefore an adjustable parameter choice, not a prediction.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (33)–(34) and Fig. 5] The observed luminosity is matched by choosing the beaming factor f_b = 0.0196 (θ_o = 11.36°) in Eq. (33), and separately by choosing a Lorentz factor range 3.974–10.69 in the Doppler formula (34). These are independent tunable parameters. Moreover, the text sets β = v/c = 0.53, which for Γ = 10.69 corresponds to β = 0.9956; the two values are mutually inconsistent. The viewing-angle curve in Fig. 5 is therefore not a physical prediction but a demonstration that two free parameters can reproduce L_ob = 1.8e49 erg/s.
  4. [Secs. 2 and 6] The central engine requires that the remnant retain a non-negligible charge and be promptly surrounded by a hyperaccretion disk formed from material falling in during the merger. The paper asserts that matter falls in during core collapse (Section 2) and that friction charges the disk, but provides no estimate of the disk mass, accretion rate, charge budget, or the timescale over which the charge is neutralized by the surrounding plasma. Without a quantitative model of these preconditions, the force-free magnetosphere and the MRI/BZ chain do not follow. This is load-bearing: if the merger occurs in vacuum (as expected for a stellar-mass BBH), there is no disk and no poloidal magnetic field to anchor a BZ jet.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are frequent typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., in the abstract 'with an accretion on to it', 'the attraction of ionized fluid with a strong magnetic field around the rotating BH further amplifies the acceleration of the charged particle via a gyromagnetic effect', and 'mass, and magnetic field of BBHs' in Section 1; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 2] The statement 'The gyromagnetic ratio approaches its maximum value i.e., ~1, which means the charge becomes neutral in a very short interval' conflates the gyromagnetic ratio with charge-to-mass ratio and is physically unclear; a gyromagnetic ratio of 1 does not imply neutralization.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) defines P_mag with dimensions of acceleration (if ρ is mass density) rather than pressure, although it was introduced as a pressure-like restoring force in Eq. (5); the notation should be made consistent.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Sec. 5] The caption of Fig. 3 and the text around it define θ_v as 'the angle that the outgoing photon makes with the normal to the jet surface', but in Section 5 θ_v is used as the viewing angle from the jet axis; the definition should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The GW150914 numerical 'coincidences' are constructed: L_BZ is set by an adopted B-field, L_ob is defined by a chosen beaming fraction, and the remnant mass/radiated energy are the LIGO inputs restated as predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eqs. (32)-(33), with the magnetic field assumption stated in Section 6]
    "Using mass values, we calculated the magnetic field strength and, fixed our model to investigate the accretion rate and luminosity for this event as L_BZ = f(a*) B^2r_s^2 c / 8π ≈ 9.2×10^50 erg s^-1 ... One can impose the beaming condition as L_ob = f_b L_BZ = 1.8×10^49 erg s^-1, here, f_b = 1 − cosθ_o = 0.0196 with jet opening angle θ_o = 11.36°."

    Eq. (32) is evaluated with an adopted magnetic field; Section 6 states 'We investigated the magnetic field of order ∼10^15 G to create turbulence,' so L_BZ is not predicted from the model's dynamics. Eq. (33) then sets L_ob by multiplying L_BZ by a beaming fraction f_b that was chosen (θ_o = 11.36°) so that the product equals the Fermi-GBM observed value 1.8×10^49 erg/s. The headline observed luminosity is therefore an input reproduced through a free parameter, not a model prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Introduction and Section 6 (remnant mass and radiated energy)]
    "After the merger, a remnant mass equal to M = 62+4−4 M⊙ was observed whereas the mass 3.0+0.5−0.5 M⊙ is radiated as GWs. ... We evaluate the mass and angular momentum of the final BH with a gyromagnetic effect and investigate remnant mass equal to M = 62+4−4 M⊙ ... The amount of rotational energy extracted during this process is predicted to be ∼3 M⊙ in the form of GWs."

    The 62 M⊙ remnant and 3 M⊙ radiated energy are introduced in the paper as LIGO observed quantities, and Section 6 presents the same numbers as outputs of the model. No evaluation of Eq. (25), M ≈ M_o sqrt(x_o/x), is shown that reproduces 62 M⊙ from the quoted initial spin 0.736 and final spin 0.67; the 'predicted' values are the observed inputs restated as results, so the claimed remnant-mass confirmation is not an independent derivation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (33)-(34) and Fig. 5 (viewing angle)]
    "Using the values of L_em = 9.2×10^50 erg s^-1, β = v/c = 0.53 [38], and Γ range from 3.974 − 10.69, we manipulate the relation between the observed luminosity and viewing angle as shown in Fig. 5. ... at point C, we get the luminosity of 1.8×10^49 erg s^-1 with a viewing angle of 0.42 rad ≈ 24° with Γ = 10.69."

    Equation (33) already forced L_ob = 1.8×10^49 erg/s by choosing f_b. The Doppler relation (Eq. 34), with L_em fixed by the adopted B field and Γ = 10.69 selected from a range, is then inverted to produce θ_v ≈ 24°. The viewing angle is not an independent observable predicted by the model; it is the parameter that makes the Doppler-transformed luminosity equal to the value already built into Eq. (33), so the agreement is tautological.

full rationale

The paper's physical framework—MRI turbulence, the Blandford–Znajek power formula, and relativistic Doppler beaming—is external, standard physics, so the model is not circular at the level of its ingredients. The circularity is in the application to GW150914. L_BZ in Eq. (32) is computed from an adopted magnetic field ('order ∼10^15 G') rather than derived from merger dynamics; Eq. (33) then forces the observed luminosity by choosing f_b = 0.0196, making 1.8×10^49 erg/s an input rather than a prediction. The viewing angle 24° in Fig. 5 is an inversion of the Doppler formula with Γ chosen so that the already-fixed value reappears. Similarly, the 62 M⊙ remnant and 3 M⊙ radiated energy are quoted as LIGO observations in the Introduction and then presented as model 'predictions' in Section 6 without a reproducible derivation from Eq. (25). The unsupported charged-disk precondition is a physical weakness but is not itself circularity; the one self-citation, ref. [47], is used for a standard Maxwell stress tensor and is not load-bearing. Because the central numerical results reduce to choices of B, f_b, and Γ, the score is high despite the independent character of the BZ/MRI machinery.

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

The central numbers depend on assumed magnetic field, beaming, Lorentz factor, and an undefined parameter x. The underlying mechanisms (MRI, BZ) are standard, but their application here is not self-contained.

free parameters (4)
  • Magnetic field strength B = about 1e15 G (assumed)
    No computation of B from accretion or charge is given; L_BZ scales as B^2, so this parameter largely determines the 9.2e50 erg/s luminosity.
  • Beaming factor and opening angle theta_o = theta_o = 11.36 degrees, f_b = 0.0196
    Chosen in Eq. (33) so that f_b L_BZ equals the reported observed luminosity of 1.8e49 erg/s; not predicted independently.
  • Lorentz factor range Gamma = 3.974 to 10.69
    Used in Fig. 5 to produce the luminosity versus viewing angle curve; values are not derived from jet dynamics.
  • Undefined parameter x in Eq. (23) = chosen implicitly to yield M about 62 solar masses
    x is never defined or constrained independently, and the remnant mass result depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The remnant BH formed in a BBH merger retains a non-zero electric charge and is surrounded by a hyperaccretion disk.
    Invoked in Section 2 and Section 6; without it there is no charged, magnetized engine to drive the BZ jet.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field reaches about 1e15 to 1e16 G through turbulent dynamo amplification.
    Assumed in Section 2 and Section 6, citing [60]; L_BZ scales as B^2, so this sets the central luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantity x in Eq. (23) obeys the relations used to integrate to Eq. (25), though x is never defined in the text.
    The remnant mass derivation depends on an undefined x; this is not a standard result.
  • standard math The Blandford-Znajek mechanism and MRI turbulence in accretion disks are valid in the claimed regime.
    Standard literature results invoked in Sections 3-5; not independently rederived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short-duration gamma-ray bursts from Kerr-Newman black hole mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCDBTKOO

@misc{pith2026241117205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short-duration gamma-ray bursts from Kerr-Newman black hole mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCDBTKOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17205}
}
read the original abstract

Black hole (BH) mergers are natural sources of gravitational waves (GWs) and are possibly associated with electromagnetic events. Such events from a charged rotating BH with an accretion on to it could be more energetic and ultra-short-lived if the magnetic force dominates the accretion process because the attraction of ionized fluid with a strong magnetic field around the rotating BH further amplifies the acceleration of the charged particle via a gyromagnetic effect. Thus a stronger magnetic field and gravitational pull will provide an inward force to any fluid displaced in the radial direction and move it toward the axis of rotation with an increasing velocity. After many twists during rotation and the existence of restoring agents, Such events could produce a narrow intense jet starts in the form of Poynting flux along the axis of rotation resembling the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) mechanism. We investigated a charged rotating BH and obtained characteristic results (e.g., the remnant mass, magnetic field strength, luminosity, opening angle, viewing angle, and variation of viewing angle on the SGRB luminosity detection) that have a nice coincidence with rare events having GW associated with EM counterparts. This study gives a new insight into events with a strongly magnetized disk dominating the accretion process of energy extraction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Klebesadel, I.B

    R.W. Klebesadel, I.B. Strong, R.A. Olson, Observations of gamma- ray bursts of cosmic origin. Astrophys. J. Lett.182, 85–88 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1086/181225

    doi:10.1086/181225 1973

  2. [2]

    Fishman, C.A

    G.J. Fishman, C.A. Meegan, Gamma-ray bursts. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 33, 415–458 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. aa.33.090195.002215

    arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts

    T. Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1143–1210 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.76

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.76 2004

  4. [4]

    Meszaros, Gamma-ray bursts

    P. Meszaros, Gamma-ray bursts. Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 2259– 2322 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01 . arXiv:astro-ph/0605208

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Zhang, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    B. Zhang, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781139226530

    2018

  6. [6]

    Costa et al., Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997

    E. Costa et al., Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997. Nature 387, 783–785 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/42885. arXiv:astro-ph/9706065

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Frail, S.R

    D.A. Frail, S.R. Kulkarni, S.R. Nicastro, M. Feroci, G.B. Taylor, The Radio afterglow from the gamma-ray burst of 8 May 1997. Nature 389, 261 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/38451

    doi:10.1038/38451 1997

  8. [8]

    Paradijs et al., Transient optical emission from the error box of the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997

    J. Paradijs et al., Transient optical emission from the error box of the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997. Nature 386, 686–689 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/386686a0

    doi:10.1038/386686a0 1997

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Wijers, M.J

    R.A.M.J. Wijers, M.J. Rees, P. Meszaros, Shocked by GRB- 970228: the Afterglow of a cosmological fireball. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 288, 51–56 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ 288.4.L51. arXiv:astro-ph/9704153

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    K. Heng, D. Lazzati, R. Perna, P. Garnavich, A. Noriega-Crespo, D. Bersier, T. Matheson, M. Pahre, A direct measurement of 123 1147 Page 10 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2024) 84:1147 the dust extinction curve in an intermediate-redshift galaxy. Astrophys. J. 681, 1116 (2008). https:...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kumar, B

    P. Kumar, B. Zhang, The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativis- tic jets. Phys. Rep. 561, 1–109 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physrep.2014.09.008. arXiv:1410.0679 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kouveliotou, C.A

    C. Kouveliotou, C.A. Meegan, G.J. Fishman, N.P. Bhyat, M.S. Briggs, T.M. Koshut, W.S. Paciesas, G.N. Pendleton, Identifica- tion of two classes of gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, 101–104 (1993). (10.1086/186969)

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    Woosley, Gamma-ray bursts from stellar mass accretion disks around black holes

    S.E. Woosley, Gamma-ray bursts from stellar mass accretion disks around black holes. Astrophys. J. 405, 273 (1993). https://doi.org/ 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  6. [14]

    MacFadyen, S.E

    A. MacFadyen, S.E. Woosley, Collapsars: gamma-ray bursts and explosions in ‘failed supernovae’. Astrophys. J. 524, 262 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1086/307790. arXiv:astro-ph/9810274

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fruchter et al., The differing locations of massive stellar explosions

    A.S. Fruchter et al., The differing locations of massive stellar explosions. Nature 441, 463–468 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature04787. arXiv:astro-ph/0603537

    2006 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Woosley, J.S

    S.E. Woosley, J.S. Bloom, The Supernova gamma-ray burst connection. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 507–556 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558. arXiv:astro-ph/0609142

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Perna, D

    R. Perna, D. Lazzati, M. Cantiello, Ultra-long gamma-ray bursts from the collapse of blue supergiant stars: an end-to-end simu- lation. Astrophys. J. 859(1), 48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/aabcc1. arXiv:1803.04983 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dagoneau, S

    N. Dagoneau, S. Schanne, J.-L. Atteia, D. Götz, B. Cordier, Ultra-long gamma-ray bursts detection with SVOM/ECLAIRs. Exp. Astron. 50(1), 91–123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09665-w . arXiv:2005.12560 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Eichler, M

    D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran, D.N. Schramm, Nucleosynthesis, neutrino bursts and gamma-rays from coalescing neutron stars. Nature 340, 126–128 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  12. [20]

    Narayan, B

    R. Narayan, B. Paczynski, T. Piran, Gamma-ray bursts as the death throes of massive binary stars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 395, 83–86 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1086/186493. arXiv:astro-ph/9204001

    1992 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D’Avanzo, Short gamma-ray bursts: a review

    P. D’Avanzo, Short gamma-ray bursts: a review. JHEAp 7, 73–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2015.07.002

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Hanami, Magnetic Cannonball model for gamma-ray bursts

    H. Hanami, Magnetic Cannonball model for gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. 491(2), 687–696 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1086/ 304964

    1997

  15. [23]

    Popham, S.E

    R. Popham, S.E. Woosley, C. Fryer, Hyperaccreting black holes and gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J.518, 356–374 (1999). https:// doi.org/10.1086/307259. arXiv:astro-ph/9807028

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Beloborodov, Hyper-accreting black holes

    A.M. Beloborodov, Hyper-accreting black holes. AIP Conf. Proc. 1054, 51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3002509. arXiv:0810.2690 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Evans et al., Methods and results of an automatic analysis of a complete sample of Swift-XRT observations of GRBs

    P.A. Evans et al., Methods and results of an automatic analysis of a complete sample of Swift-XRT observations of GRBs. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 397, 1177 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2009.14913.x. arXiv:0812.3662 [astro-ph]

    2009

  18. [26]

    Janiuk, Y .-F

    A. Janiuk, Y .-F. Yuan, R. Perna, T. Di Matteo, Instabilities in the gamma ray burst central engine. What makes the jet variable? IAU Symp. 275, 349 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1743921310016388. arXiv:1010.0903 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Liu, C.-Y

    T. Liu, C.-Y . Song, B. Zhang, W.-M. Gu, A. Heger, Black hole hyperaccretion inflow-outflow model. I. Long and ultra-long gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J.852(1), 20 (2018).https://doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e4f . arXiv:1710.00141 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C.-Y . Song, T. Liu, Black hole hyperaccretion inflow-outflow model. II. Long-duration gamma-ray bursts and supernova 56 Ni Bumps. Astrophys. J. 871(1), 117 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/aaf6ae. arXiv:1812.01708 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Belczynski, R

    K. Belczynski, R. Perna, T. Bulik, V . Kalogera, N. Ivanova, D.Q. Lamb, A study of compact object mergers as short gamma-ray burst progenitors. Astrophys. J. 648, 1110–1116 (2006). https://doi.org/ 10.1086/505169. arXiv:astro-ph/0601458

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W.H. Lee, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The progenitors of short gamma- ray bursts. New J. Phys. 9, 17 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/9/1/017 . arXiv:astro-ph/0701874

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Liu, E.-W

    T. Liu, E.-W. Liang, W.-M. Gu, S.-J. Hou, W.-H. Lei, L. Lin, Z.- G. Dai, S.-N. Zhang, Radial angular momentum transfer and mag- netic barrier for short-type gamma-ray burst central engine activity. Astrophys. J. 760, 63 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 760/1/63. arXi...

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liu, Y .-Q

    T. Liu, Y .-Q. Lin, S.-J. Hou, W.-M. Gu, Can black-hole neutrino- cooled disks power short gamma-ray bursts? Astrophys. J. 806(1), 58 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/58 . arXiv:1504.02156 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W.-F. Fong, E. Berger, The locations of short gamma-ray bursts as evidence for compact object binary progenitors. Astrophys. J. 776, 18 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18 . arXiv:1307.0819 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Giacomazzo, R

    B. Giacomazzo, R. Perna, L. Rezzolla, E. Troja, D. Lazzati, Com- pact binary progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 762, 18 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/ L18. arXiv:1210.8152 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ruiz, R.N

    M. Ruiz, R.N. Lang, V . Paschalidis, S.L. Shapiro, Binary neutron star mergers: a jet engine for short gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 824(1), 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/824/ 1/L6. arXiv:1604.02455 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Savchenko et al., INTEGRAL detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave event GW170817

    V . Savchenko et al., INTEGRAL detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave event GW170817. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848(2), 15 (2017). https://doi.org/ 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 . arXiv:1710.05449 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Connaughton et al., Fermi GBM observations of LIGO gravita- tional wave event GW150914

    V . Connaughton et al., Fermi GBM observations of LIGO gravita- tional wave event GW150914. Astrophys. J. Lett.826(1), 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L6 . arXiv:1602.03920 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Abbott et al., Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger

    B.P. Abbott et al., Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys. Rev. Lett.116(6), 061102 (2016). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. arXiv:1602.03837 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abbott et al., Properties of the binary black hole merger GW150914

    B.P. Abbott et al., Properties of the binary black hole merger GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(24), 241102 (2016). https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102 . arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Li, F.-W

    X. Li, F.-W. Zhang, Q. Yuan, Z.-P. Jin, Y .-Z. Fan, S.-M. Liu, D.-M. Wei, Implications of the tentative association between Gw150914 and a Fermi-gbm transient. Astrophys. J. Lett. 827(1), 16 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L16 . arXiv:1602.04460 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Mergers of charged black holes: gravitational wave events, short gamma-ray bursts, and fast radio bursts

    B. Zhang, Mergers of charged black holes: gravitational wave events, short gamma-ray bursts, and fast radio bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 827(2), 31 (2016).https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/827/ 2/L31. arXiv:1602.04542 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Loeb, Electromagnetic counterparts to black hole mergers detected by LIGO

    A. Loeb, Electromagnetic counterparts to black hole mergers detected by LIGO. Astrophys. J. Lett. 819(2), 21 (2016). https:// doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L21 . arXiv:1602.04735 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Perna, D

    R. Perna, D. Lazzati, B. Giacomazzo, Short gamma-ray bursts from the merger of two black holes. Astrophys. J. Lett.821(1), 18 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L18 . arXiv:1602.05140 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Liu, G.E

    T. Liu, G.E. Romero, M.-L. Liu, A. Li, Fast radio bursts and their gamma-ray or radio afterglows as Kerr–newman black hole binaries. Astrophys. J. 826(1), 82 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 0004-637X/826/1/82 . arXiv:1602.06907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Woosley, The Progenitor of Gw150914

    S.E. Woosley, The Progenitor of Gw150914. Astrophys. J. Lett. 824(1), 10 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L10 . arXiv:1603.00511 [astro-ph.HE] 123 Eur. Phys. J. C (2024) 84:1147 Page 11 of 12 1147

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Janiuk, M

    A. Janiuk, M. Bejger, P. Sukova, S. Charzynski, Black hole accre- tion in gamma ray bursts. Galaxies5(1), 15 (2017).https://doi.org/ 10.3390/galaxies5010015. arXiv:1701.07753 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ali, Short Gamma rays bursts from binary black holes merger

    S. Ali, Short Gamma rays bursts from binary black holes merger. JHEAp 38, 58–65 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2023.05. 001

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Liu, W.-M

    T. Liu, W.-M. Gu, B. Zhang, Neutrino-dominated accretion flows as the central engine of gamma-ray bursts. New Astron. Rev. 79, 1–25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2017.07

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Narayan, T

    R. Narayan, T. Piran, P. Kumar, Accretion models of gamma- ray bursts. Astrophys. J. 557, 949 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1086/ 322267. arXiv:astro-ph/0103360

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    arXiv:1705.05516 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Chen, A.M

    W.-X. Chen, A.M. Beloborodov, Neutrino-cooled accretion disks around spinning black hole. Astrophys. J. 657, 383–399 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1086/508923. arXiv:astro-ph/0607145

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kohri, R

    K. Kohri, R. Narayan, T. Piran, Neutrino-dominated accretion and supernovae. Astrophys. J.629, 341–361 (2005).https://doi.org/10. 1086/431354. arXiv:astro-ph/0502470

    2005 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Liu, W.-M

    T. Liu, W.-M. Gu, L. Xue, J.-F. Lu, Structure and luminosity of neutrino-cooled accretion disks. Astrophys. J. 661, 1025–1033 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1086/513689. arXiv:astro-ph/0702186

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kawanaka, S

    N. Kawanaka, S. Mineshige, Neutrino cooled disk and its stabil- ity. Astrophys. J. 662, 1156–1166 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1086/ 517985. arXiv:astro-ph/0702630

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Liu, X.-F

    T. Liu, X.-F. Yu, W.-M. Gu, J.-F. Lu, Self-gravity in neutrino- dominated accretion disks. Astrophys. J.791(1), 69 (2014).https:// doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/69 . arXiv:1407.0790 [astro- ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T. Liu, L. Xue, W.-M. Gu, J.-F. Lu, The vertical composition of neutrino-dominated accretion disks in gamma-ray bursts. Astro- phys. J. 762, 102 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/762/ 2/102. arXiv:1211.2206 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Liu, Y .-Q

    T. Liu, Y .-Q. Qi, Z.-Y . Cai, M. Sun, H.-M. Qu, C.-Y . Song, Neutrino-dominated accretion flows: a second nucleosynthesis fac- tory in core-collapse supernovae and regulating the iron markets in galaxies. Astrophys. J. 920(1), 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac142...

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Blandford, R.L

    R.D. Blandford, R.L. Znajek, Electromagnetic extractions of energy from Kerr black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 179, 433–456 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  51. [59]

    Proga, B

    D. Proga, B. Zhang, The late time evolution of gamma-ray bursts: ending hyperaccretion and producing flares. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 370, 61–65 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1745-3933.2006.00189.x. arXiv:astro-ph/0601272

    2006

  52. [60]

    A. Khan, V . Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, S.L. Shapiro, Disks around merg- ing binary black holes: from GW150914 to supermassive black holes. Phys. Rev. D97 (4), 044036 (2018).https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.044036. arXiv:1801.02624 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Balbus, J.F

    S.A. Balbus, J.F. Hawley, A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks. 1. Linear analysis. 2. Nonlinear evolu- tion. Astrophys. J. 376, 214–233 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1086/ 170270

    1991

  54. [62]

    Souza, R

    R.S. Souza, R. Opher, Origin of 10 15 − 1016G magnetic fields in the central engine of gamma ray bursts. JCAP 02, 022 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02/022 . arXiv:0910.5258 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Balbus, J.F

    S.A. Balbus, J.F. Hawley, Instability, turbulence, and enhanced transport in accretion disks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1–53 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    1998 doi

  56. [64]

    Velikhov, Stability of an ideally conducting liquid flowing between cylinders rotating in a magnetic field

    P.E. Velikhov, Stability of an ideally conducting liquid flowing between cylinders rotating in a magnetic field. Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 9(5), 995–998 (1991)

    1991

  57. [65]

    Nättilä, A.M

    J. Nättilä, A.M. Beloborodov, Heating of magnetically domi- nated plasma by Alfvén-wave turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128(7), 075101 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.075101. arXiv:2111.15578 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zajaˇcek, M., Tursunov, A.: Electric charge of black holes: is it really always negligible? (2019).arXiv:1904.04654 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Salafia, G

    O.S. Salafia, G. Ghisellini, A. Pescalli, G. Ghirlanda, F. Nappo, Structure of gamma-ray burst jets: intrinsic versus apparent proper- ties. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450(4), 3549–3558 (2015). https:// doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv766. arXiv:1502.06608 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Perna, D

    R. Perna, D. Lazzati, W. Farr, Limits on electromagnetic coun- terparts of gravitational wave-detected binary black hole merg- ers. Astrophys. J. 875(1), 49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab107b. arXiv:1901.04522 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    McIntosh, B

    S.W. McIntosh, B. Pontieu, M. Carlsson, V . Hansteen, P. Boerner, M. Goossens, Alfvénic waves with sufficient energy to power the quiet solar corona and fast solar wind. Nature475(7357), 477–480 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10235

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    Hayes, I.S

    F. Hayes, I.S. Heng, J. Veitch, D. Williams, Compar- ing short gamma-ray burst jet structure models. Astrophys. J. 891, 124 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab72fc . arXiv:1911.04190 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Heims, E.T

    S.P. Heims, E.T. Jaynes, Theory of gyromagnetic effects and some related magnetic phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys.34, 143–165 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.143

    1962 doi

  64. [72]

    Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., Wheeler, J.A.: Gravitation. W. H. Free- man, San Francisco (1973).https://inspirehep.net/literature/95654

    1973

  65. [73]

    Wald, General Relativity(Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1984)

    R.M. Wald, General Relativity(Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1984). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001

    1984

  66. [74]

    Qiu, Slowly rotating black holes in the novel Einstein–Maxwell- scalar theory

    J. Qiu, Slowly rotating black holes in the novel Einstein–Maxwell- scalar theory. Eur. Phys. J. C 81(12), 1094 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09890-3 . arXiv:2101.03034 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Zhang, Charged compact binary coalescence signal and elec- tromagnetic counterpart of plunging black hole-neutron star merg- ers

    B. Zhang, Charged compact binary coalescence signal and elec- tromagnetic counterpart of plunging black hole-neutron star merg- ers. Astrophys. J. Lett. 873 (2), 9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/ab0ae8. arXiv:1901.11177 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Lee, R.A.M.J

    H.K. Lee, R.A.M.J. Wijers, G.E. Brown, The Blandford–Znajek process as a central engine for a gamma-ray burst. Phys. Rep.325, 83–114 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00084-8 . arXiv:astro-ph/9906213

    2000 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  70. [78]

    C.-M. Deng, Y . Cai, X.-F. Wu, E.-W. Liang, Fast radio bursts from primordial black hole binaries coalescence. Phys. Rev. D 98(12), 123016 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98. 123016. arXiv:1812.00113 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Janiuk, M

    A. Janiuk, M. Bejger, S. Charzy´ nski, P. Sukova, On the possible gamma-ray burst-gravitational wave association in GW150914. New Astron. 51, 7–14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast. 2016.08.002. arXiv:1604.07132 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Frail et al., Beaming in gamma-ray bursts: evidence for a stan- dard energy reservoir

    D.A. Frail et al., Beaming in gamma-ray bursts: evidence for a stan- dard energy reservoir. Astrophys. J. Lett. 562, 55 (2001). https:// doi.org/10.1086/338119. arXiv:astro-ph/0102282

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kim et al., GECKO optical follow-up observation of three binary black hole merger events: GW190408_181802, GW190412, and GW190503_185404

    J. Kim et al., GECKO optical follow-up observation of three binary black hole merger events: GW190408_181802, GW190412, and GW190503_185404. Astrophys. J. 916(1), 47 (2021). https://doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0446 . arXiv:2105.14902 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Morsony, J.C

    B.J. Morsony, J.C. Workman, D.M. Ryan, Modeling the afterglow of the possible Fermi-GBM event associated with GW150914. Astrophys. J. Lett. 825(2), 24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8205/825/2/L24 . arXiv:1602.05529 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Granot, A

    J. Granot, A. Panaitescu, P. Kumar, S.E. Woosley, Off-axis afterglow emission from jetted gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 570, 61–64 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1086/340991. arXiv:astro-ph/0201322 123 1147 Page 12 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2024) 84:1147

    2002 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Padovani, High-energy emission from AGN and unified schemes

    P. Padovani, High-energy emission from AGN and unified schemes. Ital. Phys. Soc. Proc.65, 159–171 (1999).arXiv:astro-ph/9901130

    1999 arXiv

  77. [85]

    H.-Y . Chen, S. Vitale, R. Narayan, Viewing angle of binary neutron star mergers. Phys. Rev. X9(3), 031028 (2019).https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevX.9.031028. arXiv:1807.05226 [astro-ph.HE] 123

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Abbott et al., Gravitational waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A

    B.P. Abbott et al., Gravitational waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848(2), 13 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/aa920c. arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [1143]

    arXiv:astro-ph/0405503

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.