Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 85 references

Numerical Investigation of Instabilities in Over-pressured Magnetized Relativistic Jets

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 Magnetic pitch decides which instability shreds over-pressured relativistic jets.

desk verdict Solid 3D RMHD parameter study of magnetic pitch in over-pressured jets; the pitch trend for RTI is credible, but the claimed kink transition needs a quantitative mode analysis before it can carry the BL Lac QPO interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17389 v1 pith:3Z6K6OH6 submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE

Xu-Fan Hu , Yosuke Mizuno , Christian M. Fromm This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE MSC 76W0576E1785A3085-08
keywords galaxies:jetsmagnetohydrodynamics(MHD)instabilitiesrelativisticRayleigh-TaylorinstabilitykinkBLLacertaeobjectsnumericalsimulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses three-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations to study how the magnetic field structure of an over-pressured jet controls which instability destroys its collimation. The authors find that when the magnetic pitch is high (poloidal field dominant), Rayleigh-Taylor fingers grow at the jet–ambient interface inside the recollimation shock structure. When the pitch is low (toroidal field dominant), those fingers are suppressed, but a current-driven kink instability twists the jet into a helical shape; the twist propagates at about 0.8c, close to the jet flow speed. The paper argues this kink-excitation route matches the quasi-periodic oscillations observed in the blazar BL Lac after the passage of recollimation shocks. The result matters because it gives a single physical parameter—magnetic pitch—that selects between two very different disruption mechanisms in relativistic jets.

What carries the argument

The controlling object is the magnetic pitch P = a/(k Rj), the ratio of poloidal to toroidal field components on the jet axis, with lower P meaning a more toroidally dominated field. The simulations also use the effective inertia I = γ²ρh + Bz² + Bφ², whose radial variation traces the recollimation shock structure and locates the low-inertia interface where RTI develops. The authors derive a radial momentum equation for the jet boundary and use it to compute the effective gravity that drives RTI and to rule out centrifugal instability via the magnetization criterion σ/(1+σ) > (θ0γ)²/16. The kink identification relies on comparing the helically twisted morphology and propagation speed with those in earlier CD-kink simulations of relativistic jets.

What would settle it

A Fourier decomposition of the jet density or magnetic field in the twisted region showing a dominant azimuthal mode other than m=1, or a measured growth rate of the helical perturbation inconsistent with kink instability, would show that the structure is not the CD kink.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the magnetic pitch of a helical field, not the magnetization alone, sets the dominant instability in over-pressured relativistic jets. Comparing 3D RMHD runs with pitch values P = 0.50, 0.22, and 0.16, they find that decreasing the pitch weakens the Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the jet–external-medium interface, and instead excites the CD kink instability, producing a helically twisted density structure downstream of the recollimation shock. They identify the kink by the helical morphology and a measured propagation speed of about 0.8c, consistent with earlier kink-jet simulations, and match the interpretation of BL Lac's quasi-periodic oscillations. The paper is an extension of the earlier 2D axisymmetric simulations of over-pressured jets, which showed no instability; the 3D runs reveal that non-axisymmetric modes are essential for RTI and kink growth.

Load-bearing premise

The helically twisted structure observed in the simulations is assumed to be the CD kink instability, inferred from morphology and propagation speed rather than from a mode decomposition or a measured growth rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If magnetic pitch controls the RTI-to-kink transition, observations of jet morphology alone could constrain the magnetic field structure of AGN jets.
  • The result provides a physical mechanism linking recollimation shocks to BL Lac quasi-periodic oscillations: kink waves launched after the shock travel along the jet at about 0.8c.
  • Two-dimensional axisymmetric simulations miss both instabilities; instability studies of jets need full three-dimensional treatment.
  • The pitch dependence suggests jets with stronger toroidal fields (lower pitch) may remain collimated longer before being twisted, while higher-pitch jets are disrupted by Rayleigh-Taylor fingers closer to the core.
  • The stability criteria against centrifugal instability used in the paper can be applied to future jet simulations to distinguish instability drivers without expensive mode decomposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable next step would seed simulations with BL Lac parameters and synthesize light curves and polarization maps to compare directly against the observed 2020 outburst quasi-periodic oscillations.
  • If the kink identification were confirmed by a Fourier mode analysis measuring the growth of the azimuthal m=1 amplitude, the pitch-to-kink transition could be turned into a quantitative stability diagram in jet parameter space.
  • The stabilizing effect of lower pitch suggests that the presence of Rayleigh-Taylor fingers versus helical twisting could serve as an observational diagnostic of the magnetic configuration of relativistic jets in very long baseline interferometry images.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents three-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) simulations of over-pressured relativistic jets with helical magnetic fields, extending earlier two-dimensional work. The authors study how the magnetic pitch (ratio of poloidal to toroidal field) and field strength affect the growth of instabilities at the jet-ambient interface. In 2D axisymmetric simulations the recollimation shock structure is stable; in 3D, the pure hydrodynamic case develops Rayleigh-Taylor instability (RTI), while magnetized cases show that increasing toroidal field (lower pitch) suppresses RTI. The paper claims that in the lowest-pitch cases the jet instead develops a current-driven (CD) kink instability, and it connects this qualitatively to quasi-periodic oscillations observed in BL Lac.

Significance. If confirmed, the claimed pitch-controlled transition from RTI to CD kink would be a valuable result for interpreting jet stability and variability in AGN jets. The paper includes a useful smooth-boundary test (Appendix B), a higher-Lorentz-factor test (Appendix C), and an analytic radial-motion equation (Appendix A) that is checked against the simulations. However, the central kink identification is based on morphology and advection speed rather than a quantitative mode analysis, and the reported pitch ordering is internally inconsistent. The result is therefore not yet established, but the underlying numerical campaign is appropriate and the question is timely.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4 and Fig. 9] The pitch assignments are contradictory. In the first paragraph of §3.4 the text refers to "lower magnetic pitch (MHD2) with P = 0.16 and higher magnetic pitch (MHD3) with P = 0.5", but Table 2 lists MHD2 with P = 0.50 and MHD3 with P = 0.16. The Fig. 8 captions are consistent with Table 2, but the Fig. 9 caption says the green line is MHD2 (P = 0.5) and the purple line is MHD3 (P = 0.16), while the text immediately below states that the "lower pitch case (green line)" has larger radial velocity and the "higher pitch" (purple line) has reduced velocity. Depending on which statement is taken as authoritative, the central trend either supports or contradicts the abstract's claim that lower pitch suppresses RTI. The paper must be corrected so that the text, tables, and figure captions all use the same pitch ordering.
  2. [§3.6] The identification of the CD kink instability is not quantitative. The claim rests on the helically twisted density structure in Fig. 11 and a propagation speed of about 0.8c inferred from the azimuthally averaged density profiles in Fig. 12, compared morphologically with earlier simulations by Mizuno et al. (2014) and Singh et al. (2016). Because the initial jet already contains a helical magnetic field, a passively advected helical pattern can produce the same appearance without any instability growing. The paper does not provide an azimuthal Fourier decomposition, a time trace of the m = 1 mode amplitude, a growth rate, or a comparison with the linear CDI dispersion relation; the smooth-boundary test in Appendix B checks only the initial sharpness, not the mode content. Please add a quantitative mode analysis (e.g., evolution of the m = 1 Fourier amplitude at fixed radius and axial position) and a growth-rate estimate, or rephrase the claim as a morphological similarity rather than an established instability.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 9] The RTI strength is characterized by the azimuthally averaged radial velocity at a single axial position, z = 60 R_j, with one realization per setup and no error bars. The text in §3.3 notes that "axial variation by the development of instability depends a little on the spatial resolutions" but no resolution test is shown. The reader therefore cannot assess whether the pitch-dependent differences in the radial velocity traces are robust or within numerical noise. Please provide a convergence study for at least one magnetized case and state the time-averaging or error-bar methodology used for the diagnostics in Figs. 7 and 9.
  4. [Appendix A and §4] The radial-motion equation (A.7) is shown to reproduce the recollimation kinematics in Fig. A.1, but the paper does not connect this equation to the observed pitch dependence of the RTI. If the magnetic tension term b_φ^2/R or the centrifugal term γ^2 ω_t v_φ^2/R in Eq. (A.7) is responsible for the suppression at lower pitch, this should be stated and tested; otherwise the claim that magnetic pitch controls RTI remains purely empirical. Please clarify whether Eq. (A.7) can be used to interpret the pitch trend, or explicitly defer that connection to future work.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract and §3.6] The word "excitement" should be "excitation" throughout the manuscript (e.g., abstract, §3.6).
  2. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption contains a typo: "higher magnetic pith case" should be "higher magnetic pitch case".
  3. [§3.1 and Table 1] The labels "MHD1-2D" and "MHD-2D" are used interchangeably in the text; please unify the notation.
  4. [Introduction and §4] The paper structure described in the Introduction says "We analyze ... in Section 4 and summarize and discuss our findings in Section 4", but the results for the kink instability are in §3.6 and the summary is in §4; please correct the section references.
  5. [§3.3] The MHD1 case is shown at ts = 365 while the other cases are at ts = 400; please state explicitly that the comparison is made at slightly different times and justify why this does not affect the conclusions.
  6. [§3.5] The maximum magnetization values are quoted without specifying the time or radius at which they are evaluated; please provide these details.
  7. [§3.6 and references] Quantitative comparison with the growth rates of Mizuno et al. (2014) and Singh et al. (2016) would strengthen the kink discussion; currently the comparison is only qualitative.
  8. [Appendix C] The scaling argument l ∝ 1/γ is correct, but the numerical comparison "49/14 ≃ 10/3" should be given with the actual values and a brief explanation of how the recollimation length was measured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pitch-to-RTI relation is an un-fitted parameter scan, the stability criteria are external, and the kink identification is qualitative but not a by-construction reduction to the paper's inputs.

full rationale

The central quantitative result (decreasing magnetic pitch weakens RTI while a helically twisted structure appears) is obtained by comparing three un-fitted RMHD runs (MHD1/2/3) with different k and B0 values; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the claimed outcome, so the prediction is not statistically forced. The RTI and CFI diagnostics are imported from external analytic criteria (Matsumoto et al. 2017, 2021; Komissarov et al. 2019) and applied to the simulated initial conditions, which is independent support. Appendix A derives a radial-motion equation from the RMHD equations and then checks it against the simulated radius evolution; this is a consistency check, not a circular input. The only self-citation of note is the identification of the twisted structure as CD kink by morphological comparison to Mizuno et al. (2014) and Singh et al. (2016): no azimuthal Fourier decomposition or growth-rate fit is provided, so that identification is weakly supported, but the argument does not reduce to the cited work by construction. I also note a non-circular presentation error: the text of Section 3.4 and the Fig. 9 caption invert which of MHD2/MHD3 is the lower-pitch case relative to Table 2. This is a correctness and readability risk, not circularity. The manuscript's own limitations (Section 4: no analytic stability criterion obtained; idealized setup for the BL Lac comparison) are acknowledged by the authors rather than hidden. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted constants. It relies on standard RMHD physics and on stability criteria taken from the cited literature; the main interpretive step is the morphological identification of the kink mode.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The RMHD equations (Eqs. 1-4) with an ideal gas equation of state (Gamma = 4/3) accurately describe the jet dynamics.
    Stated in Section 2 as the governing model for all simulations.
  • domain assumption The updated RTI stability criterion from Matsumoto et al. (2017), Eq. (7), is valid for this setup and is used to interpret the RHD run as RTI.
    Applied in Section 3.2 to classify the instability in the 3D RHD case.
  • domain assumption The CFI stabilization criterion from Matsumoto et al. (2021), Eq. (8), is valid and is used to exclude centrifugal instability.
    Used in Section 3.5 to argue the observed turbulence is not CFI.
  • ad hoc to paper The helically twisted structure is the CD kink instability, inferred by morphological similarity to earlier simulations.
    Section 3.6 bases this identification on appearance and propagation speed without formal mode analysis.
  • domain assumption Numerical noise at the sharp jet boundary seeds the instabilities without biasing the outcome.
    Appendix B checks a smooth boundary and finds the same qualitative behavior.
  • standard math In the radial-motion derivation, the radial magnetic field is zero and the radial velocity is small (BR = 0, vR << vz).
    Appendix A states these assumptions to derive Eq. (A.7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Investigation of Instabilities in Over-pressured Magnetized Relativistic Jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Z6K6OH6

@misc{pith2026241117389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Investigation of Instabilities in Over-pressured Magnetized Relativistic Jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Z6K6OH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17389}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Relativistic jets from Active Galactic Nuclei are observed to be collimated on the parsec scale. When the pressure between the jet and the ambient medium is mismatched, recollimation shocks and rarefaction shocks are formed. Previous numerical simulations have shown that instabilities can destroy the recollimation structure of jets. Aims. In this study, we aim to study the instabilities of non-equilibrium over-pressured relativistic jets with helical magnetic fields. Especially, we investigate how the magnetic pitch affects the development of instabilities. Methods. We perform three-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations for different magnetic pitches, as well as a two-dimension simulation and a relativistic hydrodynamic simulation served as comparison groups Results. In our simulations, Rayleigh-Taylor Instability (RTI) is triggered at the interface between the jet and ambient medium in the recollimation structure of the jet. We found that when the magnetic pitch decreases the growth of RTI becomes weak but interestingly, another instability, the CD kink instability is excited. The excitement of CD kink instability after passing the recollimation shocks can match the explanation of the quasi-periodic oscillations observed in BL Lac qualitatively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial distributions of toroidal fields(the left panel) and magne￾tizations(the right panel) for various cases. solve the following form of the RMHD equations: ∂ ∂t (γρ) + ∇ · (γρv) = 0, (1) ∂ ∂t (ωtγ 2 v − b 0b) + ∇ · (ωtγ 2 vv − bb + Ipt) = 0, (2) ∂ ∂t (ωtγ 2 − b 0 b 0 − pt) + ∇ · (ωtγ 2 v − b 0b) = 0, (3) ∂ ∂t B + ∇ · (vB − Bv) = 0, (4) where b 0 = γv · B , b = B/γ+γ(v · B)v, ωt = ρh+B 2 /γ+(v · B) 2 , and pt = … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of logarithmic density (left), effective inertia, I = γ 2ρh + B 2 z + B 2 ϕ (middle), and magnetic pitch (right) for 2D RMHD model MHD1-2D at ts = 400. (a) (b) (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D axial distribution of logarithmic density (a), effective inertia, I = γ 2ρh (b), and the Lorentz factor (c) for the 3D RHD case HD at ts = 400. 3.2. 3D hydrodynamic jet We performed 3D RHD simulations of an over-pressure jet that is marked as the case HD. The results are shown in figure 3. From the density distribution, we clearly see the development of insta￾bility at the jet boundary. After creating the first r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution on xy plane of density (left) and Lorentz factor (right) at z = 15 Rj (top) and z = 30 Rj (bottom) for HD case at ts = 400. In our 3D RHD simulation, the initial effective inertia of jet Ij = γ 2ρh = 1.062 is slightly smaller than the ambient environ￾ment …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2D axial distribution of logarithmic density (a), effective inertia (b), magnetic pitch (c), the magnetization (d), and Lorentz factor (e) for the 3D RMHD case MHD1 at ts = 365 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The time evolution of averaged radial velocity |vr |/c at z = 60 Rj with the cases of 3D RHD (HD, red), 2D RMHD (MHD1-2D, yellow￾dashed), and 3D RMHD (MHD1, blue). As seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2D Axial distribution of logarithmic density for the cases of different magnetic pitches and magnetic strength at ts = 400. (a) higher magnetic pitch case (MHD2) with k = 1, P = 0.50, ( b) lower magnetic pitch case (MHD3) with k = √ 10, P = 0.16, and (c) lower magnetiz…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions on xy plane of effective inertia at z = 12Rj (the left panel) and z = 13Rj (the right panel) for MHD1 case at ts = 365. contribute to the disruption of the jet except for RTI. In this sub￾section, we evaluate the possibility of each instabilities. For ou…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three-dimensional density isosurface at t = 360. The white(blue) surface marks the isosurface where density equals 0.01(0.005). The yellow lines are traces of the magnetic field lines. The color scales with the logarithm of the density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The azimuthal average density profiles at R = 1 Rj for ts = 397 (blue dash-dotted), 398 (orange dashed), 399 (green dotted), and 400 (red solid). Acknowledgements. This research is supported by the National Key R&D Pro￾gram of China (2023YFE0101200), the National Natu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    & Bromberg , O

    Abolmasov , P. & Bromberg , O. 2023, , 520, 3009

    2023

  4. [4]

    2001, , 549, L183

    Agudo , I., G \'o mez , J.-L., Mart \' , J.-M., et al. 2001, , 549, L183

    2001

  5. [5]

    2017, , 469, 4957

    Barniol Duran , R., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Giannios , D. 2017, , 469, 4957

    2017

  6. [6]

    Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Blandford , R. D. & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433

    1977

  8. [8]

    C., Harris , D

    Cheung , C. C., Harris , D. E., & Stawarz , . 2007, , 663, L65

    work page 2007

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    H., Meier , D

    Cohen , M. H., Meier , D. L., Arshakian , T. G., et al. 2015, , 803, 3

    2015

  2. [10]

    H., Meier , D

    Cohen , M. H., Meier , D. L., Arshakian , T. G., et al. 2014, , 787, 151

    2014

  3. [11]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.08767

    Costa , A., Bodo , G., Tavecchio , F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.08767

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Curtis , H. D. 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 55

    1918

  5. [13]

    Fanaroff , B. L. & Riley , J. M. 1974, , 167, 31P

    1974

  6. [14]

    M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E

    Fromm , C. M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E. 2016, , 588, A101

    2016

  7. [15]

    M., Younsi , Z., Baczko , A., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Younsi , Z., Baczko , A., et al. 2019, , 629, A4

    2019

  8. [16]

    2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Ghisellini , G. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1381, 25th Texas Symposium on Relativistic AstroPhysics (Texas 2010), ed. F. A. Aharonian , W. Hofmann , & F. M. Rieger , 180--198

    2011

  9. [17]

    2012, , 538, L10

    Giroletti , M., Hada , K., Giovannini , G., et al. 2012, , 538, L10

    2012

  10. [18]

    L., Lobanov , A

    G \'o mez , J. L., Lobanov , A. P., Bruni , G., et al. 2016, , 817, 96

    2016

  11. [19]

    L., Mart \' , J

    G \'o mez , J. L., Mart \' , J. M., Marscher , A. P., & Ib \'a \ n ez , J. M. 1997, Vistas in Astronomy, 41, 79

    1997

  12. [20]

    Gourgouliatos , K. N. & Komissarov , S. S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 167

    2018

  13. [21]

    G., Marscher , A

    Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., Lister , M. L., et al. 2005, , 130, 1418

    2005

  14. [22]

    G., Marscher , A

    Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., Raiteri , C. M., et al. 2022, , 609, 265

    2022

  15. [23]

    & Meliani, Z

    Keppens, R. & Meliani, Z. 2012, Jet Structure, Collimation and Stability: Recent Results from Analytical Models and Simulations (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 341--368

    2012

  16. [24]

    Komissarov , S. S. & Falle , S. A. E. G. 1997, , 288, 833

    1997

  17. [25]

    S., Gourgouliatos , K

    Komissarov , S. S., Gourgouliatos , K. N., & Matsumoto , J. 2019, , 488, 4061

    2019

  18. [26]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2013, , 146, 120

    2013

  19. [27]

    A., & Perucho , M

    Matsumoto , J., Aloy , M. A., & Perucho , M. 2017, , 472, 1421

    2017

  20. [28]

    S., & Gourgouliatos , K

    Matsumoto , J., Komissarov , S. S., & Gourgouliatos , K. N. 2021, , 503, 4918

    2021

  21. [29]

    & Masada , Y

    Matsumoto , J. & Masada , Y. 2013, , 772, L1

    2013

  22. [30]

    & Keppens , R

    Meliani , Z. & Keppens , R. 2009, , 705, 1594

    2009

  23. [31]

    2007, , 170, 228

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228

    2007

  24. [32]

    2017, , 470, 592

    Millas , D., Keppens , R., & Meliani , Z. 2017, , 470, 592

    2017

  25. [33]

    L., Nishikawa , K.-I., et al

    Mizuno , Y., G \'o mez , J. L., Nishikawa , K.-I., et al. 2015, , 809, 38

    2015

  26. [34]

    E., & Nishikawa , K.-I

    Mizuno , Y., Hardee , P. E., & Nishikawa , K.-I. 2014, , 784, 167

    2014

  27. [35]

    Mizuno , Y., Lyubarsky , Y., Nishikawa , K.-I., & Hardee , P. E. 2009, , 700, 684

    2009

  28. [36]

    Mizuno , Y., Lyubarsky , Y., Nishikawa , K.-I., & Hardee , P. E. 2012, , 757, 16

    2012

  29. [37]

    C., & Obergaulinger , M

    Moll , R., Spruit , H. C., & Obergaulinger , M. 2008, , 492, 621

    2008

  30. [38]

    & Komissarov , S

    Porth , O. & Komissarov , S. S. 2015, , 452, 1089

    2015

  31. [39]

    B., Kovalev , Y

    Pushkarev , A. B., Kovalev , Y. Y., Lister , M. L., & Savolainen , T. 2009, , 507, L33

    2009

  32. [40]

    B., Mizuno , Y., & de Gouveia Dal Pino , E

    Singh , C. B., Mizuno , Y., & de Gouveia Dal Pino , E. M. 2016, , 824, 48

    2016

  33. [41]

    & Bromberg , O

    Tchekhovskoy , A. & Bromberg , O. 2016, , 461, L46

    2016

  34. [42]

    D.\ 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 55

    Curtis, H. D.\ 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 55

    1918

  35. [43]

    Penrose, R.\ 1969, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 1, 252

    1969

  36. [44]

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

    1977 doi

  37. [45]

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

    1982 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., et al.\ 2009, , 507, L33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913422

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    Fanaroff, B. L. & Riley, J. M.\ 1974, , 167, 31P. doi:10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    1974 doi

  40. [48]

    & Meliani, Z.\ 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei, 341

    Keppens, R. & Meliani, Z.\ 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei, 341. doi:10.1002/9783527641741.ch11

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    Chandrasekhar, S.\ 1961, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford: Clarendon, 1961

    1961

  42. [50]

    Allen, A. J. & Hughes, P. A.\ 1984, , 208, 609. doi:10.1093/mnras/208.3.609

    1984 doi

  43. [51]

    & Carswell, B.\ 2007, Principles of Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, by Cathie Clarke, Bob Carswell, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007

    Clarke, C. & Carswell, B.\ 2007, Principles of Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, by Cathie Clarke, Bob Carswell, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    L., Nishikawa, K.-I., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 38

    Mizuno, Y., G \'o mez, J. L., Nishikawa, K.-I., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 38. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/38

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    & Bromberg, O.\ 2023, , 520, 3009

    Abolmasov, P. & Bromberg, O.\ 2023, , 520, 3009. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad138

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    & Masada, Y.\ 2019, , 490, 4271

    Matsumoto, J. & Masada, Y.\ 2019, , 490, 4271. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2821

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Komissarov, S. S.\ 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 167. doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0338-3

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    & Masada, Y.\ 2013, , 772, L1

    Matsumoto, J. & Masada, Y.\ 2013, , 772, L1. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L1

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1288

    Millas, D., Keppens, R., & Meliani, Z.\ 2017, , 470, 592. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1288

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    S., & Gourgouliatos, K

    Matsumoto, J., Komissarov, S. S., & Gourgouliatos, K. N.\ 2021, , 503, 4918. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab828

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al.\ 2007, , 170, 228. doi:10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Perucho, M.\ 2017, , 472, 1421

    Matsumoto, J., Aloy, M. A., & Perucho, M.\ 2017, , 472, 1421. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2012

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    & Keppens, R.\ 2009, , 705, 1594

    Meliani, Z. & Keppens, R.\ 2009, , 705, 1594. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1594

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Raiteri, C. M., et al.\ 2022, , 609, 265. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    E., & Nishikawa, K.-I.\ 2014, , 784, 167

    Mizuno, Y., Hardee, P. E., & Nishikawa, K.-I.\ 2014, , 784, 167. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/167

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    C., & Obergaulinger, M.\ 2008, , 492, 621

    Moll, R., Spruit, H. C., & Obergaulinger, M.\ 2008, , 492, 621. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810523

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.08767

    Costa, A., Bodo, G., Tavecchio, F., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2312.08767. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.08767

    2023 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    doi:10.1063/1.3635832

    Ghisellini, G.\ 2011, 25th Texas Symposium on Relativistic AstroPhysics (Texas 2010), 1381, 180. doi:10.1063/1.3635832

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    B., Mizuno, Y., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E

    Singh, C. B., Mizuno, Y., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M.\ 2016, , 824, 48. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/48

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/684

    Mizuno, Y., Lyubarsky, Y., Nishikawa, K.-I., et al.\ 2009, , 700, 684. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/684

    2009 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/16

    Mizuno, Y., Lyubarsky, Y., Nishikawa, K.-I., et al.\ 2012, , 757, 16. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/16

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    L., Mart \' , J

    G \'o mez, J. L., Mart \' , J. M., Marscher, A. P., et al.\ 1997, Vistas in Astronomy, 41, 79. doi:10.1016/S0083-6656(96)00066-9

    1997 doi

  63. [71]

    Komissarov, S. S. & Falle, S. A. E. G.\ 1997, , 288, 833. doi:10.1093/mnras/288.4.833

    1997 doi

  64. [72]

    doi:10.1086/319158

    Agudo, I., G \'o mez, J.-L., Mart \' , J.-M., et al.\ 2001, , 549, L183. doi:10.1086/319158

    2001 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al.\ 2005, , 130, 1418. doi:10.1086/444593

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al.\ 2013, , 146, 120. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/120

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    H., Meier, D

    Cohen, M. H., Meier, D. L., Arshakian, T. G., et al.\ 2014, , 787, 151. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/151

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    L., Lobanov, A

    G \'o mez, J. L., Lobanov, A. P., Bruni, G., et al.\ 2016, , 817, 96. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/96

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218794

    Giroletti, M., Hada, K., Giovannini, G., et al.\ 2012, , 538, L10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218794

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Harris, D

    Cheung, C. C., Harris, D. E., & Stawarz, .\ 2007, , 663, L65. doi:10.1086/520510

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    & Bromberg, O.\ 2016, , 461, L46

    Tchekhovskoy, A. & Bromberg, O.\ 2016, , 461, L46. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw064

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    H., Meier, D

    Cohen, M. H., Meier, D. L., Arshakian, T. G., et al.\ 2015, , 803, 3. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/3

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Komissarov, S. S.\ 2018, , 475, L125. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly016

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Ros, E., Perucho, M., et al.\ 2013, , 551, A32

    Fromm, C. M., Ros, E., Perucho, M., et al.\ 2013, , 551, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219913

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  76. [84]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  77. [85]

    e-prints

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

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