Analytical ray-tracing of synchrotron emission around accreting black holes

Alexandra Veledina; Matthieu P\'elissier

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Analytical ray-tracing of synchrotron emission around accreting black holes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives closed-form formulas for the observed synchrotron polarization angle around a non-spinning black hole, as the sum of three independent rotations, valid for matter at any height and with any in-plane velocity direction.

desk verdict Useful extension of the artpol ray-tracing formalism to synchrotron emission, but the main-text SR rotation formula conflicts with the appendix derivation and must be fixed before the new elevated/non-circular results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08359 v1 pith:D25A5QYY submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.HE

Alexandra Veledina , Matthieu Pélissier This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords synchrotronpolarizationanalyticalraytracingSchwarzschildblackholeanglerotationaccretiondiskthicknessSgrA*M87*Stokesparameters

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 aims to make polarimetric ray-tracing around a non-spinning black hole a matter of arithmetic rather than geodesic integration. It derives explicit formulas for the total rotation of the synchrotron polarization plane along the photon path, written as the sum of three separately computed rotations: one from the magnetic-field orientation, one from gravitational light bending, and one from the relativistic aberration caused by the matter's motion. The formulas cover matter elevated above or below the disk plane and matter with a non-circular velocity component, both left out of earlier analytical treatments. If the derivation is correct, the two observed linear-polarization components (Stokes Q and U) of optically thin synchrotron sources can be obtained from local emission by multiplying by a rotation matrix, which makes time-resolved flare modeling and image generation fast enough for systematic parameter searches.

What carries the argument

The working object is a chain of changes of reference axes for the photon's electric-field vector: from the emission frame tied to the magnetic field, to the disk normal, to the local fluid frame, and finally to the observer, with each step contributing $\chi_B$, $\chi_{\rm SR}$, and $\chi_{\rm GR}$. The chain is closed by the paper's approximate light-bending relation (Eq. 18), which connects the emission angle $\alpha$ to the observer's viewing angle $\psi$ and supplies the lensing factor $L$ (a magnification factor from light bending), so no null geodesics are integrated. The three tangent identities (Eqs. 39, 41, 45) are the load-bearing formulas: they express aberration, light bending, and magnetic-field orientation in terms of the same set of angles ($\psi$, $\alpha$, $i$, $\eta$, $\sigma$, $\varphi$), and the rotation matrix built from their sum converts local intensity, polarization degree, and polarization angle into observed Stokes parameters.

What would settle it

A direct numerical test would solve the Schwarzschild null geodesic and parallel-transport the electric-field vector for a point source at radius $r=3$ with elevation $\eta=20^\circ$, velocity direction $\sigma=120^\circ$, and a vertical magnetic field, then compare the two Stokes components over one full orbit with the closed-form expressions. A disagreement larger than the stated accuracy of the light-bending approximation would mark the radius and elevation range where the formulas stop being quantitative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that around a Schwarzschild black hole the observed polarization angle of synchrotron emission is $\chi = \chi_0 + \chi_B + \chi_{\rm GR} + \chi_{\rm SR}$, with $\chi_0 = 90^\circ$ set by the synchrotron mechanism, and with the three rotation terms given by closed trigonometric formulas (Eqs. 45, 41, and 39). The paper adapts the artpol technique (analytical ray tracing for spectro-polarimetry) to synchrotron radiation, parameterizing the matter by its elevation angle $\eta$ above the disk plane, the direction $\sigma$ of its in-plane velocity, the observer's inclination $i$, and the local magnetic-field components. Each term reduces to a function of these parameters, so the whole transformation from the local Stokes vector to the observer is a rotation matrix with no numerical geodesics. Because linear-polarization degree is unchanged by the transformation, only the orientation of the polarization plane needs to be traced. The formulas reduce to the known equatorial, circular-orbit results as special cases, and they quantify how disk thickness and accretion velocity direction change the rotation, with differences up to about 30 degrees for matter at radii $r \lesssim 10$ and elevations of $\pm 20^\circ$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the paper's approximate formula connecting the photon's emission angle to the observer's viewing angle stays accurate to within a few degrees for trajectories that start above or below the disk plane and on the far side of the black hole; the paper quotes accuracy only for the equatorial, spinning-hole cases and does not supply a numerical error budget for the new geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any optically thin synchrotron source around a non-spinning black hole can have its observed linear-polarization components computed by closed-form multiplication and rotation, so full images and light curves no longer require per-pixel numerical ray tracing.
Disk thickness is not a small correction: for radii within about 10 Schwarzschild radii, raising matter by 20 degrees changes the polarization-angle rotation by amounts comparable to the total rotation (up to about 30 degrees, with local excursions near 90 degrees), so razor-thin disk models mispredict the polarimetry of thick flows.
Changing the direction of matter motion shifts the zero-polarization critical point and can switch the polarization-angle behavior from one loop to two loops per orbit, which makes radial inflow degenerate with inclination in certain parameter ranges.
The zero-polarization critical point exists only for vertical magnetic fields and a limited range of observer inclinations (roughly 140 to 165 degrees for the Sgr A* geometry), so detecting a one-loop polarimetric flare simultaneously constrains the spot radius, viewing angle, and field topology.
Geometrically thick disk models produce ring-like images with a squashed shadow and spatially structured depolarization, giving analytic templates for horizon-scale interferometric images of M87* and Sgr A*.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the closed-form rotation angles make it feasible to fit observed flare loops and images with gradient-based optimization, since derivatives of the Stokes components with respect to radius, inclination, elevation, and velocity direction can be evaluated from the same formulas.
The paper states that the general expressions carry over to the Kerr metric, but the light-bending approximation it uses does not include the frame-dragging twist of photon trajectories; a practical spinning-black-hole version would need an additional spin-dependent term or a restriction to regions where the approximation error stays below observational precision.
Treating each layer of a thick disk as a Faraday screen along the line of sight, which the paper mentions as a possibility, would convert these intensity maps into wavelength-dependent polarization-rotation predictions that multi-frequency observations can test.
Because the net polarization of a thin ring depends strongly on inclination, crossing zero at face-on viewing and growing toward edge-on, the same formulas could track Lense-Thirring precession of an inner disk by mapping each precession phase to a point in the observed polarization plane.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi — quick take on 2412.08359.

The paper is a useful extension of the artpol analytical ray-tracing formalism to synchrotron emission, adding non-zero disk thickness (η≠0) and non-circular velocity (σ≠90°). The vector-algebra setup in Appendix A is clean, the limiting-case checks back to Loktev et al. are sensible, and the applications to EHT/GRAVITY polarimetry are timely. For that, it deserves a real referee.

But there is a serious internal inconsistency in the central SR rotation formula. Eq. (39) claims tan χ_SR = −β cos α cos ζ / (sin^2 ζ − β cos ξ). The appendix derivation, Eq. (A.8), gives tan χ_SR = −β (k0·(u×n))(k0·n) / (1 − (k0·n)^2 − β k0·u). With your definitions, k0·(u×n) is exactly tilde{b} from Eq. (26), not cos α. These two agree only for the previously treated case η=0, σ=90°, because then u×n = r. For radial infall, or any elevated emitter, they differ. So the main-text equation does not follow from the paper’s own derivation. That is a load-bearing problem: either the figures were computed with Eq. (39) and the new results are wrong, or they were computed with Eq. (A.8) and the text needs a correction.

There is also the secondary issue the reader flagged: the Poutanen bending approximation is imported without a numerical error budget for the new elevated geometries. That is worth asking for, but the internal inconsistency is the sharper problem.

The paper is for people modeling polarized images and flares of Sgr A* and M87*. With the chi_SR issue fixed, the formalism would be a solid convenience tool. As it stands, I would not use Eq. (39) in my own work until the authors clarify which expression they actually used. I would still send it to peer review, with a request to reconcile the text with Appendix A and to add a numerical cross-check against exact geodesic integration for a few elevated, non-circular cases.

Net: worth refereeing, but only after the authors resolve the Eq. (39)/(A.8) discrepancy.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the analytical ray-tracing formalism artpol to synchrotron emission from matter at arbitrary elevation η above the equatorial plane and with non-circular velocity direction σ, in Schwarzschild spacetime. The central result is a decomposition of the total polarization-angle rotation into three additive contributions, χ_tot = χ_B + χ_GR + χ_SR, with explicit closed-form expressions given in main-text Eqs. (39), (41), and (45). The authors demonstrate limiting-case reductions to previous equatorial/circular results, present contour maps of the rotation angles, and apply the formalism to hot-spot polarimetric loops, disk-ring polarization, and images of a geometrically thick disk.

Significance. If correct, the formalism provides a very fast alternative to numerical ray tracing for computing Stokes images and time-dependent polarimetric signatures of Schwarzschild black hole accretion flows, filling a real gap: previous analytical models were limited to equatorial, circular motion. The vector-algebra framework in Appendix A is coherent, and the checks that the η=0, σ=90° limit reproduces Loktev et al. (2022) and that a vertical field yields constant PA are valuable sanity checks. The clear separation of GR, SR, and magnetic-field contributions is pedagogically useful. However, the significance is conditional on the correctness of the explicit main-text coordinate expressions, and I find that two of them (Eqs. 39 and 45) are inconsistent with the paper's own vector derivations in Appendix A.

major comments (4)

[§2.3, Eq. (39) and Appendix A, Eq. (A.8)] Equation (39) does not follow from the general vector expression for χ_SR. Equation (A.8) contains in the numerator the factor k̂0·(û×n̂), which the authors themselves define as b̃ in Eq. (26). The main text instead uses cosα = k̂0·r̂. These two quantities are equal only for η = 0 and σ = 90°, because then û×n̂ = r̂. For the new regimes the paper claims to cover, e.g. η ≠ 0 or σ = 180°, b̃ and cosα differ; for σ = 180° at η = 0, b̃ = − sinα sin i sinφ / sinψ while cosα is positive. The correct specialization of Eq. (A.8) is tanχ_SR = −β b̃ cosζ / (sin²ζ − β cosξ). Because Eq. (39) is presented as the explicit expression for χ_SR and is used in the statements about the new effects, this is a load-bearing error that must be corrected and the affected calculations re-examined.
[§2.3, Eq. (45)] Equation (45) appears to be the equatorial circular formula of Loktev et al. (2022) with cosα replaced by b̃, but that substitution is not sufficient for the general case and the expression is inconsistent with Eq. (A.6) even in a simple flat-space limit. Evaluating Eq. (A.6) for i = 30°, φ = 0°, η = 0, σ = 90°, β = 0.1, radial field (ϕ′ = 90°), gives tanχ_B ≈ +0.233, while Eq. (45) gives tanχ_B ≈ −0.173; the magnitudes disagree by about 30%. The direct geometric calculation of the angle between the bases B(k̂′₀, B̂′) and B(k̂′₀, n̂) confirms the vector-form result. The denominator and numerator of Eq. (45) are missing factors of δ and cosζ that appear in the derivation from Eq. (A.6). The correct coordinate expression must be re-derived from Eq. (A.6), and its reduction to the known η = 0, σ = 90° case must be verified.
[§3, Figs. 2, 5–7] The paper lacks a numerical cross-check of the new terms (η ≠ 0, σ ≠ 90°) against exact geodesic integration. The only validations are limiting-case reductions and the reproduction of previous results for η = 0, σ = 90°. Given that the authors report PA differences of up to 30–90° for elevated matter and that the Poutanen (2020) bending formula was calibrated mainly for equatorial trajectories, an error budget for elevated and far-side photon paths is essential. The reader cannot assess whether the quoted accuracy (few degrees) survives for emission from above the plane or from the far side of the black hole. A comparison with a public numerical ray-tracing code for a set of representative (η, σ, i, r) points would resolve this concern.
[§2.3, Eq. (41)] The same pattern of concern applies to Eq. (41) for χ_GR: the text says the expression is derived in Appendix A, but the reduction from the vector expression Eq. (A.10) is only demonstrated for η = 0. In light of the defects found in Eqs. (39) and (45), the derivation of Eq. (41) should be re-checked term-by-term against Eq. (A.10), and a numerical spot-check should be provided for η ≠ 0.

minor comments (4)

[§2.2, after Eq. (35)] There is a stray text 'Loktev2024' on its own line that appears to be a leftover citation fragment; it should be removed or properly formatted.
[§2.3, Eq. (45)] The typesetting of Eq. (45) is ambiguous: the denominator contains an unmatched parenthesis and the fraction is hard to parse. Please rewrite with clear bracketing or display it in a more standard form.
[Table 1 and Fig. 7 caption] Table 1 lists σ = 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, but the Fig. 7 caption says 'σ = 90° (black), 110° (red dashed), 150° (green dot-dashed), 180° (blue dotted)'. The value 110° vs 120° is inconsistent; please correct.
[§2.1, Eq. (11)] The sentence introducing the Luminet velocity law states that matter at height h moves with Keplerian velocity 'corresponding to its equatorial radius r_e'. This assumption is reasonable but should be justified, since it is an ad-hoc choice for elevated matter; the text later notes this is an assumption, but a brief comment on its physical motivation (e.g., vertical column rotating rigidly at the local Keplerian rate) would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the PA-rotation formulas are analytic consequences of geometry plus an external bending approximation, not fits to the predicted observables.

full rationale

The paper derives chi_tot = chi_B + chi_GR + chi_SR from basis rotations in Appendix A. The underlying light-bending relation Eq. (18) is taken from Poutanen (2020), an external published approximation with stated assumptions, not fitted in this work. The artpol framework and the reduction to the limits of Loktev et al. (2022, 2024) are prior self-citations, but they are external published derivations with explicit assumptions; the new terms are not defined in terms of the target observables (Stokes Q, U or PA rotations) and reduce to the earlier results only as special cases (eta = 0, sigma = 90 deg). No parameter in the paper is fitted to the output PA or PD, and no benchmark is inverted to produce Eqs. (39), (41), or (45). The suspicious discrepancy between main-text Eq. (39), which contains cos alpha, and Appendix Eq. (A.8), whose numerator contains k0 dot (u x n) = tilde b (Eq. 26), is an internal-consistency or correctness issue rather than a circularity, since neither expression is constructed from the predicted observable. The paper's self-citations are supportive context, not load-bearing circular inputs.

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

No parameters are fitted to the target results. Model inputs such as inclination, radius, elevation, velocity direction, magnetic field components, and spectral index are scanned or chosen from observations and do not enter the derivation as adjustable constants. The central derivation uses standard Schwarzschild geodesic planarity and an approximate bending formula from previous literature. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The spacetime is Schwarzschild; the black hole spin is neglected.
Section 2.1 states the motivation from M87* and Sgr A* studies; neglecting spin omits frame dragging, so the expressions do not cover high-spin, high-inclination cases.
standard math Photon trajectories in Schwarzschild spacetime lie in a plane, enabling the additive PA rotation chain B(k'0,B') -> B(k'0,n) -> B(k0,n) -> B(o,n).
Appendix A, Eqs. (A.4) to (A.9); planarity of null geodesics is a standard property of Schwarzschild.
domain assumption The Poutanen (2020) approximate light-bending formula, Eq. (18), is accurate for the radii and angles considered.
Section 2.1 uses this formula to relate alpha and psi; the paper cites prior validation for Kerr limits but does not give a new error budget for elevated emitters.
domain assumption The emitting medium is optically thin to its own synchrotron radiation and has a power-law electron distribution, giving the local Stokes vector in Eq. (29) with PD Ps = (p+1)/(p+7/3).
Section 2.2; the flux calculation integrates volume emission rather than surface emission.
ad hoc to paper The velocity of matter at height h is Keplerian at the projected equatorial radius with Luminet's law, Eq. (11), and there is no vertical velocity component.
Section 2.1, Eqs. (10) and (11); this is a modeling choice rather than a consequence of the metric, and the paper notes it does not consider vertical motion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical ray-tracing of synchrotron emission around accreting black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D25A5QYY

@misc{pith2026241208359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical ray-tracing of synchrotron emission around accreting black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D25A5QYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08359}
}

read the original abstract

Polarimetric images of accreting black holes encode important information about laws of strong gravity and relativistic motions of matter. Recent advancements in instrumentation enabled such studies in two objects: supermassive black holes M87* and Sagittarius A*. Light coming from these sources is produced by synchrotron mechanism whose polarization is directly linked to magnetic field lines, and propagates towards the observer in a curved spacetime. We study the distortions of the gas image by the analytical ray-tracing technique for polarized light artpol, that is adapted for the case of synchrotron emission. We derive analytical expressions for fast conversion of intensity/flux, polarization degree and polarization angle from the local to observer's coordinates. We put emphasis on the non-zero matter elevation above the equatorial plane and non-circular matter motions. Applications of the developed formalism include static polarimetric imaging of the black hole vicinity and dynamic polarimetric signatures of matter close to the compact object.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08359 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Geometry of the accreting matter around the BH. The fluid element is described by the radius vector rˆ and velocity uˆ. Its trajectory is shifted from the mid-plane of the accretion disk by the angle η. The observer is located along the direction of oˆ, making an angle i with the disk normal nˆ. Beloborodov 2002; Poutanen 2020), introduced explicitly below. The wave vector makes an angle ζ with the disk normal cos ζ… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Contours of PA rotation (χ SR + χ GR) for different i = 30◦ , 60◦ and 80◦ and η = 0, ±20◦ in the disk coordinates (r, φ), where r is measured in units of Schwarzschild radii. Azimuth increases in the counterclockwise direction, as shown by the arrow in panel (a). Numbers on the contours correspond to the rotation angle (in degrees). Thick red line without a mark corresponds to ±90◦ rotation. Matter is assumed to hav… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Rotation of polarization angle due to magnetic field orientation, as a function of azimuth (in disk coordinates) for different equatorial radii (measured in units of Schwarzschild radii): re = 3 (black solid), 5 (red dashed), 15 (green dot-dashed) and 50 (blue dotted). The matter is assumed to undergo circular, counter-clockwise rotation (σ = 90◦ ) with velocity following Luminet’s law. Upper panels correspond to pu… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Contours of constant total rotation angle (χ tot) for the case of toroidal magnetic field (σ = 90◦ , ϕ ′ = 0) and the equatorial plane matter movement, in disk coordinates. We note the disappearance of the critical point, as compared to the case of vertical field, as t…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The PA seen by the observer (χ) obtained for the angle η = 20◦ , for different radii, observer inclinations and magnetic fields, as a function of azimuth in the disk. Upper panels show the case of radial field, middle panels correspond to purely toroidal field and lowe…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Difference between the PA obtained for the angle η = 20◦ and η = 0 (χ tot(η = 20◦ ) − χ tot(η = 0)), for different radii, observer inclinations and magnetic fields, as a function of azimuth in the disk coordinates. Upper panels show the case of radial field, middle pan…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Effects of the non-circular motion (σ) on the observed PA (χ tot) for different inclinations (left to right: i = 30◦ , 60◦ and 80◦ ) and magnetic fields (upper panels: radial field, middle panels: toroidal field, lower panels: vertical field), as a function of the azim…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Contours of constant GR and SR rotation angles (χ GR + χ SR), in disk coordinates. Position of the critical point as a function of inclination for rotation caused solely by GR and SR effects (equivalent to B = Bz). The disk rotates counterclockwise (σ = 90◦ ) in the eq…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Flux Stokes parameters FQ and FU obtained using η = 0, for different radii, B and i. Keplerian velocity and σ = 90◦ are assumed (note that for the considered inclinations the observed matter movement is clockwise on the sky). Increasing saturation of color corresponds …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Stokes parameters U and Q for a flying matter towards the observer (ηmax = 45◦ ), in the direction orthogonal to rotation plane, at different launching azimuthal angles: φ0 = 90◦ (upper panels), 180◦ (middle panels) and 270◦ (lower panels). Note different scales in pa…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Stokes parameters of the infinitely compact spots and disk segments. Averaging was made over ∆φ = 45◦ (i.e., quarter of the circle). Upper and lower panels correspond to the absolute and relative Stokes parameters, respectively. Black, red and green lines denote calcu…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Relative Stokes parameters (in fractional units) of the disk ring (in the equatorial plane η = 0 and rotating in the counterclockwise direction σ = 90◦ ) with vertical field B = Bz , as a function of inclination for different ring radii. Zero polarization correspond…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Color-coded image of the thick accretion disk around a black hole. In the upper panel the color refers to the monochromatic intensity, in the lower panel – to PD. The drop of PD close to the critical point can be seen in the upper-left part of the image; otherwise, so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

H., et al

Aimar, N., Dmytriiev, A., Vincent, F. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A62

2023
[2]

2021, Nature, 592, 704

Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704

work page 2021
[3]

K., Bautz, M

Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

2001
[4]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 566, L85

work page 2002
[5]

Blandford, R. D. & Königl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

1979
[6]

K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al

Bogdanov, S., Lamb, F. K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L26

work page 2019
[7]

Broderick, A. E. & Loeb, A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 905

2006
[8]

O., Johnson, M

Chang, D. O., Johnson, M. D., Tiede, P., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2024, ApJ, 974, 143

work page 2024

Show all 46 references

[9]

& Shaham, J

Chen, K. & Shaham, J. 1989, ApJ, 339, 279

1989
[10]

A., Piran, T., & Stark, R

Connors, P. A., Piran, T., & Stark, R. F. 1980, ApJ, 235, 224

1980
[11]

Connors, P. A. & Stark, R. F. 1977, Nature, 269, 128

1977
[12]

& Agol, E

Dexter, J. & Agol, E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1616

2009
[13]

M., Morris, M

Do, T., Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1021

2009
[14]

K., et al

Do, T., Witzel, G., Gautam, A. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, L27

2019
[15]

2009, ApJ, 698, 676 Dovˇciak, M., Muleri, F., Goosmann, R

Dodds-Eden, K., Porquet, D., Trap, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 676 Dovˇciak, M., Muleri, F., Goosmann, R. W., Karas, V ., & Matt, G. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 32

2009
[16]

2006b, A&A, 455, 1 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al

Eckart, A., Schödel, R., Meyer, L., et al. 2006b, A&A, 455, 1 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 964, L25 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 964, L26 Event Horizon Telescope Colla...

2022
[17]

D., & Palumbo, D

Gelles, Z., Himwich, E., Johnson, M. D., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 044060

2021
[18]

2003, Nature, 425, 934

Genzel, R., Schödel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934

2003
[19]

2006, ApJ, 640, L163

Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Quataert, E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, L163

2006
[20]

Ginzburg, V . L. & Syrovatskii, S. I. 1965, ARA&A, 3, 297 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L10 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2020a, A&A, 638, A2 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, ...

1965
[21]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

2021
[22]

2020, A&A, 643, A84

Loktev, V ., Salmi, T., Nättilä, J., & Poutanen, J. 2020, A&A, 643, A84

2020
[23]

2022, A&A, 660, A25

Loktev, V ., Veledina, A., & Poutanen, J. 2022, A&A, 660, A25

2022
[24]

Loktev, V ., Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., Nättilä, J., & Suleimanov, V . F. 2024, A&A, 685, A84

2024
[25]

Luminet, J. P. 1979, A&A, 75, 228

1979
[26]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 2385

Matsumoto, T., Chan, C.-H., & Piran, T. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2385

2020
[27]

Narayan, R., Palumbo, D. C. M., Johnson, M. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 35 Nättilä, J. & Pihajoki, P. 2018, A&A, 615, A50

2021
[28]

R., Ftaclas, C., & Cohen, J

Pechenick, K. R., Ftaclas, C., & Cohen, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 846

1983
[29]

1977, MNRAS, 179, 691

Pineault, S. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 691

1977
[30]

& Roeder, R

Pineault, S. & Roeder, R. C. 1977, ApJ, 212, 541

1977
[31]

2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447

Ponti, G., George, E., Scaringi, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447

2017
[32]

2020, A&A, 640, A24

Poutanen, J. 2020, A&A, 640, A24

2020
[33]

& Beloborodov, A

Poutanen, J. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 836

2006
[34]

& Nixon, C

Raj, A. & Nixon, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 82

2021
[35]

Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (New York: Wiley-Interscience)

1979
[36]

Stark, R. F. & Connors, P. A. 1977, Nature, 266, 429

1977
[37]

F., Poutanen, J., & Werner, K

Suleimanov, V . F., Poutanen, J., & Werner, K. 2020, A&A, 639, A33

2020
[38]

2007, MNRAS, 375, 764

Trippe, S., Paumard, T., Ott, T., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 764

2007
[39]

2013, ApJ, 778, 165

Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., & Ingram, A. 2013, ApJ, 778, 165

2013
[40]

H., Paumard, T., Perrin, G., et al

Vincent, F. H., Paumard, T., Perrin, G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3477

2014
[41]

H., Wielgus, M., Aimar, N., Paumard, T., & Perrin, G

Vincent, F. H., Wielgus, M., Aimar, N., Paumard, T., & Perrin, G. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.10053 V os, J., Mo´scibrodzka, M. A., & Wielgus, M. 2022, A&A, 668, A185

2023 arXiv
[42]

& Penrose, R

Walker, M. & Penrose, R. 1970, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 18, 265

1970
[43]

2024, A&A, 682, A97

Wielgus, M., Issaoun, S., Martí-Vidal, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A97

2024
[44]

2022, A&A, 665, L6

Wielgus, M., Moscibrodzka, M., V os, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L6

2022
[45]

I., Wielgus, M., & Mo ´scibrodzka, M

Yfantis, A. I., Wielgus, M., & Mo ´scibrodzka, M. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07120

2024 arXiv
[46]

O., & Bower, G

Yusef-Zadeh, F., Roberts, D., Wardle, M., Heinke, C. O., & Bower, G. C. 2006, ApJ, 650, 189 Article number, page 18 of 19 Alexandra Veledina and Matthieu Pélissier: artpol for synchrotron emission around accretion BHs Appendix A: Rotation of polarization angle Light bending an...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

H., et al

Aimar, N., Dmytriiev, A., Vincent, F. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A62

2023

[2] [2]

2021, Nature, 592, 704

Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704

work page 2021

[3] [3]

K., Bautz, M

Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

2001

[4] [4]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 566, L85

work page 2002

[5] [5]

Blandford, R. D. & Königl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

1979

[6] [6]

K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al

Bogdanov, S., Lamb, F. K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L26

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Broderick, A. E. & Loeb, A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 905

2006

[8] [8]

O., Johnson, M

Chang, D. O., Johnson, M. D., Tiede, P., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2024, ApJ, 974, 143

work page 2024