Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Generally relativistic description of fast magnetic reconnection induced by thermal electromotive force

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fast magnetic reconnection in a small current sheet near a black hole keeps the flat-spacetime rate, while a moving observer sees it strongly suppressed.

desk verdict Worth a referee's time: the SR and observer-frame analysis is clean and new, but the central claim that curvature never matters locally rests on a derivative-substitution choice the author himself concedes is contested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04019 v1 pith:BZBYD3JK submitted 2024-12-25 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Ye Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords FastmagneticreconnectionGeneralrelativityGeneralizedmagnetohydrodynamicsPairplasmaThermalelectromotiveforceThermal-inertialparameterKerrblackholerate
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 asks whether strong gravity changes the rate of fast magnetic reconnection driven by thermal electromotive force in a pair plasma near a black hole. It argues that for a small, local Sweet-Parker current sheet, with width $\delta$ and length $L$ both much smaller than the gravitational radius $r_g$, the reconnection rate is the same as in flat spacetime and curvature corrections are infinitesimal. If true, models of black-hole flares and energy extraction can keep using flat-space reconnection rates so long as the detection is made in the plasma's rest frame. The paper also finds that a detector moving relative to the laboratory sees the rate suppressed by powers of the relative Lorentz factor, a non-infinitesimal effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the derivative substitution rule of Eqs. (3.10)--(3.11): gradients in the Sweet-Parker equations are replaced by Lie derivatives along the unit tetrad directions $k^\mu$, $\chi^\mu$, $\tau^\mu$, and then by finite differences over the length $L$ and width $\delta$ of the current sheet. This choice makes metric components at nearby points cancel in the factor $D$, so curvature corrections collapse to terms of order $L/r_g$. The companion object is the thermal-inertial parameter $\Lambda \simeq \omega\gamma_{\rm out}v_{\rm out}/(4q^2L)$, which represents the thermal electromotive force as an extra divergence term in the generalized Ohm's law acting like an anomalous resistivity and raising the rate to the fast-reconnection value. The current inertia, which decouples in flat spacetime because the current flows along one axis, enters through the affine connection in general relativity and produces only infinitesimal perturbations.

What would settle it

A direct numerical solution of the full covariant generalized-MHD equations for a small azimuthal current sheet at radius $r$ near a rotating black hole, without imposing Eq. (3.11), would settle the claim: if the measured thermal-inertial parameter $\Lambda$ acquires the factor $r/h_\phi$ of Eq. (4.11) rather than remaining $\omega\gamma_{\rm out}v_{\rm out}/(4q^2L)$, the local-invariance conclusion fails. Equivalently, recomputing the reconnection rate with coordinate partial derivatives instead of Lie derivatives restores finite curvature corrections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author's central claim is that the properties of magnetic reconnection would never be modified significantly by gravitational effects when the process occurs on a local scale, while modifications cannot be neglected when the reconnection is detected by an observer moving relative to the laboratory. For the pair-plasma fast reconnection model in a zero-angular-momentum observer (ZAMO) frame with an azimuthal current sheet, the dimensionless rate is $R \simeq D^{3/4}\omega^{1/2}/(2qL)$ with $D \simeq 1$ when $\delta \ll L \ll r_g$, so the rate returns to the special-relativistic value. The thermal-inertial parameter $\Lambda \simeq \omega\gamma_{\rm out}v_{\rm out}/(4q^2L)$ also keeps its special-relativistic form; a competing substitution rule would instead produce a factor $r/h_\phi$ in $\Lambda$, which is the curvature correction reported in earlier works. For moving observers, the apparent rate is multiplied by $\gamma_s^{-3}$ in the low-magnetization limit and $\gamma_s^{-5/2}$ in the high-magnetization limit, together with orientation-dependent factors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that physical gradients in a small current sheet should be replaced by Lie derivatives along local tetrad directions and then by finite differences over $L$ and $\delta$; if the competing choice using coordinate partial derivatives such as $(1/r)\partial_\phi$ is correct, the curvature corrections do not vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Local reconnection near a black hole can be modeled with flat-space formulas; curvature corrections are of order $L/r_g$ and vanish as the current sheet shrinks.
  • Observations from a boosted frame suppress the inferred reconnection rate by factors ranging from $\gamma_s^{-3}$ to $\gamma_s^{-5/2}$ depending on magnetization, so an apparently slow reconnection event can be a viewing effect rather than a physical suppression.
  • The dispute with earlier curvature-modified reconnection descriptions reduces to a single choice of substitution rule, so testing that rule directly would determine which GR reconnection picture is correct.
  • In the plasma rest frame, the outflow speed remains the local Alfvén speed with a factor $D \simeq 1$, so the generalized-MHD fast model preserves the Sweet-Parker outflow property.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the Lie-derivative substitution is the correct covariant translation of Sweet-Parker finite differences, then any local dissipation process with gradients set by physical scales $L$ and $\delta$ should be curvature-blind to first order, and the same $D \simeq 1$ argument would extend to Petschek-type configurations and to ion-electron plasmas.
  • Beyond the paper: the observer suppression factors predict an orientation-dependent modulation of a single flare, roughly $(1 - \hat{v}_s^2\cos^2\xi_B)^{-1/2}(1 - \hat{v}_s^2\sin^2\xi_B)^{-1/2}$ in the low-magnetization case, which high-cadence black-hole flare observations could in principle test.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct generalized-MHD or kinetic simulation of a small current sheet in a rotating black hole spacetime, without imposing any substitution rule, could measure $\Lambda$ directly and decide between the two competing derivative prescriptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the author's prior special-relativistic treatment of the Sweet-Parker model to the fast reconnection model of Comisso and Asenjo for pair plasmas under generalized magnetohydrodynamics. Section 2 recovers the special-relativistic reconnection rate R ≈ sqrt(1/S + ω sqrt(1+σ0)/(4q^2 L^2)) produced by the thermal-inertial parameter Λ. Section 3 formulates the GR equations using a laboratory tetrad and an observer tetrad, with derivative substitutions written as Lie derivatives along the unit tetrad directions. Section 4 applies the scheme to a Kerr black hole for a ZAMO laboratory with an azimuthal current sheet, concluding that curvature corrections are infinitesimal for local scales, and computes observer-induced suppression factors for two moving-observer configurations. The paper concludes that gravitational effects never significantly modify local reconnection, while relative observer motion does. The manuscript explicitly states in Section 5 that the choice between its substitution rule and the coordinate-derivative rule of Refs. [32-35] cannot be settled subjectively.

Significance. If the central no-curvature result were established, it would directly overturn the curvature-modified reconnection rates in Refs. [32-35] for this model, making GR corrections negligible for local reconnection while preserving the observer corrections. The SR derivation is self-contained, the projection onto laboratory and observer frames is explicit, and the Lorentz-transformation calculations in Section 4.3 are internally consistent and yield falsifiable direction-dependent suppression factors. The main reservation is that the headline conclusion is conditional on the disputed derivative-substitution rule of Eqs. (3.10)-(3.11), and the paper itself concedes that the dispute is unresolved. On the strength of the SR part and observer calculations, the work is a useful contribution if the substitution question can be settled; as it stands, the central claim is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.11); Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11); Section 5] The no-curvature conclusion is decided by the substitution rule, not by the covariant equations. With the author's rule, Λ reduces to its SR form, whereas with the competing coordinate derivative rule of Eq. (4.8), Λ acquires the factor r/h_φ and the curvature corrections of Refs. [32-35] reappear. Section 5 explicitly says 'one cannot affirm whose opinion is correct subjectively.' Because the paper provides no independent justification of Eq. (3.11) from the covariant Ohm's law or momentum conservation, the central claim remains contingent on an unresolved choice of finite-difference prescription. This must be fixed before the 'never modified' conclusion can be accepted.
  2. [Abstract; Section 5] The universal claim that gravitational effects 'never' significantly modify local reconnection is inferred from one configuration: ZAMO laboratory, azimuthal current sheet, equatorial Kerr background. The observer factors in Eq. (4.23) show that orientation angles change the result, so there is no evident mechanism by which one example guarantees universality. The conclusion should be restricted to the analyzed configuration, or additional configurations must be studied to support generalization.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.15)-(4.19); Appendix C] The assertion D ≈ 1, which is essential for the rate formula in Eq. (4.19), is not backed by a quantitative scaling estimate. The terms entering D are ratios of metric functions at i, X, and intermediate points, plus differences such as (ln α|_i - ln α|_X)/h_r^2; these are expected to be small for δ << L << r_g, but near the horizon h_r diverges and the paper does not state the order of the neglected terms. An explicit bound in terms of δ/L and δ/r_g is needed to justify the step from Eq. (4.18) to Eq. (4.19) outside the limiting case of exactly coincident surfaces.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (3.11)] The equation as displayed gives the denominator L on both substitutions; the second should have the width δ to match Eq. (2.5).
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typos: 'thermal electromitive force' and 'dorminant' in Section 2, 'Petchek' in the Introduction, and 'opposite' for 'oppose' in Section 5; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statement that current inertia acts as the 'gravitational mass' of current is conceptually misleading: the Kerr background is fixed, and the current-inertia terms are sources in the momentum equation, not modifications of the spacetime curvature.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.10)] The temporary approximation that neglects first derivatives of g_μν should be labeled more clearly as a consistency check rather than an assumption used in the final derivation; otherwise it appears to assume the smallness that Section 4.2 is trying to demonstrate.
  5. [Section 4.2 and 4.3] The headings 'ZAMOs laboratory' and 'plasma laboratory' should use the possessive consistently, e.g., 'ZAMO laboratory,' throughout the text.
  6. [Equation (4.27)] The expansion is given without stating the small parameter; adding the condition a/r ≪ 1 with θ fixed would make the approximation explicit.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The no-gravitational-modification result is inherited from the author's own Lie-derivative substitution rule rather than derived from the covariant equations.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.11); Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.7), (4.11)]
    "The GR forms of quasi-stationary condition in Eq. (2.2) and the substitutions in Eq. (2.5) should be [36]: Lˆkq ≈ kµ∂µq ∼ 0 ... L ˆχq ≈ χµ∂µq ∼ q|o − q|X / L , Lˆτ q ≈ τµ∂µq ∼ q|i − q|X / L ... In the following calculations we always adopt Eq. (4.6) and Eq. (4.7) unless otherwise specified."

    The null gravitational result is loaded into this discretization: taking physical gradients as Lie derivatives along unit tetrad directions (1/hφ ∂φ, 1/hr ∂r) makes the scale factors cancel, so the thermal-inertial parameter in Eq. (4.10) returns exactly its SR value. The paper itself shows that the competing coordinate substitution of Refs. [32,34], Eq. (4.8), gives Λ ≃ ωγoutvout/(4q^2L) × r/hφ (Eq. 4.11), i.e. the curvature corrections it is trying to argue away. Thus the claim that gravitational modifications are infinitesimal is not a prediction of the generalized-MHD equations; it is equivalent to choosing the author's own finite-difference prescription, which is cited from Ref. [36] rather than proved. Section 5 concedes 'one cannot affirm whose opinion is correct subjectively.'

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.11); Section 5]
    "However, according to the opinion in Ref. [36], no effect of spacetime curvature should exist under the scheme of standard MHD in GR. Situations would be the same under the generalized MHD scheme."

    The central gravitational conclusion is justified by appeal to the author's own prior paper rather than by an independent derivation in this work. The calculation preceding this statement used the Lie-derivative substitution inherited from that same paper; if the alternative coordinate substitution of Refs. [32-35] is used, the curvature factor r/hφ survives and the conclusion reverses. The null result therefore rests on a self-citation chain (Ref. [36] -> this paper), and the manuscript itself leaves the dispute unresolved in Section 5. This is load-bearing because the headline claim 'never modified by gravitational effect significantly' depends entirely on it.

full rationale

This manuscript is not a fitting exercise: the SR fast-reconnection model and the observer transformations in Secs. 2 and 4.3 are computed from stated definitions and would stand independently. The circularity is concentrated in the gravitational null result. Section 3.1 introduces the finite-difference substitution (3.10)-(3.11) as 'should be [36]' — the author's own prior work — and Sec. 4.2 adopts it in Eq. (4.7). Under this prescription the thermal-inertial parameter reduces to its SR form (4.10), so the curvature-dependent factor r/hφ never appears. The paper itself shows in Eq. (4.11) that using the coordinate derivatives of Refs. [32,34] would leave that factor and produce curvature corrections. The headline claim that gravitational effects are never significant is therefore not a consequence of the generalized-MHD equations alone; it is built into the choice of Lie-derivative discretization, and that choice is justified by self-citation rather than by a derivation. Section 5 explicitly concedes 'one cannot affirm whose opinion is correct subjectively.' The observer-modification factors, by contrast, are independent calculations and are not circular. Overall, one central 'prediction' reduces by construction to a contested ansatz inherited from Ref. [36], so the analysis is partially circular rather than wholly independent.

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

No numbers are fitted to data, so free_parameters is empty. The axioms are mostly inherited from Koide's generalized MHD and from the author's previous GR treatment; the strongest ad hoc input is the Lie-derivative substitution rule, which is the crux of the disagreement with earlier papers.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Generalized MHD equations of Koide (Ref. [20]) are the correct two-fluid description of pair plasma in curved spacetime.
    Adopted in Section 3.1, Eq. (3.1), without re-derivation; all subsequent equations follow from this framework.
  • domain assumption Local scale ordering δ << L << r_g with spatially uniform ρ, ω, η, q.
    Stated in Section 3.1; lets the paper neglect metric derivatives and identify corrections as infinitesimal.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-stationarity and finite-difference substitutions are Lie derivatives along unit tetrad vectors, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.11).
    This is the load-bearing and contested modeling choice; it removes curvature corrections by construction. See Section 3.1 and the dispute with Refs. [32-35] described in Sections 4.2 and 5.
  • domain assumption Sweet-Parker configuration with strictly vanishing magnetic field inside the sheet and strictly vanishing current outside it.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 4; the author acknowledges in Section 5 that this is an idealization.
  • domain assumption Pair plasma with m+ ≈ m-, p+ ≈ p-, no thermal exchange, and neutral plasma J^α u_α = 0.
    Assumed in Section 2 after Eq. (2.2) and in Section 3.1; it selects the generalized MHD terms that survive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generally relativistic description of fast magnetic reconnection induced by thermal electromotive force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZBYD3JK

@misc{pith2026250104019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generally relativistic description of fast magnetic reconnection induced by thermal electromotive force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZBYD3JK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04019}
}
read the original abstract

Many theoretical models were come up with to figure out the properties of magnetic reconnection process, among which the Sweet-Parker model is the most famous since it describes the magnetic reconnection in a concise way. However, the low reconnection rate expected by this model is generally not available in most astrophysical systems, which motivates people to seek fast reconnection models. Under the scheme of generalized magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) for pair plasma, a fast magnetic reconnection model was established, in which the thermal electromotive force plays a key role to remarkably increase the reconnection rate. In this work, I would like to extend the discussions in my previous work, about the generally relativistic description of Sweet-Parker model, to the description of fast magnetic reconnection induced by thermal electromotive force. I will revisit the fast reconnection model briefly to initialize my discussions and show how the thermal electromotive force impacts the reconnection rate. Next, some basic setups will be exhibited before discussing specific examples about how the properties of fast magnetic reconnection are modified by gravitational effect or in observations. Results in this work consolidate my opinion reiterated in my previous work that properties of magnetic reconnection would never be modified by gravitational effect significantly if the magnetic reconnection process occurs in a local scale while the modifications of properties could not be neglected when the process is detected by an observer who is moving with respect to the laboratory, in the rest frame of which the magnetic reconnection occurs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig. 1 in Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    How to describe the Sweet-Parker model in general relativity

    Y. Shen, “How to describe the Sweet-Parker model in general relativity,” arXiv:2409.16596 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    The Solar-Flare Phenomenon and the Theory of Reconnection and Annihiliation of Magnetic Fields.,

    E. N. Parker, “The Solar-Flare Phenomenon and the Theory of Reconnection and Annihiliation of Magnetic Fields.,” Astrophys. J. 8 (July, 1963) 177. 24

    work page 1963

  3. [2]

    Quasi-Periodic Pulsations in Solar and Stellar Flares: A Review of Underpinning Physical Mechanisms and Their Predicted Observational Signatures,

    I. V. Zimovets, J. A. McLaughlin, A. K. Srivastava, D. Y. Kolotkov, A. A. Kuznetsov, E. G. Kupriyanova, I. H. Cho, A. R. Inglis, F. Reale, D. J. Pascoe, H. Tian, D. Yuan, D. Li, and Q. M. Zhang, “Quasi-Periodic Pulsations in Solar and Stellar Flares: A Review of Underpinning Physical Mechanisms and Their Predicted Observational Signatures,” Space Science ...

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    The Neutral Point Theory of Solar Flares,

    P. A. Sweet, “The Neutral Point Theory of Solar Flares,” in Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, B. Lehnert, ed., vol. 6, p. 123. Jan., 1958

    work page 1958

  5. [4]

    Sweet’s Mechanism for Merging Magnetic Fields in Conducting Fluids,

    E. N. Parker, “Sweet’s Mechanism for Merging Magnetic Fields in Conducting Fluids,” Journal of Geophysical Research 62 no. 4, (Dec., 1957) 509–520

    work page 1957

  6. [5]

    On the relativistic magnetic reconnection,

    Y. E. Lyubarsky, “On the relativistic magnetic reconnection,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 358 (2005) 113–119, arXiv:astro-ph/0501392

    arXiv 2005

  7. [6]

    Pitch-Angle Anisotropy Imprinted by Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection

    L. Comisso and B. Jiang, “Pitch-angle Anisotropy Imprinted by Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection,” Astrophys. J. 959 no. 2, (2023) 137, arXiv:2310.17560 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Relativistic Reconnection: an Efficient Source of Non-Thermal Particles,

    L. Sironi and A. Spitkovsky, “Relativistic Reconnection: an Efficient Source of Non-Thermal Particles,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 783 (2014) L21, arXiv:1401.5471 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Magnetic reconnection in astrophysical and laboratory plasmas,

    E. Zweibel and M. Yamada, “Magnetic reconnection in astrophysical and laboratory plasmas,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics - ANNU REV ASTRON ASTROPHYS 47 (09,

  2. [9]

    The Reconnection Rate of Magnetic Fields,

    E. N. Parker, “The Reconnection Rate of Magnetic Fields,” Astrophysical Journal 180 (Feb., 1973) 247–252

    1973

  3. [10]

    Magnetic Field Annihilation,

    H. E. Petschek, “Magnetic Field Annihilation,” in NASA Special Publication, vol. 50, p. 425. 1964

    1964

  4. [11]

    Magnetic reconnection via current sheets,

    D. Biskamp, “Magnetic reconnection via current sheets,” Physics of Fluids 29 no. 5, (May, 1986) 1520–1531

    1986

  5. [12]

    Externally driven magnetic reconnection and a powerful magnetic energy converter,

    T. Sato and T. Hayashi, “Externally driven magnetic reconnection and a powerful magnetic energy converter,” Physics of Fluids 22 no. 6, (June, 1979) 1189–1202

    1979

  6. [13]

    The Hall fields and fast magnetic reconnection,

    J. F. Drake, M. A. Shay, and M. Swisdak, “The Hall fields and fast magnetic reconnection,” Physics of Plasmas 15 no. 4, (Apr., 2008) 042306

    2008

  7. [14]

    Experimental study of two-fluid effects on magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma with variable collisionality,

    M. Yamada, Y. Ren, H. Ji, J. Breslau, S. Gerhardt, R. Kulsrud, and A. Kuritsyn, “Experimental study of two-fluid effects on magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma with variable collisionality,” Physics of Plasmas 13 no. 5, (May, 2006) 052119

    2006

  8. [15]

    Collisionless Reconnection in an Electron-Positron Plasma,

    N. Bessho and A. Bhattacharjee, “Collisionless Reconnection in an Electron-Positron Plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 245001. 25

    2005

  9. [16]

    Development of a Turbulent Outflow During Electron-Positron Magnetic Reconnection,

    M. Swisdak, Y. H. Liu, and J. F. Drake, “Development of a Turbulent Outflow During Electron-Positron Magnetic Reconnection,” Astrophys. J. 680 (2008) 999, arXiv:0803.3415 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Fast magnetic reconnection with large guide fields,

    A. Stanier, A. N. Simakov, L. Chac´ on, and W. Daughton, “Fast magnetic reconnection with large guide fields,” Physics of Plasmas 22 no. 1, (Jan., 2015) 010701, arXiv:1505.03794 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Why does steady-state magnetic reconnection have a maximum local rate of order 0.1?,

    Y.-H. Liu, M. Hesse, F. Guo, W. Daughton, H. Li, P. A. Cassak, and M. A. Shay, “Why does steady-state magnetic reconnection have a maximum local rate of order 0.1?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 8, (2017) 085101, arXiv:1611.07859 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Thermal-inertial effects on magnetic reconnection in relativistic pair plasmas,

    L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo, “Thermal-inertial effects on magnetic reconnection in relativistic pair plasmas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 045001, arXiv:1402.1115 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Generalized Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Equations for Pair and Electron-Ion Plasmas,

    S. Koide, “Generalized Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Equations for Pair and Electron-Ion Plasmas,” Astrophys. J. 696 (2009) 2220–2233, arXiv:0902.4292 [astro-ph.HE]. [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 701, 2033 (2009)]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Generalized General Relativistic MHD Equations and Distinctive Plasma Dynamics around Rotating Black Holes,

    S. Koide, “Generalized General Relativistic MHD Equations and Distinctive Plasma Dynamics around Rotating Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 708 (2010) 1459–1474, arXiv:0912.4930 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Millimeter observational signatures of flares in magnetically arrested black hole accretion models,

    H. Jia, B. Ripperda, E. Quataert, C. J. White, K. Chatterjee, A. Philippov, and M. Liska, “Millimeter observational signatures of flares in magnetically arrested black hole accretion models,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526 no. 2, (2023) 2924–2941, arXiv:2301.09014 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Synchrotron Polarization Signatures of Surface Waves in Supermassive Black Hole Jets,

    J. Davelaar, B. Ripperda, L. Sironi, A. A. Philippov, H. Olivares, O. Porth, B. v. d. Berg, T. Bronzwaer, K. Chatterjee, and M. Liska, “Synchrotron Polarization Signatures of Surface Waves in Supermassive Black Hole Jets,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 959 no. 1, (2023) L3, arXiv:2309.0...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Magnetic reconnection plasmoid model for Sagittarius A* flares,

    N. Aimar, A. Dmytriiev, F. H. Vincent, I. E. Mellah, T. Paumard, G. Perrin, and A. Zech, “Magnetic reconnection plasmoid model for Sagittarius A* flares,” Astron. Astrophys. 672 (2023) A62, arXiv:2301.11874 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Magnetic Reconnection and Hot Spot Formation in Black Hole Accretion Disks,

    B. Ripperda, F. Bacchini, and A. Philippov, “Magnetic Reconnection and Hot Spot Formation in Black Hole Accretion Disks,” Astrophys. J. 900 no. 2, (2020) 100, arXiv:2003.04330 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Modeling the inner part of the jet in M87: Confronting jet morphology with theory,

    H. Yang, F. Yuan, H. Li, Y. Mizuno, F. Guo, R. Lu, L. C. Ho, X. Lin, A. A. Zdziarski, and J. Wang, “Modeling the inner part of the jet in M87: Confronting jet morphology with theory,” Sci. Adv. 10 no. 12, (2024) adn3544, arXiv:2403.15950 [astro-ph.HE]. 26

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Revisiting flares in Sagittarius A* based on general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic numerical simulations of black hole accretion,

    L. Xi and Y. Feng, “Revisiting flares in Sagittarius A* based on general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic numerical simulations of black hole accretion,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531 no. 3, (2024) 3136–3150, arXiv:2405.17408 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Energy Extraction from a Rotating Black Hole by Magnetic Reconnection in Ergosphere,

    S. Koide and K. Arai, “Energy Extraction from a Rotating Black Hole by Magnetic Reconnection in Ergosphere,” Astrophys. J. 682 (2008) 1124, arXiv:0805.0044 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Magnetic Reconnection as a Mechanism for Energy Extraction from Rotating Black Holes,

    L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo, “Magnetic Reconnection as a Mechanism for Energy Extraction from Rotating Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 2, (2021) 023014, arXiv:2012.00879 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Energy extraction from a Kerr black hole via magnetic reconnection within the plunging region,

    B. Chen, Y. Hou, J. Li, and Y. Shen, “Energy extraction from a Kerr black hole via magnetic reconnection within the plunging region,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 6, (2024) 063003, arXiv:2405.11488 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Energy extraction from a rotating black hole via magnetic reconnection: the plunging bulk plasma and orientation angle,

    Y. Shen, H.-Y. YuChih, and B. Chen, “Energy extraction from a rotating black hole via magnetic reconnection: the plunging bulk plasma and orientation angle,” arXiv:2409.07345 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection in Kerr Spacetime,

    F. A. Asenjo and L. Comisso, “Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection in Kerr Spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 5, (2017) 055101, arXiv:1701.03669 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Fast magnetic reconnection in Kerr spacetime,

    Z.-Y. Fan, Y. Li, F. Zhou, and M. Guo, “Fast magnetic reconnection in Kerr spacetime,” arXiv:2409.05434 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection in Curved Spacetime and the Effect of Black Hole Rotation,

    L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo, “Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection in Curved Spacetime and the Effect of Black Hole Rotation,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 4, (2018) 043007, arXiv:1801.06174 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Magnetic reconnection under centrifugal and gravitational electromotive forces,

    Z.-Y. Fan, F. Zhou, Y. Li, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Magnetic reconnection under centrifugal and gravitational electromotive forces,” arXiv:2411.19491 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Birn and E

    J. Birn and E. R. Priest, Reconnection of Magnetic Fields: Magnetohydrodynamics and Collisionless Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Images and photon ring signatures of thick disks around black holes,

    F. H. Vincent, S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, and M. Wielgus, “Images and photon ring signatures of thick disks around black holes,” Astron. Astrophys. 667 (2022) A170, arXiv:2206.12066 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A new analytical model of magnetofluids surrounding rotating black holes,

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “A new analytical model of magnetofluids surrounding rotating black holes,” JCAP 02 (2024) 030, arXiv:2309.13304 [gr-qc]. 27

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Imaging thick accretion disks and jets surrounding black holes,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Imaging thick accretion disks and jets surrounding black holes,” JCAP 05 (2024) 032, arXiv:2401.14794 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Black-hole electrodynamics - an absolute-space/universal-time formulation,

    D. MacDonald and K. S. Thorne, “Black-hole electrodynamics - an absolute-space/universal-time formulation,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 198 (1982) 345–383. 28

    1982

Pith tools

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