Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Non-stop Variability of Sgr A* using JWST at 2.1 and 4.8 micron Wavelengths: Evidence for Distinct Populations of Faint and Bright Variable Emission

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST observations of Sgr A* at 2.1 and 4.8 microns show its near-infrared emission flickers non-stop, with faint and bright variable components that have distinct spectral indices and a 3–40 second lag between the two bands.

desk verdict Solid JWST light curves convincingly show Sgr A* is never quiet in the NIR; the two-population spectral-index split and the 3–40 s lag need stronger statistical and background treatment before carrying the physical claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04096 v1 pith:OM7AGBAD submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

F. Yusef-Zadeh , H. Bushouse , R. G. Arendt , M. Wardle , J. M. Michail , C. J. Chandler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords SgrA*near-infraredvariabilityJWSTNIRCamspectralindexblackholeaccretionflowsynchrotroncoolingGalacticcenterflares
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

The paper argues that Sgr A*'s near-infrared emission never turns off: across seven JWST epochs totaling about 48 hours, the flux at 2.1 and 4.8 microns fluctuates at all times, with no measurable steady quiescent level. It claims the variability splits into two populations—faint continuous flickering with steep spectral index $\alpha \approx -1.6$ and bright flares with shallower index $\alpha \approx -0.85$—meeting at a break near 3 mJy at 2.1 microns. It also claims that 4.8 micron emission lags 2.1 micron emission by 3–40 seconds, producing counterclockwise loops in spectral-index plots, and that synchrotron-cooling fits give magnetic field strengths of 40–90 G. If correct, the inner accretion flow is always active, with faint flickering tied to turbulence and bright flares tied to episodic reconnection.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is simultaneous NIRCam F210M and F480M photometry of Sgr A* with astrometric registration to ALMA 230 GHz images and per-epoch background subtraction, combined with (1) broken power-law fits to temporal power spectra, (2) broken linear fits to the 4.8-versus-2.1 µm flux-flux relation whose slope change marks the boundary between faint and bright populations, and (3) an age-stratified synchrotron model in which electrons are injected with an $E^{-2}$ spectrum and upper cutoff energy $E_c$, cool in a constant magnetic field $B$, and produce optically thin emission at the two NIR frequencies. The model's free parameters allow the observed loops and lags to be reproduced, yielding estimates of $B$ and $E_c$.

What would settle it

Measure the actual 4.8 µm stellar contamination independently, for example from high-resolution spectroscopy or a stellar-PSF model of S0-2, S24, and S29 at the observed epochs; if the true contamination exceeds the adopted background by more than about 2 mJy, the faint positive spectral indices disappear and the claimed two-population split in spectral index collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Sgr A*'s near-infrared light curves, observed simultaneously at 2.1 and 4.8 µm with JWST NIRCam over seven epochs in 2023–2024, show continuous variability on timescales from seconds to hours in every epoch, with the pedestal level itself changing from day to day and year to year. The flux-flux correlation has a break near 3 mJy at 2.1 µm: fainter emission has spectral index $\alpha \approx -1.58$, brighter emission $\alpha \approx -0.85$, and the flux histogram is best described by two log-normal components. Cross-correlation reveals a 3–40 s lag of 4.8 µm behind 2.1 µm, and each flare traces a counterclockwise loop in spectral-index versus flux space. The paper interprets the loops as synchrotron cooling in an evolving, age-stratified electron population and derives magnetic field strengths of 40–90 G and cutoff energies of 420–720 MeV.

Load-bearing premise

The 4.8 micron background subtraction—including contamination from S0-2, S24, S29, and diffuse emission—is correct to within about 1–2 mJy; the paper shows that raising that background by 1–2 mJy erases the positive spectral indices of the faint emission, so the two-population spectral split depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-stop variability claim is correct, there is no steady quiescent near-infrared component from Sgr A*, so models must explain an always-on flickering process rather than flares superimposed on a stable baseline.
  • The ~3 mJy break in the flux-flux slope and the dual log-normal flux histogram imply two distinct particle populations: a faint steep-spectrum component and a bright shallow-spectrum flare component.
  • The 3–40 s lag of 4.8 µm behind 2.1 µm, together with the counterclockwise spectral-index loops, implies synchrotron cooling in fields of 40–90 G with upper cutoff energies of 420–720 MeV.
  • Sub-minute flux changes—up to a factor of two in about 1.4 minutes—place the emitting region at horizon scales of a few gravitational radii, linking the infrared variability to the inner accretion flow.
  • The epoch-to-epoch pedestal changes by roughly a factor of two, showing long-term variability on daily, monthly, and yearly timescales that any complete model of Sgr A* must reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-population picture holds, future simultaneous two-band JWST observations could test whether the pedestal level predicts the amplitude or rate of bright flares; the paper notes a qualitative correlation between strong flaring and elevated pedestal but does not quantify it.
  • Because the positive spectral indices of faint emission depend on a 4.8 µm background that is uncertain by 1–2 mJy, deeper imaging that resolves S0-2, S24, and S29 could either confirm the faint-component spectral index or show it is an artifact.
  • The 3–40 s lag may be a general signature of synchrotron cooling in accreting black holes; if the lag scales with black hole mass, similar simultaneous two-band monitoring could constrain magnetic field strengths in other galactic nuclei.
  • A direct test of the non-stop variability claim would be a longer, gap-free observation at 2.1 µm alone: if a true quiescent floor ever appears, the 'always fluctuating' interpretation would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents JWST/NIRCam photometry of Sgr A* in the F210M and F480M filters over seven epochs from April 2023 to April 2024, totaling roughly 48 h of nearly continuous monitoring. The authors report correlated variability at 2.1 and 4.8 micron in all epochs, continuous short-timescale (seconds-to-minute) fluctuations with no detected truly steady quiescent level, epoch-to-epoch changes in the underlying pedestal, a break in the flux-flux relation near 3 mJy at 2.1 micron, two spectral-index regimes (steep for faint, shallow for bright), 3-40 s lags of 4.8 micron relative to 2.1 micron, counterclockwise loops in spectral-index versus flux diagrams, and synchrotron flare modeling that yields magnetic field strengths of roughly 40-90 G and cutoff energies of 420-720 MeV. The data processing is described in unusual detail, with MAST-archived data, ALMA-based astrometric registration, reference-star noise checks, and explicit saturation-timing corrections.

Significance. The strongest claim, that Sgr A* is essentially always varying in the near-infrared rather than flaring atop a steady baseline, is well supported by the data presented: the reference stars are stable to their noise, the two bands vary in a correlated manner, and the variability amplitude is far above the photometric noise. If the spectral-index bimodality, short time delays, and magnetic-field estimates survive further scrutiny, this dataset will provide valuable new constraints on particle acceleration and cooling in the inner accretion flow. The openness of the data and the detailed treatment of systematic backgrounds are strengths. The remaining concerns are about the statistical support for several derived claims and about whether those claims are robust to the stated systematic uncertainties.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Table 6, Fig. 7e] The two-population spectral-index decomposition is not robust to the adopted 4.8 micron background. The paper states in §3.3 that increasing the 4.8 micron background by 1-2 mJy makes the positive spectral indices of the faint emission disappear. The slopes a± in the flux-flux plane are offset-independent, but the conversion to α− and α+ and the quoted values in Table 6 depend on the assumed background. Please propagate the estimated 1-2 mJy background uncertainty through to α−, α+, and S0, and show explicitly how the claimed bimodality and the loop interpretation change within that allowed range. As written, the title claim of distinct faint and bright populations is not yet established.
  2. [§3.4, Figs. 7-8] The reported 3-40 s inter-band delays are comparable to or shorter than the 18-46 s sampling cadence. The 4.8 micron data are interpolated onto the 2.1 micron grid, and the cross-correlation is applied to strongly correlated red-noise light curves, which can produce nonzero CCF peaks by chance. No confidence intervals, bootstrap/permutation significance levels, or null-hypothesis tests are reported. The authors should provide a significance estimate for each delay and demonstrate that the delays are not artifacts of the interpolation or of the saturation timing correction described in §2.2.
  3. [§3.2, Appendix A] The low-frequency break f0 reported in Table 5 may be systematically affected by the pedestal-removal procedure. Appendix A describes 4th-degree polynomial fits that are constrained to lie below the light curve; if these fits (or equivalent detrending) are removed before computing the power spectra, low-frequency power is suppressed by construction and the inferred f0 would not be intrinsic. The manuscript should state explicitly whether the PSDs are computed on raw or detrended light curves, and it should validate the f0 and n recovery using synthetic light curves with known power spectra processed through the same pedestal procedure. The Monte Carlo uncertainties in Table 5 do not include this systematic.
  4. [§3.1.5, Table 3] The claim of a bimodal flux distribution is not statistically quantified. Table 3 lists χ2 values but no degrees of freedom, reduced χ2, or model-selection criterion. At 4.8 micron the two-log-normal fit (χ2=82.11) is only slightly better than the log-normal-plus-power-law fit (χ2=85.77), despite the latter using a different functional form, and at 2.1 micron the log-normal-plus-power-law is preferred. The identification of two populations should be supported by a likelihood-ratio or information-criterion comparison that accounts for the number of parameters and for the small number of bright points.
  5. [§4.1, Appendix D, Table 7] The synchrotron model is described as having six free parameters (B, Q0, Ec, t0, t1, t2), but the fits in Table 7 also vary β1 and β2, giving eight parameters per flare. Fitting two light curves with eight parameters for each of five flares is likely to be strongly degenerate, so the quoted B=38-92 G and Ec=424-736 MeV ranges may not be meaningful as a 'direct estimate'. Please report parameter covariances or corner plots, specify whether the ranges are joint confidence intervals or merely the spread of best-fit values, and discuss how the assumed E^-2 injection spectrum and fixed E1=2 MeV affect the inferred B.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.5] The text refers to Table 3 for the mean, median, and sigma fluxes, but these quantities appear in Table 4; Table 3 contains the flux-distribution fit parameters.
  2. [References] The text cites 'Dodds-Eden et al. (1999)' in several places, but the bibliography lists Dodds-Eden et al. (2009); the year should be corrected consistently.
  3. [Fig. 7e caption and §3.3] The Figure 7e caption says the 4.8 micron subtracted background is reduced by 1 and 2 mJy, while §3.3 says it is increased by 1 and 2 mJy; these statements need to be reconciled.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains 'log-term quiescent variability'; this should be 'long-term'.
  5. [§2.4] The sentence about S24 and S29 spilling 'more flux in 2004 compared to 2003' appears to be a typo for 2024 and 2023.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-stop variability claim is anchored to stable reference-star photometry and two-band correlation, and the magnetic-field/cutoff values are explicit model fits rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

The central claim that Sgr A* is continuously variable is supported by data-internal controls: the reference star S0-17 is stable ('the fluxes are very stable, and flat with a flux density ... of 0.409 ± 0.001 mJy and 4.44 ± 0.02 mJy'), while Sgr A* fluctuates at both wavelengths in all epochs, and the 2.1/4.8 µm variations are correlated. Astrometric registration uses external ALMA 230 GHz positions, providing an independent coordinate anchor. The 4.8 µm background uncertainty is openly tested: the paper shows that raising the assumed background by 1–2 mJy removes the positive spectral indices of faint emission, so the two-population spectral-index split is presented as background-sensitive rather than as a hidden assumption. The magnetic field strengths (38–92 G) and cutoff energies (420–720 MeV) in Table 7 are free parameters of the synchrotron model in Appendix D, described as 'best-fit' and 'inferred' ('The fits require...', 'The inferred magnetic field strengths are in the range 38–92 G'), not as predictions from independent data. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to a definitional identity; the paper's stated limitations (subjective pedestal polynomial, uncertain 4.8 µm background) are acknowledged rather than disguised. Hence no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its interpretive burden sits on fitted parameters: the 4.8 micron background offset, the broken-line break point at about 3 mJy, power-spectrum shape parameters, and the six-parameter flare-cooling model. The strongest independent results are the raw correlated light curves and the reference-star stability check. The weakest independent result is the physical B and Ec range, which are fit outputs plus model assumptions rather than predictions.

free parameters (7)
  • 4.8 micron background offset = 6.0-6.3 mJy in 2023-2024, plus an extra 1 mJy added by hand
    Chosen from local background measurements plus a manual 1 mJy increase to account for stellar contamination. The faint-end spectral indices and the positive spectral-index population depend on this value (Section 2.4, Fig. 7 bottom).
  • broken linear fit break point S0(2.1 micron) = 2.36-3.35 mJy across days; 2.90 mJy for the combined fit
    The 3 mJy two-population boundary is derived from this 4-parameter broken-line fit to the 4.8 vs 2.1 micron scatter (Section 3.3.1, Table 6).
  • 4th-degree pedestal polynomial coefficients = a1-a4 per epoch
    The pedestal level is defined by a subjective 4th-order polynomial constrained to sit below the light curve (Appendix A). Long-term variability amplitude (factor of 2) depends on this choice.
  • power-law index n and break frequency f0 = n between -2.70 and -3.57; f0 between 0.0060 and 0.0247 min^-1
    These are fitted to each power spectrum with Equation 2, and the paper notes strong covariance between n and f0. The 'two statistics on short and long timescales' claim rests on these fits.
  • flare model B = 38-92 G
    Free parameter in the 6-parameter synchrotron injection/cooling model of Appendix D. Reported as an inferred magnetic field but it is a fit parameter, not a prediction.
  • flare model Ec = 424-736 MeV
    Free parameter in the same model. The abstract quotes 420-720 MeV as a direct estimate, but it is a fit parameter.
  • flare model Q0, t0, t1, t2, beta1, beta2 = listed in Table 7 per flare
    Six free parameters are minimized against five selected flares, so the model's success is not a sharp test of the physics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NIR emission from Sgr A* is optically thin synchrotron radiation
    The Appendix D model computes synchrotron luminosity and the paper explicitly notes that the emission is assumed optically thin, which is why source size does not enter as a parameter. This assumption underlies the B and Ec estimates.
  • domain assumption The reference star S0-17 is intrinsically constant at 0.409 mJy (2.1 micron) and 4.44 mJy (4.8 micron)
    Used to establish that Sgr A* variability is not instrumental. S0-17 is slightly contaminated by Sgr A* flare emission at 4.8 micron, which the paper acknowledges, so the constancy is approximate.
  • domain assumption Adopted extinction corrections A_Ks = 2.46 and A_M = 1.0 are correct for F210M and F480M
    The paper multiplies measured fluxes by factors of 11.16 and 3.94. A 5% uncertainty in extinction law propagation is acknowledged, and any error in the extinction ratio directly shifts the spectral-index scale.
  • ad hoc to paper The broken power-law plus white-noise model P(f) = P0, P0 - P1 times (f/f0)^n + P1 is the correct description of the variability power spectrum
    Used to extract break frequencies and indices; the paper itself notes strong covariances and that flatter power laws would result if f0 or P1 were underestimated (Section 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Electron injection spectrum is a power law E^-2 with a sharp cutoff Ec
    This is the input to the flare model (Appendix D, Equation D12). The choice of p=2 is not derived from data, and the recovered B and Ec values are conditional on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-stop Variability of Sgr A* using JWST at 2.1 and 4.8 micron Wavelengths: Evidence for Distinct Populations of Faint and Bright Variable Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OM7AGBAD

@misc{pith2026250104096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-stop Variability of Sgr A* using JWST at 2.1 and 4.8 micron Wavelengths: Evidence for Distinct Populations of Faint and Bright Variable Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OM7AGBAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04096}
}
read the original abstract

We present first results of JWST Cycle 1 and 2 observations of Sgr A* using NIRCam taken simultaneously at 2.1 and 4.8 micron for a total of ~48 hours over seven different epochs in 2023 and 2024. We find correlated variability at 2.1 and 4.8 micron in all epochs, continual short-time scale (a few seconds) variability and epoch-to-epoch variable emission implying long-term ( ~days to months) variability of Sgr A*. A highlight of this analysis is the evidence for sub-minute, horizon-scale time variability of Sgr A*, probing inner accretion disk size scales. The power spectra of the light curves in each observing epoch also indicate long-term variable emission. With continuous observations, JWST data suggest that the flux of Sgr A* is fluctuating constantly. The flux density correlation exhibits a distinct break in the slope at ~3 mJy at 2.1 micron. The analysis indicates two different processes contributing to the variability of Sgr A*. Brighter emission trends towards shallower spectral indices than the fainter emission. Cross correlation of the light curves indicates for the first time, a time delay of 3 - 40 sec in the 4.8 micron variability with respect to 2.1 micron. This phase shift leads to loops in plots of flux density vs spectral index as the emission rises and falls. Modeling suggests that the synchrotron emission from the evolving, age-stratified electron population reproduces the shape of the observed light curves with a direct estimate of the magnetic field strengths in the range between 40-90 G, and upper cutoff energy, E_c, between 420 and 720 MeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Astrometrically corrected NIRCam 2.1 µm (top) and 4.8 µm (middle), and ALMA 230 GHz (bottom) images of the Galactic center region. These images are simultaneously taken together on September 22, 2023 and are astrometrically aligned with each other. Images on the left are zoomed out to show the locations of the well-known members of the stellar cluster, such as S0-2, orbiting Sgr A*, as well as the unidentified refer… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extinction corrected light curves of Sgr A* and reference stars for all 7 days concatenated together at 2.1 and 4.8 µm, are presented in linear and logarithmic scales in the top and bottom panels, respectively. The light curves of the reference stars S0-17 and “Ref”, a random nearby star in the field with similar signal level as Sgr A*, are displayed on the top panel as black and gray points, respectively. The refer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows extinction-corrected light curves of the seven epochs of observations in 2023 and 2024, respectively. There is clearly correlated variability at 2.1 and 4.8 µm in all epochs. Day 2 showed the strongest flare emission in 2023 epochs at ≥ 6 mJy at 2.1 µm. However, the peak of this flare was missed due to poor guiding of the telescope. Only 2.1 µm data are available on Day 3, due to Sgr A* being outside the 4.8 µ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Values of the time derivative of Day 6 data normalized by the flux density as a function of time are presented in the top and and bottom panels. Three examples in which values are highest near 9.5, 9.85 and 10.3 UT, showing a change by a factor ∼ 2 in the flux density …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Using all seven epochs of observations, histograms of the flux distribution of Sgr A* at 2.1 and 4.8 µm are displayed in top left and right panels, respectively. Log-normal (light green line) and log-normal plus power-law (dark green line) and 2 log-normal (dashed gree…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power spectra of the temporal variations Sgr A* on a log frequency scale in the F210M (blue) and F480M (red) bands are presented for each epoch of observation. The data for each epoch are fitted with broken power-law trends over the frequency ranges indicated by the so…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overlaid on this Figure are lines indicating loci of constant spectral index. The lines in color are linear fits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top Left A scatter plot of the F210M and F480M flux densities on all days overlaid with loci of constant spectral index. The magenta line is a broken linear fit to the data, with parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross correlation of the Sgr A* light curves in the F210M and F480M bands as a function of time are shown for each of the six epochs of observations. Epochs 1, 2, and 4 are displayed in the top 3 panels whereas epochs 5, 6 and 7 are displayed in the bottom panel. The c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left two columns The variation of the spectral index as a function of F480M flux density is shown for 5 flares. The colors denote time. The variations of the spectral index trace counterclockwise loops. Right two columns The displayed modeled time delays and loop diagr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    H., El Mellah I., Paumard T., Perrin G., Zech A., 2023, A&A, 672, A62

    Aimar N., Dmytriiev A., Vincent F. H., El Mellah I., Paumard T., Perrin G., Zech A., 2023, A&A, 672, A62. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244936

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244936 2023

  2. [5]

    M., Sch \"o del R., Straubmeier C., et al., 2011, A&A, 532, A26

    Bremer M., Witzel G., Eckart A., Zamaninasab M., Buchholz R. M., Sch \"o del R., Straubmeier C., et al., 2011, A&A, 532, A26. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016134 2011

  3. [6]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    Chatterjee, K., Markoff, S., Neilsen, J., et al.\ 2021, , 507, 5281. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2466 2021

  4. [7]

    Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., Springel, V., et al.\ 2006, , 366, 358

    work page 2006

  5. [8]

    C., Marrone D

    Dexter J., Kelly B., Bower G. C., Marrone D. P., Stone J., Plambeck R., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2797. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1039

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1039 2014

  6. [9]

    M., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 4168

    Dexter, J., Jim \'e nez-Rosales, A., Ressler, S. M., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 4168. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa922 2020

  7. [10]

    M., 2024, arXiv:2407.14312

    Dimitropoulos I., Nathanail A., Petropoulou M., Contopoulos I., Fromm C. M., 2024, arXiv:2407.14312. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.14312

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14312 2024

  8. [11]

    M., Morris, M

    Do, T., Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., et al.\ 2009, , 691, 1021. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1021

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1021 2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [12]

    Dodds-Eden, K., Porquet, D., Trap, G., et al.\ 2009, , 698, 676

    2009

  2. [13]

    The Astrophysical Journal 930.doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration and 388 colleagues 2022a. The Astrophysical Journal 930.doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    doi

  3. [14]

    Eckart, A., Sch \"o del, R., Garc \' a-Mar \' n, M., et al.\ 2008, , 492, 337

    2008

  4. [15]

    doi:10.1086/430667

    Eisenhauer, F., Genzel, R., Alexander, T., et al.\ 2005, , 628, 246. doi:10.1086/430667

    2005 doi

  5. [16]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., et al.\ 2018, , 864, 58

    2018

  6. [17]

    D., Witzel G., Bauboeck M., Chung H.-H., Marchili N., Martinez G., Sadun-Bordoni M., et al., 2024, A&A, 688, L12

    von Fellenberg S. D., Witzel G., Bauboeck M., Chung H.-H., Marchili N., Martinez G., Sadun-Bordoni M., et al., 2024, A&A, 688, L12. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451146

    2024 doi

  7. [18]

    M., Eisenhauer F., Sari R., Waisberg I., Habibi M., Pfuhl O., et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, 30

    Gillessen S., Plewa P. M., Eisenhauer F., Sari R., Waisberg I., Habibi M., Pfuhl O., et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41

    2017 doi

  8. [19]

    doi:10.1038/nature02065

    Genzel, R., Sch \"o del, R., Ott, T., et al.\ 2003, , 425, 934. doi:10.1038/nature02065

    2003 doi

  9. [20]

    M., Hornstein S

    Ghez A. M., Hornstein S. D., Lu J. R., Bouchez A., Le Mignant D., van Dam M. A., Wizinowich P., et al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1087. doi:10.1086/497576

    2005 doi

  10. [21]

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

    2006

  11. [22]

    E., Quataert, E., & Igumenshchev, I

    Goldston, J. E., Quataert, E., & Igumenshchev, I. V.\ 2005, , 621, 785

    2005

  12. [23]

    S., 2023, AJ, 165, 49

    Gordon D., de Witt A., Jacobs C. S., 2023, AJ, 165, 49. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca65b

    2023 doi

  13. [24]

    P., Bonnet H., Brandner W., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, L10

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter R., Amorim A., Baub \"o ck M., Berger J. P., Bonnet H., Brandner W., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, L10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834294

    2018 doi

  14. [25]

    P., Boyce H., et al., 2021, A&A, 654, A22

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter R., Amorim A., Baub \"o ck M., Baganoff F., Berger J. P., Boyce H., et al., 2021, A&A, 654, A22. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140981

    2021 doi

  15. [26]

    B., Bonnet H., Brandner W., et al., 2020, A&A, 638, A2

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter R., Amorim A., Baub \"o ck M., Berger J. B., Bonnet H., Brandner W., et al., 2020, A&A, 638, A2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037717

    2020 doi

  16. [27]

    A., Dexter J., 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1563

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

    2024 doi

  17. [28]

    L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M

    Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al.\ 2014, , 793, 120

    2014

  18. [29]

    D., Matthews, K., Ghez, A

    Hornstein, S. D., Matthews, K., Ghez, A. M., et al.\ 2007, , 667, 900. doi:10.1086/520762

    2007 doi

  19. [30]

    E., Barczys M., McElwain M., Weiss J., Wright S

    Krabbe A., Iserlohe C., Larkin J. E., Barczys M., McElwain M., Weiss J., Wright S. A., et al., 2006, ApJL, 642, L145. doi:10.1086/504587

    2006 doi

  20. [31]

    B.\ 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 246

    Landsman, W. B.\ 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 246

    1993

  21. [32]

    B.\ 2009, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, 411, 251

    Markwardt, C. B.\ 2009, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, 411, 251

    2009

  22. [33]

    R., Yelda S., Sch \"o del R., Eckart A., 2009, ApJL, 694, L87

    Meyer L., Do T., Ghez A., Morris M. R., Yelda S., Sch \"o del R., Eckart A., 2009, ApJL, 694, L87. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/L87

    2009 doi

  23. [34]

    M., Yusef-Zadeh F., Wardle M., Kunneriath D., Hora J

    Michail J. M., Yusef-Zadeh F., Wardle M., Kunneriath D., Hora J. L., Bushouse H., Fazio G. G., et al., 2024, ApJ, 971, 52. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5332

    2024 doi

  24. [35]

    M., Wardle M., Yusef-Zadeh F., Kunneriath D., 2021, ApJ, 923, 54

    Michail J. M., Wardle M., Yusef-Zadeh F., Kunneriath D., 2021, ApJ, 923, 54. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2c

    2021 doi

  25. [36]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1158

    Miyoshi M., Kato Y., Makino J., 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3237. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1158

    2024 doi

  26. [37]

    & Falcke, H.\ 2013, , 559, L3

    Moscibrodzka, M. & Falcke, H.\ 2013, , 559, L3

    2013

  27. [38]

    Mossoux, E., Grosso, N., Bushouse, H., Eckart, A., Yusef-Zadeh, F., et al.\ 2016, , 589, A116

    2016

  28. [39]

    A., Gammie C., Dexter J., Markoff S., Haggard D., Nayakshin S., et al., 2013, ApJ, 774, 42

    Neilsen J., Nowak M. A., Gammie C., Dexter J., Markoff S., Haggard D., Nayakshin S., et al., 2013, ApJ, 774, 42. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/42

    2013 doi

  29. [40]

    K., Martinez G

    Paugnat H., Do T., Gautam A. K., Martinez G. D., Ghez A. M., Sakai S., Weldon G. C., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2411.11966. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.11966

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [41]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx596

    Ponti G., George E., Scaringi S., Zhang S., Jin C., Dexter J., Terrier R., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx596

    2017 doi

  31. [42]

    Quataert, E.\ 2004, , 613, 322

    2004

  32. [43]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., Quataert, E., et al.\ 2020, , 896, L6

    2020

  33. [44]

    M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M.\ 2020, , 492, 3272

    2020

  34. [45]

    M., White C

    Ressler S. M., White C. J., Quataert E., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4277. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad837

    2023 doi

  35. [46]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al.\ 2023, , 135, 028001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  36. [47]

    C., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3536

    Scepi N., Dexter J., Begelman M. C., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3536. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac337

    2022 doi

  37. [48]

    R., Muzic K., Alberdi A., Meyer L., Eckart A., Gezari D

    Sch \"o del R., Morris M. R., Muzic K., Alberdi A., Meyer L., Eckart A., Gezari D. Y., 2011, A&A, 532, A83. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116994

    2011 doi

  38. [49]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015157

    Trap G., Goldwurm A., Dodds-Eden K., Weiss A., Terrier R., Ponti G., Gillessen S., et al., 2011, A&A, 528, A140. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015157

    2011 doi

  39. [50]

    & Moerner, W

    Wang, Q. & Moerner, W. E.\ 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 13880

    2015

  40. [51]

    C., Do T., Witzel G., Ghez A

    Weldon G. C., Do T., Witzel G., Ghez A. M., Gautam A. K., Becklin E. E., Morris M. R., et al., 2023, ApJL, 954, L33. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf2f2

    2023 doi

  41. [52]

    K., Ramakrishnan V., Tiede P., Fomalont E., et al., 2022, ApJL, 930, L19

    Wielgus M., Marchili N., Mart \' -Vidal I., Keating G. K., Ramakrishnan V., Tiede P., Fomalont E., et al., 2022, ApJL, 930, L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6428

    2022 doi

  42. [53]

    M., Morris M

    Witzel G., Ghez A. M., Morris M. R., Sitarski B. N., Boehle A., Naoz S., Campbell R., et al., 2014, ApJL, 796, L8. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L8

    2014 doi

  43. [54]

    P., Morris M

    Witzel G., Martinez G., Hora J., Willner S. P., Morris M. R., Gammie C., Becklin E. E., et al., 2018, ApJ, 863, 15. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aace62

    2018 doi

  44. [55]

    P., et al.\ 2021, , 917, 73

    Witzel, G., Martinez, G., Willner, S. P., et al.\ 2021, , 917, 73. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0891

    2021 doi

  45. [56]

    & Narayan, R.\ 2014, , 52, 529

    Yuan, F. & Narayan, R.\ 2014, , 52, 529

    2014

  46. [57]

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R.\ 2003, , 598, 301

    2003

  47. [58]

    D., et al.\ 2006, , 644, 198

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Bushouse, H., Dowell, C. D., et al.\ 2006, , 644, 198

    2006

  48. [59]

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Bushouse, H., Wardle, M., et al.\ 2009, , 706, 348

    2009

  49. [60]

    O., Bower G

    Yusef-Zadeh F., Roberts D., Wardle M., Heinke C. O., Bower G. C., 2006, ApJ, 650, 189. doi:10.1086/506375

    2006 doi

  50. [61]

    D., Wardle M., Roberts D., Heinke C., Bower G

    Yusef-Zadeh F., Bushouse H., Dowell C. D., Wardle M., Roberts D., Heinke C., Bower G. C., et al., 2006, ApJ, 644, 198. doi:10.1086/503287

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.