Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Global 3-D Simulations of Magnetospheric Accretion: II. Hot Spots, Equilibrium Torque, Episodic Wind, and Midplane Outflow

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Magnetospheric accretion alone can set a young star's spin near fastness 0.7, matching observed rotation periods of 1-10 days.

desk verdict Solid simulations with genuinely new spin-dependent results; the equilibrium-spin claim is plausible but needs to be read as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08112 v1 pith:EW6CYA3M submitted 2025-01-14 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Zhaohuan Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords magnetosphericaccretionTTauristarsfastnessparameterinterchangeinstabilityhotspotsstar-disktorqueMHDsimulationsepisodicwinds
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 claims that magnetospheric accretion alone — the interaction between a young star's magnetic field and the inner disk — can explain the observed spin periods, hot-spot geometry, and wind properties of T Tauri stars without invoking stellar-wind braking. Using global 3-D MHD simulations with the magnetorotational turbulence that drives disk accretion resolved, it shows that the star-disk torque changes sign near a fastness parameter $\omega_s \simeq 0.7$, so accreting stars should settle there. Around that equilibrium, the simulated wind carries away about 10% of the accreted mass at speeds near 500 km/s, matching observed jets and outflow rates, and the simulated hot spots cover fractions of the stellar surface consistent with recent UV and optical observations. If correct, the result places spin regulation, hot-spot variability, and episodic winds on a single magnetospheric-accretion mechanism.

What carries the argument

The paper's central control parameter is the fastness parameter $\omega_s \equiv \Omega_s / \Omega_K(R_T) = (R_T/R_c)^{3/2}$, the ratio of stellar spin to disk orbital frequency at the magnetospheric truncation radius. The argument runs through the interchange-stability criterion $-N_m^2 > S^2$ (magnetic buoyancy growth versus shear damping) at the disk inner edge: when $\omega_s \lesssim 0.78$ the edge is unstable, filaments intrude, and hot spots shift toward the equator; when $\omega_s \gtrsim 0.78$ super-Keplerian rotation beyond corotation stabilizes the edge, leaving polar-only accretion. The torque on the star is quantified by $n \equiv T_{sd}/(\dot{M} (G M_* R_T)^{1/2})$ and fitted as a function of $R_T/R_c$, giving the empirical spin-equilibrium condition.

What would settle it

Re-run the fastest-rotator case for several times longer and check whether the torque parameter $n$ and the wind-to-accretion ratio stay near the reported values as the accretion rate declines; a monotonic drift would show the claimed equilibrium spin state is a transient of the simulated window rather than an attractor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper reports global 3-D MHD simulations of a magnetized star accreting from a turbulent disk for four different stellar spin rates. Its central discovery is that the star-disk system has an equilibrium spin state at a fastness parameter $\omega_s \simeq 0.7$: slower rotators receive a spin-up torque and faster rotators a spin-down torque that grows sharply with spin, with the dimensionless torque $n$ ranging from about 1 to about -10 across the simulated cases. At the equilibrium state the wind-to-accretion mass-loss ratio is about 10-13 percent, the wind speed reaches roughly 500 km/s, and the truncation radius sits at $R_T \simeq 0.79 R_c$, which for typical T Tauri parameters implies rotation periods of order 1-10 days. The paper also finds that the interchange instability at the disk's inner edge is active for $\omega_s \lesssim 0.78$, producing equatorial hot spots with covering fractions below about 20 percent for low-energy flux and below about 3 percent for mid-energy flux, while fast rotators accrete only near the poles and produce hotter spots.

Load-bearing premise

The torque and wind conclusions depend on the simulated disks having reached a quasi-steady state by the end of each run, with the measured accretion and outflow rates representative of that steady state rather than of a transient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At equilibrium spin, a typical T Tauri star (M = 0.5 solar masses, R = 2 solar radii, B = 2 kG, Mdot = 5e-8 solar masses/yr) should rotate with a period near 7.5 days, so disk accretion alone can explain the observed 1-10 day period spread.
  • Slow rotators ($\omega_s \lesssim 0.78$) should show equatorial hot spots from interchange filaments and accretion patterns alternating between chaotic and ordered unstable regimes, while fast rotators should show only polar hot spots.
  • Hot-spot covering fractions should stay below about 20% for low-energy-flux spots and below about 3% for mid-energy-flux spots, with faster rotation shifting more energy into hotter spots.
  • Wind mass-loss rates should rise from about 1% of the accretion rate in slow rotators to around 40% in fast rotators, with episodic reconnection-driven winds near 500 km/s.
  • The torque fits (Equations 21 and 22) predict that fast rotators and propellers experience strong spin-down torque and enhanced disk winds, so most accreting stars should be found near the equilibrium spin state rather than far from it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implicitly argues against stellar-wind braking as the primary spin regulator; an extension would be that observed rotation-period distributions of accreting T Tauri stars should peak near the equilibrium fastness, which could be tested by combining period measurements with accretion-rate and field estimates.
  • The predicted spin dependence of hot-spot latitude and energy could be tested with time-resolved UV and optical photometry of a sample spanning known rotation periods: equatorial spots should be more common among slow rotators and polar spots among fast rotators.
  • The midplane outflow identified here suggests that thermally processed grains can be carried outward through the disk; one implication is that CAI transport in the solar nebula may not require large-scale turbulent diffusion or disk winds alone.
  • The episodic wind and magnetic bubbles produce periodogram peaks unrelated to stellar spin, so exoplanet searches or spin-period measurements that rely on accretion variability may need to account for these quasi-periodic signals.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports global 3-D ideal MHD simulations of magnetospheric accretion onto rotating stars with four stellar spin rates (corotation radii Rc = 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.4 R0) plus one thin-disk run. The claims center on how spin affects interchange instability and hot-spot latitude, the truncation-radius scaling, episodic winds launched by field inflation and reconnection, the star-disk torque as a function of spin, and, most importantly, an equilibrium spin state at fastness ω_s ≈ 0.7 in which magnetospheric accretion alone can explain T Tauri rotation periods, hot-spot covering fractions, wind speeds of ~500 km/s, and wind mass-loss rates near 10% of the accretion rate. The paper also proposes empirical fits for the truncation radius and torque (Eqs. 19, 21, 22) and makes observational predictions for how hot spots, accretion variability, and winds depend on stellar spin.

Significance. The simulations are state-of-the-art for this problem: they capture MRI turbulence in 3-D, avoid ad hoc viscosity/resistivity, and report time-averaged quantities with standard deviations. If the spin-equilibrium result holds, the paper would be important because it would mean that standard T Tauri rotation periods can be produced without invoking stellar-wind torque, and it would provide testable predictions about hot-spot latitude and wind properties as functions of spin. The paper is also transparent about several caveats in §5.5, including the neglect of stellar winds and simplified thermodynamics. However, the central spin-equilibrium claim currently rests on a short, transient window in one simulation, and the torque fits used to derive it are empirical interpolations of the same data; these points need to be resolved before the main conclusion can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 11, Table 1] The equilibrium-spin-state claim is anchored by a single window, t = 7–12 T0 in the Rc0p5 run, in which the normalized torque is n = 0.068 ± 0.228 (Table 1). This zero is within 0.3σ of a broad distribution, and the window is short compared with the evolution time of the disk. More fundamentally, the torque is measured as a surface integral at r = 0.4R0 (Eq. 2), but in a non-steady flow that surface integral equals the torque on the star only if the angular-momentum storage term inside the sphere is negligible. The paper notes that the accretion rate declines throughout the simulation, but it never reports the quantity ∂/∂t ∫ Rρvφ dV over the region between the star and the measurement sphere. Please compute and report this storage term over the equilibrium window, and show the torque measured at several nested radii, to demonstrate that the zero crossing is not a transient artifact of the declining disk reservoir.
  2. [§4.5 and §5.1, Eqs. (21), (22)] Equations (21) and (22) are empirical fits to the simulated torque data, and the equilibrium fastness ω_s ≈ 0.7 is then derived by setting these fits to zero. Because the same short equilibrium window in Rc0p5 is one of the data points entering the fit, the derived equilibrium spin is to a significant degree a restatement of the fit rather than an independent prediction. The later spin-down branch of the same run and the thin-disk run provide partial support, but they share the same depletion-limited setup. A more decisive test would be a simulation that maintains a steady accretion rate (e.g., by mass injection at the outer boundary) to see whether the zero-torque state persists over many T0, or a demonstration that the storage-term correction is small for the full window.
  3. [§5.2, Table 1] The thin-disk run provides a second equilibrium window (8.5–15 T0), which strengthens the case, but this run uses the same finite-reservoir initial condition and same declining accretion behavior. The paper's own Figure 11 shows that accretion rates decrease monotonically in all runs, and §5.1 states that the equilibrium is identified only because RT moves outward as the accretion rate declines. Thus the two equilibrium windows are not independent tests of steady-state bias. Please either quantify the storage terms in both windows or run a longer simulation with sustained accretion to confirm that the zero-torque crossing is a true equilibrium rather than a temporary balance during the disk's depletion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the left-hand side is written as the time derivative of the angular momentum inside the star, while the right-hand side integrates over a sphere at r_s; please clarify the integration volume explicitly and state that the stellar interior is assumed to be rotating rigidly.
  2. [Table 1] The table contains multiple rows for Rc = 0.5 R0 without row labels; please label the rows as 'Rc = 0.5, final state' and 'Rc = 0.5, equilibrium state' or add an explicit column identifying the time interval used.
  3. [§5.6] The estimated 7.5-day equilibrium period is based on specific stellar and accretion parameters taken from Matt & Pudritz (2005); please state explicitly that this number is an illustrative scaling for one set of parameters, not a universal prediction.
  4. [Figure 11] The red curves for r = 0.8 are absent in the right two panels because of wind fluctuations; please mention this explicitly in the caption or show the r = 0.8 curves in a separate panel for those cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin equilibrium and observational comparisons are simulation outputs or external benchmarks, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are anchored in direct outputs of the 3-D MHD simulations. The torque-versus-spin relations (Equations 21 and 22) are explicitly empirical fits to the measured dimensionless torque n and truncation radii in Table 1, and the equilibrium spin state ω_s ~ 0.7 is identified as the zero of that fitted relation and as the directly observed zero-torque window in the Rc0p5 run (t = 7-12 T0). This is a standard simulation-derived scaling rather than a circular prediction: the fits are not calibrated against the observational quantities they are subsequently compared with (rotation periods, hot spot covering fractions, wind speeds, and mass-loss rates). The observational comparisons in Section 5.6 use independent data (e.g., CVSO 109 parameters, ULLYSES/X-Shooter covering fractions, TW Hya variability, GM Aur wind signatures) and translate simulation output to physical units using stated stellar parameters; none of those observed values enters the torque fit or the truncation-radius fit. Self-citations to Zhu et al. (2024) concern the numerical setup and the non-rotating baseline; they are not load-bearing for the new spin-dependent conclusions and are not used to forbid alternative explanations. The principal caveats noted in the paper, such as the finite disk reservoir causing a declining accretion rate and the short equilibrium window, are robustness or steady-state concerns rather than circularity: the torque surface integral could in principle contain an unquantified storage term in a non-steady flow, but this is a correctness risk, not a definitional equivalence. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central claims rest on a small number of chosen simulation parameters and empirical fits, plus standard domain assumptions about ideal MHD and simplified thermodynamics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • initial magnetic field strength m = -0.0089 (plasma beta = 250 at R0)
    Chooses the magnetospheric truncation radius relative to R0; a physical parameter of the initial setup, not fitted to observations.
  • disk aspect ratio h0 = 0.1 (fiducial) and 0.05 (thin disk)
    Sets the disk thickness and MRI resolution; varied to test sensitivity.
  • stellar radius rs = 0.1 R0
    Sets the size of the star relative to the truncation radius.
  • density floor parameters = rho_fl,0 = 1e-6, rho_flm,0 = 1.6e-6, slopes -2.25 and -5.5
    Numerical floors used to prevent vacuum; can affect wind and polar regions.
  • torque fit coefficients (Eq. 21) = 0.89, 0.76, 3.43
    Empirical fit to the simulation's measured n as a function of R_T,ana/R_c.
  • torque fit coefficients (Eq. 22) = 0.83, 2.68, 6
    Alternative empirical fit using R_T.
  • truncation radius fit coefficient (Eq. 19) = 1.5 in exponent
    Empirical fit to simulation-determined R_T as a function of R_T,ana and R_c.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD equations with no explicit viscosity or resistivity
    The paper relies on numerical dissipation to enable reconnection and turbulent diffusion; realistic diffusion coefficients are not modeled (see Section 3 and Section 5.5).
  • domain assumption Locally isothermal equation of state with T proportional to R^{-1/2}
    Temperature is reset each timestep; ignores radiation and shock heating, which may affect hot spots and wind (see Section 3 and Section 5.5).
  • domain assumption Initially aligned dipole magnetic field
    Assumes the stellar dipole is aligned with the rotation axis and ignores misalignment and external fields (see Section 5.5).
  • domain assumption Stellar wind is neglected; density floor in coronal region
    The coronal density approaches the floor, so stellar wind torque is negligible; this is a caveat noted in Section 5.5.
  • domain assumption Spruit et al. (1995) interchange stability criterion applies to the simulated 3D turbulent disk
    Used in Section 4.1 and Section 5.1 to interpret instability; assumes the local criterion captures the global behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global 3-D Simulations of Magnetospheric Accretion: II. Hot Spots, Equilibrium Torque, Episodic Wind, and Midplane Outflow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EW6CYA3M

@misc{pith2026250108112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global 3-D Simulations of Magnetospheric Accretion: II. Hot Spots, Equilibrium Torque, Episodic Wind, and Midplane Outflow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EW6CYA3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08112}
}
abstract

Global 3-D magnetohydrodynamical simulations have been conducted to study magnetospheric accretion around stars with various spin rates. For slow rotators, characterized by a fastness parameter $\omega_s\lesssim 0.78$, the disk's inner edge at the magnetospheric truncation radius becomes unstable to the interchange instability, leading to intruding filaments which produce hot spots closer to the stellar equator. Depending on spin rate, slow rotators can be in ``chaotic'' or ``ordered'' unstable regimes. For fast rotators, the interchange instability is suppressed by the super-Keplerian rotation beyond the corotation radius, and hot spots are generated only through polar accretion. Low- and mid-energy flux hot spots cover $\lesssim20\%$ and $\lesssim3\%$ of the surface, with faster rotators tending to produce hotter spots. Beyond the truncation radius, angular momentum transfers from the disk surface to the midplane, resulting in surface accretion and midplane outflow. The midplane outflow may transport thermally processed materials (e.g. those in chondrites) to the outer disk. Field inflation generates episodic winds with mass-loss rates $\sim 1\%-40\%$ of the accretion rate, depending on stellar spin. Frequent magnetic reconnections lead to efficient star-disk coupling. We derive the torque exerted by the disk on the star as a function of stellar spin. For fast rotators/propellers, both spin-down torque and disk wind rate increase dramatically with stellar spin. The equilibrium spin state occurs at $\omega_s\sim0.7$, with wind/jet speeds ($\sim$500 km/s) and mass loss rates ($\sim10\%$ accretion rate) aligning with observations. Most results are insensitive to disk thickness. Finally, we present testable predictions for how observables vary with stellar spin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The vertically integrated disk mass accretion rate, surface density, midplane α, and vertically integrated α for disks with different stellar spin rates at the end of the simulations. Dashed black curves represent negative values. All quantities are time-averaged over the last 3 T0 using 30 snapshots. The vertical red lines indicate RT ,ana. The vertical black lines in the Σ panel indicate RT . The red dashed line i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Poloidal and midplane cuts of density and plasma β at the end of the simulation for different cases. The movie can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26948260.v2. flows outwards outside the truncation radius (also in the right vr panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The azimuthally averaged density, azimuthal velocity, and radial velocity (top three rows) along different θ directions (blue: θ = 1.57, red: θ = 1, green: θ = 0.57) at the end of the simulations for different cases (left to right panels). The shaded areas in the top two rows represent the range between the 10th and 90th percentiles of all data along the azimuthal direction. The vertical black (RT ) and red (RT ,ana… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial mass flux along the θ direction (in radians) at the end of the simulation for different cases. All quantities are time-averaged over the last 3 T0 using 30 snapshots. pole for all the cases, as shown in the radial energy flux panels. On the other hand, slow rota…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Various quantities at r = 0.2R0 for different cases (left to right panels). The top two rows display log10ρ mapped to a sphere (top row) and in the ϕ-θ plane (second row). The third row shows the radial velocity normalized to the free-fall velocity, with colors ranging…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: Space-time diagrams of ρvr at various ϕ directions at r = 0.2R0 for all four cases. Bottom panels: Averaged periodograms of the mass accretion rates with time at r = 0.2R0 across 256 different ϕ directions from 0 to 2π. The mass accretion rate with time for…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity and magnetic structure at different times (top to bottom panels, the fourth row: the end of the simulations) for simulations with Rc = 2R0 (left two columns) and Rc = 0.5R0 (right two columns). White contours represent regions where β ≡ 2⟨P⟩/(⟨Br⟩ 2 +⟨Bθ⟩ 2 +⟨…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time and azimuthally averaged density, velocity angle, radial velocity, mass flux, r − ϕ Maxwell stress (upper panels), and poloidal velocity, magnetic field angle, energy ratio, electric current, and θ − ϕ Maxwell stress (lower panels) for the Rc = 0.4R0 case. All pri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Azimuthally averaged radial velocity, magnetic field pitch angle, and disk passive-scalar fraction (rdisk) for the three cases at the end of the simulation. The white streamlines in the first row represent poloidal velocity, while the black streamlines in the second ro…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper two rows: the azimuthally averaged radial mass flux (the first row) and magnetic field pitch angle (the second row) at four different times (from left to right panels). The bottom row: the mass accretion rate (the left panel) and the outflow rate (the right pane…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the mass accretion rate, mass outflow rate, star-disk torque, and n defined in Equation 20 for all four cases. The red and black curves represent measurements at different radii. The red curves, corresponding to r = 0.8, are not shown in the right tw…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left panel: The ratio between the wind mass loss rate at r = 6R0 to the inward accretion rate at r = 0.4R0 for different cases. Middle and right panels: The stellar spin torque (Tsd) for different cases, normalized by RT ,ana or RT . The dashed curves represent the fi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Time evolution of the magnetospheric truncation radius for different cases. The red curves are derived using the disk’s accretion rate at R = 0.4R0 and Equation 15. The solid black curves represent direct measurements from the simulations at the midplane where Ek = EB…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top panels: Integrated torque over spheres at different radii. Second, third, and fourth rows: Hydrodynamical and magnetic components of the torques along the θ direction as a function of radius. Bottom panels: Radial mass flux with radius. The streamlines in the seco…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mass flux, and hydrodynamical and magnetic components of the r − ϕ torques (top to bottom rows) along the θ direction at r=R0 and 2R0 (black and red curves) for different cases (left to right columns). The torques are averaged over 100 snapshots taken during the last …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Similar to Figures 2, 5 and 7, but for the Rc0p5 run at 10 T0 when the star and disk are in the equilibrium spin state. The hot spots panel shows the contours of the radial energy flux. Rc, the cavity edge starts to be accelerated by rotat￾ing stellar fields and rotat…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Space-time diagrams for the midplane density, vϕ, −N2m, S 2 , and −N2m − S 2 for the Rc0p5 case. The black curve in each panel shows RT over time. The vertical dotted line marks Rc. The star is in the equilibrium spin state between the two horizontal lines (7-12 T0) i…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Similar to Figures 14, and 15, but for the Rc0p5 run during 7-12 T0, when the star and disk are in the equilibrium spin state. we can integrate this equation to derive Rcs (t) =  πt 4T0 4/5 . (26) This Rcs (t) is plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Disk structure for the thin disk model (h=0.05). The leftmost panels: the mass accretion rate, surface density, midplane azimuthal velocity, and αint at the end of the simulation, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Space-time diagrams for the midplane Bz and the integrated midplane Bz flux (integrated from the outer boundary) for the Rc0p5 case. be a tensor. To simplify the analysis, we assume that ηturb is isotropic. Then, for a steady state, we have ηturb = v × B ∇ × B , (28) …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The left and middle columns: the angular frequency Ω and density in the initial condition (upper panels) and the final state (bottom panels) of the Rc = 0.5R0 case. Quantities are azimuthally averaged. The streamlines of the poloidal velocity are shown in the leftmost…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Density (top row), velocity (middle row), and magnetic fields (bottom row) at the end of the simulations for all four cases. The streamlines in the middle and bottom rows represent the poloidal velocity and magnetic fields, respectively. White contours indicate where …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. $\textit{BMAD}$-Circumbinary Magnetically Arrested Disks around Stellar or Black Hole Binaries: Hot Accretion Flows, Disk Properties, and Angular Momentum Transfer

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Circumbinary accretion disks can enter a magnetically arrested state, and in weakly cooled or adiabatic regimes the resulting magnetic flux eruptions may drive the binary orbit to shrink.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    !1A Qa

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    J., & Kuijpers , J

    Aly , J. J., & Kuijpers , J. 1990, , 227, 473

    1990

  4. [4]

    J., & Clarke , C

    Armitage , P. J., & Clarke , C. J. 1996, , 280, 458

    1996

  5. [5]

    Arons , J., & Barnard , J. J. 1986, , 302, 120

    1986

  6. [6]

    Arons , J., & Lea , S. M. 1976, , 207, 914

    1976

  7. [7]

    A., & Hawley , J

    Balbus , S. A., & Hawley , J. F. 1991, , 376, 214

    1991

  8. [8]

    1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    ---. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Begelman , M. C. 2024, , 534, 3144

    2024

  2. [10]

    1997, , 113, 367

    Bildsten , L., Chakrabarty , D., Chiu , J., et al. 1997, , 113, 367

    1997

  3. [11]

    A., Romanova , M

    Blinova , A. A., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2016, , 459, 2354

    2016

  4. [12]

    2023, , 672, A5

    Bouvier , J., Sousa , A., Pouilly , K., et al. 2023, , 672, A5

    2023

  5. [13]

    2022, , 657, A112

    Burdonov , K., Yao , W., Sladkov , A., et al. 2022, , 657, A112

    2022

  6. [14]

    1998, , 509, 802

    Calvet , N., & Gullbring , E. 1998, , 509, 802

    1998

  7. [15]

    Cranmer , S. R. 2008, , 689, 316

    2008

  8. [16]

    2009, , 706, 824

    ---. 2009, , 706, 824

    2009

  9. [17]

    C., Robinson , C

    Espaillat , C. C., Robinson , C. E., Romanova , M. M., et al. 2021, , 597, 41

    2021

  10. [18]

    C., Herczeg , G

    Espaillat , C. C., Herczeg , G. J., Thanathibodee , T., et al. 2022, , 163, 114

    2022

  11. [19]

    2004, , 427, 222

    Fender , R., Wu , K., Johnston , H., et al. 2004, , 427, 222

    2004

  12. [20]

    2000, , 363, 208

    Fendt , C., & Elstner , D. 2000, , 363, 208

    2000

  13. [21]

    P., Cabrit , S., et al

    Frank , A., Ray , T. P., Cabrit , S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 451

    2014

  14. [22]

    Ghosh , P., & Lamb , F. K. 1979 a , , 232, 259

    1979

  15. [23]

    1979 b , , 234, 296

    ---. 1979 b , , 234, 296

    1979

  16. [24]

    1994, , 432, 213

    Goodman , J., & Xu , G. 1994, , 432, 213

    1994

  17. [25]

    P., Winglee , R

    Goodson , A. P., Winglee , R. M., & B \"o hm , K.-H. 1997, , 489, 199

    1997

  18. [26]

    Y., Bohn , A

    Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749

    2019

  19. [27]

    2016, , 54, 135

    Hartmann , L., Herczeg , G., & Calvet , N. 2016, , 54, 135

    2016

  20. [28]

    1994, , 426, 669

    Hartmann , L., Hewett , R., & Calvet , N. 1994, , 426, 669

    1994

  21. [29]

    F., Gammie , C

    Hawley , J. F., Gammie , C. F., & Balbus , S. A. 1995, , 440, 742

    1995

  22. [30]

    Herbst , W., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Mundt , R., Meisenheimer , K., & Wackermann , R. 2002, , 396, 513

    2002

  23. [31]

    J., Chen , Y., Donati , J.-F., et al

    Herczeg , G. J., Chen , Y., Donati , J.-F., et al. 2023, , 956, 102

    2023

  24. [32]

    F., & Sunyaev , R

    Illarionov , A. F., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1975, , 39, 185

    1975

  25. [33]

    G., Zanni , C., Matt , S

    Ireland , L. G., Zanni , C., Matt , S. P., & Pantolmos , G. 2021, , 906, 4

    2021

  26. [34]

    2021, , 647, A192

    Jacquemin-Ide , J., Lesur , G., & Ferreira , J. 2021, , 647, A192

    2021

  27. [35]

    1954, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 223, 348

    Kruskal , M., & Schwarzschild , M. 1954, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 223, 348

    1954

  28. [36]

    K., & Romanova , M

    Kulkarni , A. K., & Romanova , M. M. 2008, , 386, 673

    2008

  29. [37]

    2009, , 398, 701

    ---. 2009, , 398, 701

    2009

  30. [38]

    2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 205870101

    Lesur , G. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 205870101

    2021

  31. [39]

    Lewin , W. H. G., & van der Klis , M. 2006, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources , Vol. 39

    2006

  32. [40]

    Li , R., Chen , Y.-X., & Lin , D. N. C. 2022, , 510, 5246

    2022

  33. [41]

    2024, , 529, 893

    ---. 2024, , 529, 893

    2024

  34. [42]

    M., & Lovelace , R

    Long , M., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2005, , 634, 1214

    2005

  35. [43]

    Lovelace , R. V. E., Romanova , M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S. 1995, , 275, 244

    1995

  36. [44]

    F., Frasca , A., Venuti , L., et al

    Manara , C. F., Frasca , A., Venuti , L., et al. 2021, , 650, A196

    2021

  37. [45]

    Matt , S., & Pudritz , R. E. 2005, , 632, L135

    2005

  38. [46]

    A., & Stone , J

    Miller , K. A., & Stone , J. M. 1997, , 489, 890

    1997

  39. [47]

    Miranda , R., & Rafikov , R. R. 2020, , 892, 65

    2020

  40. [48]

    C., Armitage , P

    Mishra , B., Begelman , M. C., Armitage , P. J., & Simon , J. B. 2020, , 492, 1855

    2020

  41. [49]

    2024, , 961, L20

    Murguia-Berthier , A., Parfrey , K., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Jacquemin-Ide , J. 2024, , 961, L20

    2024

  42. [50]

    2001, , 550, 944

    Muzerolle , J., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2001, , 550, 944

    2001

  43. [51]

    1998, , 116, 455

    Muzerolle , J., Hartmann , L., & Calvet , N. 1998, , 116, 455

    1998

  44. [52]

    Newcomb , W. A. 1961, Physics of Fluids, 4, 391

    1961

  45. [53]

    M., et al

    Nisini , B., Antoniucci , S., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2018, , 609, A87

    2018

  46. [54]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04291

    Parfrey , K., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04291

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    V., Espaillat , C

    Pittman , C. V., Espaillat , C. C., Robinson , C. E., et al. 2022, , 164, 201

    2022

  48. [56]

    Porth , O., Mizuno , Y., Younsi , Z., & Fromm , C. M. 2021, , 502, 2023

    2021

  49. [57]

    A., Fregeau , J

    Rappaport , S. A., Fregeau , J. M., & Spruit , H. 2004, , 606, 436

    2004

  50. [58]

    M., Stauffer , J

    Rebull , L. M., Stauffer , J. R., Cody , A. M., et al. 2020, , 159, 273

    2020

  51. [59]

    R., Taylor , J

    Roman-Duval , J., Proffitt , C. R., Taylor , J. M., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 205

    2020

  52. [60]

    M., Blinova , A

    Romanova , M. M., Blinova , A. A., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2018, , 62, 94

    2018

  53. [61]

    M., Koldoba , A

    Romanova , M. M., Koldoba , A. V., Ustyugova , G. V., et al. 2021, , 506, 372

    2021

  54. [62]

    M., Kulkarni , A

    Romanova , M. M., Kulkarni , A. K., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2008, , 673, L171

    2008

  55. [63]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2002, , 578, 420

    2002

  56. [64]

    2004 a , , 616, L151

    ---. 2004 a , , 616, L151

    2004

  57. [65]

    2004 b , , 610, 920

    ---. 2004 b , , 610, 920

    2004

  58. [66]

    2009, , 399, 1802

    ---. 2009, , 399, 1802

    2009

  59. [67]

    2012, , 421, 63

    ---. 2012, , 421, 63

    2012

  60. [68]

    M., Ustyugova , G

    Romanova , M. M., Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., Wick , J. V., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2003, , 595, 1009

    2003

  61. [69]

    2021, , 923, 177

    Serna , J., Hernandez , J., Kounkel , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 177

    2021

  62. [70]

    1994, , 429, 781

    Shu , F., Najita , J., Ostriker , E., et al. 1994, , 429, 781

    1994

  63. [71]

    C., Stehle , R., & Papaloizou , J

    Spruit , H. C., Stehle , R., & Papaloizou , J. C. B. 1995, , 275, 1223

    1995

  64. [72]

    M., Tomida , K., White , C

    Stone , J. M., Tomida , K., White , C. J., & Felker , K. G. 2020, , 249, 4

    2020

  65. [73]

    K., & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Suzuki , T. K., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2014, , 784, 121

    2014

  66. [74]

    Takasao , S., Tomida , K., Iwasaki , K., & Suzuki , T. K. 2018, , 857, 4

    2018

  67. [75]

    2022, , 941, 73

    ---. 2022, , 941, 73

    2022

  68. [76]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79

    2011

  69. [77]

    Thanathibodee , T., Calvet , N., Bae , J., Muzerolle , J., & Hern \'a ndez , R. F. 2019, , 885, 94

    2019

  70. [78]

    V., Koldoba , A

    Ustyugova , G. V., Koldoba , A. V., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2006, , 646, 304

    2006

  71. [79]

    A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C

    Uzdensky , D. A., K \"o nigl , A., & Litwin , C. 2002, , 565, 1191

    2002

  72. [80]

    B., Close , L

    Wagner , K., Follete , K. B., Close , L. M., et al. 2018, , 863, L8

    2018

  73. [81]

    Wang , Y. M. 1995, , 449, L153

    1995

  74. [82]

    C., Lopez , S., et al

    Wendeborn , J., Espaillat , C. C., Lopez , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.21038

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    2019, , 874, 91

    Wu , Y. 2019, , 874, 91

    2019

  76. [84]

    2013, , 550, A99

    Zanni , C., & Ferreira , J. 2013, , 550, A99

    2013

  77. [85]

    P., Wagner , K

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Wagner , K. R., et al. 2021, , 161, 244

    2021

  78. [86]

    2021, , 59, 291

    Zhu , W., & Dong , S. 2021, , 59, 291

    2021

  79. [87]

    M., & Rafikov , R

    Zhu , Z., Dong , R., Stone , J. M., & Rafikov , R. R. 2015, , 813, 88

    2015

  80. [88]

    Zhu , Z., & Stone , J. M. 2018, , 857, 34

    2018

  81. [89]

    M., & Calvet , N

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., & Calvet , N. 2024, , 528, 2883

    2024

Pith tools

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