Generation of magnetic fields around black hole accretion discs due to non conservative radiation fields

Asaf Pe'er; Mukesh Kumar Vyas

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Generation of magnetic fields around black hole accretion discs due to non conservative radiation fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The curl of radiation from a rotating inner corona can magnetize a black hole accretion disc to about 100,000 Gauss within the viscous timescale.

desk verdict The corona extension is a real idea, but the 10^5 G claim comes from applying a short-timescale, motionless-plasma equation for a full viscous time. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10460 v1 pith:PBBPAYAX submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Mukesh Kumar Vyas , Asaf Pe'er This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph

keywords magneticfieldgenerationradiationforceaccretiondisccoronablackholechargeseparationbatteryeffectequipartitionjetlaunching

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 claims that radiation itself can be the engine that magnetizes black hole accretion discs. Because the radiation force on the plasma is not a pure gradient, its curl drives charge separation, and the induction equation grows a magnetic field that is linear in time. For a standard thin Keplerian disc the effect is weak, producing only a few Gauss. With a compact inner corona radiating near the Eddington limit, however, the same mechanism produces fields of order $10^5$ Gauss—a few per cent of equipartition with the gas pressure—within the viscous infall time. If correct, this radiation-driven battery is a significant magnetization channel alongside the magneto-rotational instability, with direct consequences for jet launching and for X-ray polarization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the curl of the radiation force, $\nabla\times\mathbf{f}_{\rm rad}$, which acts as a battery source in the induction equation. For Thomson scattering, $\mathbf{f}_{\rm rad}=\sigma_T\mathbf{F}/c$, so the source is proportional to $\nabla\times\mathbf{F}$, the rotation of the radiation flux. The calculation evaluates the three flux components and all six spatial derivatives by integrating the Lorentz-boosted specific intensity of the disc and corona over a thin disc plane, using a pseudo-Newtonian Keplerian profile for the outer disc and a constant-angular-velocity, solid-body profile for the inner corona. The resulting field components grow linearly with time as $(\sigma_T/e)\,t$ times combinations of flux derivatives. The key geometric fact is that the rotating corona at small radius produces a much larger flux curl than the Keplerian disc alone, which is what amplifies the field by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Simulate the same configuration—a 10-solar-mass black hole, a thin disc at 0.1 Eddington accretion, and a corona at $r_s=3r_g$ radiating at the Eddington luminosity—using the full induction equation including Hall, advection, and back-reaction terms, and read off the maximum field at the viscous time; if it is not within an order of magnitude of $10^5$ G, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the non-conservative component of the radiation field above an accretion disc is a viable magnetic-field source, and that an inner corona makes it dynamically important. Starting from the electron momentum equation and Maxwell's equations, the authors derive the source term $d\mathbf{B}/dt = -(c/e)\nabla\times\mathbf{f}_{\rm rad}$, with $\mathbf{f}_{\rm rad} = \sigma_T\mathbf{F}/c$. They then compute all components of the radiation flux and their coordinate derivatives for a geometrically thin disc consisting of an outer Keplerian part and an inner corona with solid-body rotation. A bare Keplerian disc yields fields of a few Gauss, while adding an Eddington-luminous corona inside $r_s\simeq 3\,r_g$ raises the peak field to about $10^5$ G near the inner disc, roughly 5% of the equipartition value, on the viscous timescale. The paper presents this as a demonstration that radiation-driven fields from a corona can reach dynamically significant strengths in realistic times.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes linear growth continues for the full viscous infall time, even though the paper states its growth equation is only valid while the field is weak; if back-reaction slows growth once the field becomes dynamically significant, the predicted peak strength is an overestimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A luminous inner corona at $r_s\simeq 3$–$10\,r_g$ makes radiation-driven fields dynamically significant, reaching about $10^5$ G and a few per cent of equipartition within the viscous timescale.
The corona-driven field is dominated by the vertical component $B_z$ near the disc–corona interface, the geometry that is a prerequisite for magnetically launched outflows and jets.
The produced field scales linearly with corona luminosity and inversely with the square of corona radius, so compact and Eddington-luminous coronae are the configurations in which this mechanism matters.
Because these fields decay faster with height than magneto-rotational-instability fields, their observational imprint would be inner-disc spectral breaks or radial variations in X-ray polarization rather than a volume-filling disc field.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the paper's rotation assumption would be to rerun the flux calculation with a Keplerian inner corona ($v_\phi\propto r_d^{-1/2}$) instead of the solid-body profile; if the $10^5$ G result is materially reduced, the mechanism hinges on the coronal velocity law.
The paper's linear-growth caveat implies that the physical end state may be a field pinned near the few-per-cent equipartition level rather than continuing to grow; even at that level it could act as a coherent seed for magneto-rotational turbulence in the inner disc.
Applying the same battery to an active galactic nucleus, where coronae are routinely observed and viscous times are much longer, would suggest larger integrated fields—but the saturation question becomes more important because there is more time for back-reaction to act.
Observationally, a steady, axisymmetric vertical field near the disc–corona interface should produce stable X-ray polarization aligned with the jet axis, distinguishing this mechanism from turbulent fields; this prediction is testable with current and upcoming X-ray polarimeters.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this paper says a compact, luminous, rotating corona can generate poloidal magnetic fields near black hole accretion discs that reach ~10^5 G, a few percent of equipartition, on the viscous infall time. The underlying mechanism is not new—non-conservative radiation fields generating fields via curl f_rad is the cosmic battery idea from Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Blinnikov, Ando et al., Shiromoto et al. What is new is the explicit computation of the full radiation flux and its curl for a two-component disc: a standard Keplerian disc plus a rigidly rotating inner corona. For the Keplerian-only case they reproduce the old weak-fields result (a few Gauss). For the corona case they find a large amplification. That is a legitimate and physically motivated extension, and the plots and calculation seem careful.

The problem is the central quantitative claim. The field evolution is obtained from dB/dt = -(c/e) ∇×f_rad, which is Eq. 9. As the paper itself states, that equation assumes the plasma is essentially at rest and that the Hall term (∝ j×B) is negligible because B is small. The authors then integrate this linear equation up to the viscous timescale t_v, using a radial velocity that implies the plasma is moving. They write after Eq. 13 that Eqs. 11–13 are valid only for short timescales, and footnote 1 says the Hall-term assumption fails once B becomes significant. The claimed endpoint—~5% of equipartition—is exactly that regime. So the headline field strengths are a linear extrapolation into a regime the model's own equations do not cover. No saturation calculation, no advection term, no Hall-term estimate is given. This is not a minor detail; it is the load-bearing step for the dynamical-significance claim.

Some smaller things: the corona rotation law v_ϕ ∝ r_d is an assumption (constant angular velocity) that affects the curl; the viscous timescale depends on the unspecified α; and the "motionless plasma" assumption is in tension with using t_v at all. But those are secondary. The main issue stands.

To their credit, the authors are explicit about the caveats—footnote 1 and the note after Eq. 13 are honest. The mechanism is plausible and the setup is a genuine extension. But as it stands, the paper does not justify the 10^5 G fields. A referee could reasonably ask for a saturation-level estimate by keeping the Hall term and the advective terms, or a time-dependent numerical integration of the full induction equation. That is a substantial revision, not a copy-edit.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The idea is worth refereeing; the flaw is specific and fixable, and the authors have shown they know where the boundary lies. It should not be accepted in its current form, but a desk rejection would waste a useful extension.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that magnetic fields around black hole accretion discs are generated by the non-conservative nature of the radiation force field, i.e., by ∇×F_rad ≠ 0. The authors compute the radiation flux components from a geometrically thin, optically thick Keplerian disc plus an optional inner corona, and then evaluate the linear induction equation dB/dt = -(c/e)∇×f_rad (Eq. 9) to obtain the time-dependent field components (Eqs. 11-13). For a disc without a corona they recover fields of a few Gauss, consistent with earlier work. When a compact, Eddington-luminosity inner corona (lc = 1, rs = 3rg) is added, they report maximum fields up to ~10^5 G, a few percent of equipartition, developing over the viscous infall time t_v (Eq. 24). The paper argues that such fields can be dynamically significant and may affect disc evolution, jet launching, and polarization signatures.

Significance. If the 10^5 G result were correct, the mechanism would provide a new, radiation-driven route to magnetizing the inner regions of black hole accretion flows, with potential implications for jet launching and X-ray polarization. The paper contains a relatively detailed numerical calculation of the radiation flux components and their derivatives, and it clearly states the model assumptions and the parameter dependences. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an extrapolation of a linear, stationary-plasma solution into a regime that the paper itself identifies as requiring additional terms. The significance is therefore conditional on whether that extrapolation can be justified, and the present manuscript does not provide such a justification.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, Eqs. (11)–(13) and Sec. 4.2] The headline field strength of 10^5 G is obtained by inserting t = t_v (Eq. 24) into the linear solutions Eqs. (11)–(13), which are derived from Eq. (9) under the assumptions v → 0 and small B. However, the text immediately after Eq. (13) states that Eqs. (11)–(13) “are valid for short time scales,” and footnote 1 states that the neglect of the Hall term “fails at later times, when the magnitude of the magnetic field becomes significant.” The endpoint of the integration, a field at a few percent of equipartition, is precisely that regime. The paper provides no calculation of the Hall-term saturation or of the advective term ∇×(v×B), so the 10^5 G value is an unsupported extrapolation rather than a solution of the model.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (9), and Sec. 3.1, Eq. (24)] Equation (9) assumes a plasma that is essentially at rest (v → 0), so that the induction term ∇×(v×B) is negligible. In Sec. 3.1 the available growth time is instead taken as the viscous infall time t_v = R/v_r, with v_r given by Eq. (24). A plasma that advects radially on the viscous timescale is not at rest, and the induction equation for such a flow should contain ∇×(v×B) and an advection-modified source term. The paper does not solve this full equation; it linearly superposes a static-plasma source onto a moving-plasma timescale. This inconsistency directly affects the claimed growth time and final field strength.
[Sec. 4.2, Fig. 3] The paper argues that the generated field reaches ~5% of equipartition and is therefore dynamically significant, affecting disc and jet evolution. At such field strengths the Lorentz force modifies the momentum balance of Eq. (1) that underlies the radiation source term, and the Hall term in Eq. (7) becomes comparable to the radiation source. The authors acknowledge this only in footnote 1 and do not estimate the saturation value or the timescale at which the linear approximation breaks down. Without a nonlinear or saturation calculation, the claim that such magnitudes develop within the viscous timescale is not established.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The phrase “few percentage of equipartition” should be “a few percent of equipartition”; it appears in both the abstract and Sec. 4.2.
[Author list] The first author's surname is typeset as “Vy as” instead of “Vyas.”
[Fig. 5 and Sec. 4.2] The monotonic scalings Bmax ∝ 1/r_s^2 and Bmax ∝ l_c shown in Fig. 5 are direct consequences of B ∝ t ∇×F with F ∝ L_c/A_c; the text should state explicitly that these are consistency checks rather than new predictions.
[Eq. (20) and Sec. 3] The assumption of constant angular velocity for the inner corona (Eq. 20) is introduced with only a citation to McKinney & Narayan (2007); given that the corona here is a radiative, weakly magnetized region, a more quantitative justification is needed for this velocity profile.
[Sec. 5, Fig. 3] The conclusion claims that the vertical component Bz dominates, but the paper does not compare the relative magnitudes of Bz, Br, and Bφ quantitatively; a quantitative statement would strengthen the claim about jet launching.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: field values are proportional to explicitly assumed luminosity, corona size, and growth time; no fitted output is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and input-driven: assumed disc/corona intensity profiles (Eqs. 22-23) determine the radiative fluxes (Eq. 15); their derivatives enter the source term -sigma_T/e curl f_rad, taken from Ando et al. (2010) and Shiromoto et al. (2014); time integration (Eqs. 11-13) uses the explicitly stated growth time t_v from Eq. 24. The resulting B values scale linearly with the chosen corona luminosity and inversely with r_s^2 (Fig. 5), exactly as expected from the assumed inputs. No parameter is fitted to the target field strength, and no central claim reduces by construction to an input. The cited source equations are independent prior results, not self-citations. The paper's own self-citations (Vyas & Chattopadhyay 2019; Raychaudhuri et al. 2021; Vyas & Pe'er, in prep.) are used only for outflow velocity estimates and a promised future relaxation, so they are not load-bearing. The limitations flagged at footnote 1 and after Eq. 13 - that Eqs. 11-13 are valid only for short timescales and fail once the field is dynamically significant - are extrapolation/correctness concerns about integrating a linear, v=0 induction equation to the viscous time; they are not circularity, because the endpoint is not assumed as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the four listed parameters and on the constant-angular-velocity corona assumption. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Corona luminosity lc = 1 L_Edd (fiducial)
Chosen in Sec. 4.2; B_max scales linearly with lc (Fig. 5, bottom).
Corona outer radius rs = 3 rg (fiducial)
Chosen in Sec. 4.2; B_max scales as roughly 1/rs^2 (Fig. 5, top).
Disc accretion rate m = 0.1
Chosen for the outer Keplerian disc in Sec. 4.1; sets the normalization of the disc flux.
Viscosity parameter alpha = not stated
Appears in Eq. 24 for the viscous timescale and therefore in B_max, but the paper never specifies the fiducial value used in Figs. 2-5.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Thomson scattering dominates the radiation force (Eq. 10).
Standard for a non-relativistic plasma, cited to Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Blinnikov (1977).
domain assumption The disk is infinitesimally thin (z_d = 0).
Used in Eq. 17 to write the solid angle element; a common simplification in radiation transfer calculations.
ad hoc to paper The inner corona rotates with constant angular velocity, so v_phi is proportional to radius (Eq. 20).
Cites McKinney & Narayan (2007); this rotation law strongly enhances the curl of the radiation force via Doppler beaming. A different rotation profile would change the results.
domain assumption The pseudo-Newtonian Paczynski-Wiita potential is valid at radii near 3 rg.
Used to derive the Keplerian velocities in Eqs. 19-20; this is approximate near the black hole horizon.
domain assumption The corona emits with uniform specific intensity (Eq. 23).
Motivated by Jiang et al. (2019); this assumption affects the spatial gradients of the flux and hence the curl.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation of magnetic fields around black hole accretion discs due to non conservative radiation fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBBPAYAX

@misc{pith2026250510460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation of magnetic fields around black hole accretion discs due to non conservative radiation fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBBPAYAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10460}
}

abstract

We investigate the generation of magnetic fields above black hole accretion discs due to the non-zero curl of the disc radiation field. By self consistently computing the components of the radiation flux and their curl, we show that the rotational nature of the radiation field induces charge separation, leading to magnetic field generation in the plasma above the disc. Solving the magnetohydrodynamic equations, we derive the time evolution of these fields and demonstrate that they grow over astrophysically relevant timescales. For a standard Keplerian accretion disc, the produced magnetic fields remain weak, on the order of a few Gauss, consistent with previous predictions. However, when a luminous corona is present in the inner disc region ($r_d < 3-10 r_g$), the generated fields reach dynamically significant strengths of up to $10^5$ Gauss where the magnetic energy density approaching few percentage of equipartition with the gas pressure. These fields develop within realistic growth timescales (such as viscous timescale) and can be dynamically significant in governing disc and jet evolution. Our findings suggest that radiation-driven magnetic fields play a crucial role in accretion flow magnetization, influencing both disc dynamics and observational signatures. The predicted field strengths could affect the thermal emission, synchrotron radiation, and polarization properties of black hole accretion systems, with implications for X-ray binaries, AGN, and jet formation. Future numerical simulations and high-resolution polarimetric observations, such as those from IXPE, eXTP, and EHT, may provide observational confirmation of our findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10460 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Geometry of the accretion disc with two distinct components, an outer Keplerian disc and inner radiating corona separated at distance rd = rs . system, {r, ϕ,z}, Br(t) = −σT t e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The three components of the magnetic field contours in r−z plane for an accretion disc truncating at 3 Schwarzschild radius (rg) when a corona component is absent. The mass of the black hole is 10 M⊙ and the accretion rate considered is 1 Eddington accretion rate. presented for two different configurations: (i) a standard Keplerian accretion disc without an inner corona, and (ii) a Keplerian disc with a luminous c… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Structure of the resultant magnetic field in the vicinity of the accretion disc corresponding to parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Top: Dependence of the maximum magnetic field produced above the disc (Bmax) on the corona size (rs), with other parameters the same as considered in section 4.2. Bottom: dependence of the maximum field strength (Gauss) with corona luminosity lc given in Eddington un…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

2010, ApJ, 716, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1566

Ando, M., Doi, K., & Susa, H. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1566

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1566 2010
[2]

A., & Hawley, J

Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270 Radiation driven magnetic fields 9 B´egu´e, D., Pe’er, A., Zhang, G. Q., Zhang, B. B., & Pevzner, B. 2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

doi:10.1086/170270 1991
[3]

1950, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 5, 65

Biermann, L. 1950, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 5, 65

work page 1950
[4]

S., & Blinnikov, S

Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Blinnikov, S. I. 1977, A&A, 59, 111

1977
[5]

S., Lovelace, R

Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., Lovelace, R. V . E., & Belinski, V . A. 2002, ApJ, 580, 380, doi: 10.1086/342876

work page doi:10.1086/342876 2002
[6]

G., Wen, S., Stone, N

Cao, Z., Jonker, P. G., Wen, S., Stone, N. C., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3539

doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3539 2023
[8]

M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D

Christodoulou, D. M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2008, ApJ, 674, 388, doi: 10.1086/524699

work page doi:10.1086/524699 2008
[9]

1998, ApJ, 508, 859, doi: 10.1086/306426

Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 859, doi: 10.1086/306426

doi:10.1086/306426 1998

Show all 48 references

[10]

Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Christodoulou, D. M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1451, doi: 10.1086/507600

2006 doi
[11]

2015, ApJ, 805, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/105

Contopoulos, I., Nathanail, A., & Katsanikas, M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/105

2015 doi
[12]

W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905

2020 doi
[13]

2011, ApJ, 741, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/93 Falceta-Gonc ¸alves, D., & Kowal, G

Doi, K., & Susa, H. 2011, ApJ, 741, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/93 Falceta-Gonc ¸alves, D., & Kowal, G. 2015, ApJ, 808, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/65

2011 doi
[14]

2011, NewAR, 55, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2011.08.002

Feng, H., & Soria, R. 2011, NewAR, 55, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2011.08.002

2011 doi
[15]

F., Gammie, C

Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 440, 742, doi: 10.1086/175311

1995 doi
[16]

M., & Davis, S

Jiang, Y .-F., Blaes, O., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 885, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00

2019 doi
[17]

2019, BAAS, 51, 126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.05241

Kamraj, N., Fabian, A., Lohfink, A., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.05241

2019 doi arXiv
[18]

2020, Fundamentals of Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics (Springer)

Kato, S., & Fukue, J. 2020, Fundamentals of Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics (Springer)

2020
[19]

2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

2008
[20]

2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

Komissarov, S., & Porth, O. 2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

2021
[21]

E., & Contopoulos, I

Koutsantoniou, L. E., & Contopoulos, I. 2014, ApJ, 794, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/27

2014 doi
[22]

2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovˇciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

2022 doi
[23]

Kronberg, P. P. 2002, Physics Today, 55, 12.40, doi: 10.1063/1.1537911

2002 doi
[24]

M., Cen, R., Ostriker, J

Kulsrud, R. M., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., & Ryu, D. 1997, ApJ, 480, 481, doi: 10.1086/303987

1997 doi
[25]

Langer, M., Aghanim, N., & Puget, J. L. 2005, A&A, 443, 367, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053372

2005 doi
[26]

2003, PhRvD, 67, 043505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043505

Langer, M., Puget, J.-L., & Aghanim, N. 2003, PhRvD, 67, 043505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043505

2003 doi
[27]

Lasheras, A. G. 2021, PhD thesis, Universit´e Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III

2021
[28]

C., & Narayan, R

McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 513, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11301.x

2007
[29]

2012, A&A, 537, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117369

Mineo, T., Massaro, E., D’Ai, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117369

2012 doi
[30]

Miniutti, G., & Fabian, A. C. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 1435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07611.x

2004
[31]

Moffatt, H. K. 1978, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids M¨uller, A. 2004, PhD thesis, -

1978
[32]

2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285 O’Dell, S

Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., Ricarte, A., & Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285 O’Dell, S. L. 1981, ApJL, 243, L147, doi: 10.1086/183462 Paczy´nsky, B., & Wiita, P. J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23

2022 doi
[33]

K., & Chattopadhyay, I

Raychaudhuri, S., Vyas, M. K., & Chattopadhyay, I. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3920

2021 doi
[34]

C., & Miller, J

Reis, R. C., & Miller, J. M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/48

2013 doi
[35]

K., M´endez, M., & Garc´ıa, F

Rout, S. K., M´endez, M., & Garc´ıa, F. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2321

2023 doi
[36]

A., Sokolov, D

Ruzmaikin, A. A., Sokolov, D. D., & Shukurov, A. M. 1988, Magnetic Fields of Galaxies, V ol. 133, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-2835-0

1988 doi
[37]

B., & Lightman, A

Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

1986
[38]

2005, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47, A205, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/47/5A/015

Schlickeiser, R. 2005, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47, A205, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/47/5A/015

2005 doi
[39]

I., & Sunyaev, R

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

1973
[40]

2014, ApJ, 782, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/108

Shiromoto, Y ., Susa, H., & Hosokawa, T. 2014, ApJ, 782, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/108

2014 doi
[41]

2025, MNRAS, 536, 3284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2514

Uttley, P., & Malzac, J. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2514

2025 doi
[42]

K., & Chattopadhyay, I

Vyas, M. K., & Chattopadhyay, I. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2917

2019 doi
[43]

Weibel, E. S. 1959, PhRvL, 2, 83, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.83

1959 doi
[44]

C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S., et al

Weisskopf, M. C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

2016
[45]

9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

Series, V ol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 990517, doi: 10.1117/12.2235240

2016 doi
[46]

Widrow, L. M. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 775, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.775

2002 doi
[47]

N., Du, Y ., Prather, B

Wong, G. N., Du, Y ., Prather, B. S., & Gammie, C. F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b8

2021 doi
[48]

2019, Science China

Zhang, S., Santangelo, A., Feroci, M., et al. 2019, Science China

2019
[49]

Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2010, ApJ, 716, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1566

Ando, M., Doi, K., & Susa, H. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1566

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1566 2010

[2] [2]

A., & Hawley, J

Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270 Radiation driven magnetic fields 9 B´egu´e, D., Pe’er, A., Zhang, G. Q., Zhang, B. B., & Pevzner, B. 2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

doi:10.1086/170270 1991

[3] [3]

1950, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 5, 65

Biermann, L. 1950, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 5, 65

work page 1950

[4] [4]

S., & Blinnikov, S

Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Blinnikov, S. I. 1977, A&A, 59, 111

1977

[5] [5]

S., Lovelace, R

Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., Lovelace, R. V . E., & Belinski, V . A. 2002, ApJ, 580, 380, doi: 10.1086/342876

work page doi:10.1086/342876 2002

[6] [6]

G., Wen, S., Stone, N

Cao, Z., Jonker, P. G., Wen, S., Stone, N. C., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3539

doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3539 2023

[7] [8]

M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D

Christodoulou, D. M., Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2008, ApJ, 674, 388, doi: 10.1086/524699

work page doi:10.1086/524699 2008

[8] [9]

1998, ApJ, 508, 859, doi: 10.1086/306426

Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 859, doi: 10.1086/306426

doi:10.1086/306426 1998