Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Global resistive MHD accretion flows around spinning AGNs: impact of resistivity on MAD state

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resistive accretion flows around spinning black holes all settle into the magnetically arrested state, and a domain-averaged plasma beta at or below one marks the transition.

desk verdict A competent resistive-MHD parameter study whose robust MAD core is undercut by an undefined, floor-sensitive beta_ave diagnostic presented as the main new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23051 v1 pith:CWIRAK3U submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Ramiz Aktar , Kuo-Chuan Pan , Toru Okuda This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords resistivemagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticallyarresteddiskplasmabetablackholeaccretionMRIturbulenceplasmoidformationjetpoweractivegalacticnuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether adding explicit, uniform resistivity to a highly magnetized accretion flow around a spinning black hole changes the flow's magnetic state. Using two- and three-dimensional resistive magnetohydrodynamic simulations, it finds that every model, from nearly ideal to \eta = 0.1, ends up in the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state, in which magnetic pressure near the horizon holds back the accreting gas. It then proposes a cheaper diagnostic than horizon flux for identifying that state: the volume-averaged plasma $\beta$ over the whole computational domain, with MAD onset at $\beta_{\rm ave} \lesssim 1$. The authors also report that higher resistivity suppresses magnetorotational-instability turbulence, that plasmoids appear only at low resistivity, that variability is not tied to resistivity, and that low-resistivity models produce the strongest jets. If the $\beta$-averaging criterion holds, any simulation with access to a domain-wide pressure ratio could identify MAD accretion without resolving the horizon flux.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of MAD indicators: the normalized magnetic flux threading the inner boundary, $\dot{\phi}_{\rm acc}$, previously used to define the MAD threshold, and the newly proposed volume-averaged plasma $\beta$ $\beta_{\rm ave}$ computed over the whole computational domain. The paper's argument runs on the correspondence between these two: whenever $\dot{\phi}_{\rm acc}$ rises above the canonical value of about 50, $\beta_{\rm ave}$ falls to or below unity, so the averaged pressure ratio serves as a proxy for the horizon-flux criterion. The simulations are driven by a resistive MHD code with an effective Kerr potential, uniform resistivity, and a fixed torus set to MAD-like dimensions; the MRI quality factor, Maxwell and Reynolds stresses, and current density maps carry the secondary claims about turbulence and reconnection.

What would settle it

Rerun one low- and one high-resistivity model with the density and pressure floors lowered by at least two orders of magnitude and with $\beta_{\rm ave}$ recomputed both over the full domain and over the disk body only; if the horizon flux still exceeds the MAD threshold while the disk-restricted $\beta_{\rm ave}$ stays above one, the proposed criterion is an artifact of the floor-dominated averaging volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that resistivity does not destroy the magnetically arrested state: all resistive models considered, with uniform resistivity from about 0 to 0.1, reach the MAD state as measured by the normalized horizon magnetic flux $\dot{\phi}_{\rm acc}$ crossing the canonical threshold of about 50 in Gaussian units. The paper's new proposal is that this state can be identified from the spatial average of the plasma $\beta$, $\beta_{\rm ave}$, computed over the entire computational domain; the flow enters MAD when $\beta_{\rm ave} \lesssim 1$, meaning magnetic pressure is comparable to or larger than gas pressure on average. The same simulations show that mass accretion rates are nearly equal in 2D and 3D until $t \approx 1000\,t_g$ and then diverge as non-axisymmetric MRI turbulence dominates in 3D, that high resistivity ($\eta = 0.1, 0.01$) damps MRI turbulence, that low-resistivity runs show plasmoids and current sheets in the jet region, that variability of accretion rate and magnetic flux shows no clear trend with resistivity, and that jet power is roughly two orders of magnitude lower at $\eta = 0.1$ than at $\eta \leq 10^{-3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The criterion rests on the assumption that averaging the plasma beta over the whole simulation box, including the very low-density, low-pressure atmosphere used to fill empty space, measures the disk's true magnetization rather than being dominated by the artificial floor values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A volume-averaged plasma beta at or below unity can be used as a practical MAD indicator in global simulations, without computing horizon-threading flux.
  • Resistivity by itself does not select the magnetic state; even strongly diffusive flows accumulate enough flux to become MAD, so comparisons of MAD versus non-MAD flows should not be attributed to resistivity.
  • In any model with high resistivity, jet power is expected to be about two orders of magnitude weaker, because less magnetic flux accumulates at the horizon.
  • Simulations aiming at late-time accretion behavior must be three-dimensional after $t \approx 1000\,t_g$, when non-axisymmetric effects change the accretion rate and flux.
  • Low-resistivity flows are the places to look for reconnection-driven plasmoid formation in jets, though the resolution here is insufficient to confirm the plasmoid dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\beta_{\rm ave} \lesssim 1$ threshold would be on firmer ground if recomputed as a mass-weighted or disk-restricted average; the current volume average includes floor-dominated atmosphere, and the authors do not report such a test.
  • If the threshold survives, it suggests a purely local pressure-balance criterion for MAD that could be applied to observed accretion flows via inferred magnetic and gas pressures, not just to simulations.
  • The absence of a variability-resistivity trend hints that observed timing variability in sources like Sgr A* is set by something other than the effective magnetic diffusivity, for instance the intermittent flux-eruption cycle common to MAD states.
  • The plasmoid formation at low resistivity in jets suggests that reconnection-powered flares should be more prominent in low-diffusivity sources; correlating flaring activity with jet power in AGN samples would test this.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents global resistive MHD simulations of magnetized accretion flows around a spinning black hole, using the PLUTO code with an effective Kerr potential. The authors run two-dimensional axisymmetric and three-dimensional models with uniform resistivities from η=0.1 down to the ideal-MHD limit, and compare mass accretion rates, normalized horizon magnetic flux, MRI quality factors, stresses, variability, and jet power. They report that all models reach the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state according to the standard horizon-flux criterion φ_acc ≳ 50, and they propose that a spatial average plasma beta β_ave ≲ 1 over the computational domain is an alternative indicator of the MAD state. Additional results include reduced MRI turbulence and jet power at high resistivity, plasmoid formation at low resistivity, and no clear resistivity-variability correlation.

Significance. If substantiated, the β_ave ≲ 1 criterion would be an inexpensive diagnostic for classifying MAD versus non-MAD states in global simulations, and the resistivity-dependent trends (turbulence suppression, jet-power reduction, plasmoid formation) are timely for interpreting EHT and GRAVITY observations. The paper also provides a useful 2D versus 3D comparison at higher effective resolution than typical GRMHD runs. The main weakness is that the proposed β_ave diagnostic is not defined operationally and lacks sensitivity tests; as presented, the central claim is not sufficiently supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2c] The manuscript never defines how β_ave is computed. The text says "spatial average plasma-beta parameter across the entire computational domain," but no equation or weighting is given (e.g., volume-weighted arithmetic mean of β, ratio of volume-averaged pressures, or mass-weighted average). Because the domain is largely filled by the low-density atmosphere at the numerical floors ρ_floor=10^-6 ρ0 and P_floor=10^-8 P0 (Section 2.6), a whole-domain average can be sensitive to the floor values; the paper presents no sensitivity test to floors, domain size, or weighting scheme. The conclusion that β_ave ≲ 1 signals the MAD state is therefore not established and could be an artifact of the atmosphere treatment.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 2c vs 2b] The threshold β_ave=1 is read off from the same set of simulations used to classify the MAD state via φ_acc≥50. This is a post-hoc correlation rather than an independent test. To support the claim, the authors should validate the threshold on a held-out set of simulations or on subregions of the same runs (e.g., excluding the atmosphere), and show that the crossing time of β_ave=1 tracks φ_acc=50 under different floor settings.
  3. [Section 3, Figs. 3 and 4] The MRI quality factors and the Maxwell/Reynolds stress profiles are computed at a single time t=8500 tg and, for the 3D models, at a single azimuthal slice φ=0. In a turbulent flow these diagnostics fluctuate strongly in time and azimuth; the reported factors-of-1000 differences between 2D and 3D models near the black hole are not robust without time/azimuth averaging. This does not affect the time-series conclusions from Fig. 2, but it weakens the quantitative turbulence comparison.
  4. [Section 2.7 and Fig. 2b] The normalized flux φ_acc is defined in Gaussian units but the y-axis of Fig. 2b is labeled "code unit." The conversion between the code's magnetic field units (where P_mag=B²/2) and the Gaussian-unit threshold φ_acc=50 is not stated. Without this conversion the reader cannot verify whether the plotted curves actually cross the MAD threshold; please clarify the units and conversion factors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The atmosphere profile ρ_atm = ρ_floor r^{-3/2}, P_atm = P_floor r^{-5/2} appears to use the same floor constants as the numerical floors in Section 2.6; for r>1 this puts the initial atmosphere below the floor, so the floor will override it. Please clarify how the atmosphere and the floor are meant to interact.
  2. [Section 2.5] The computational domain extent (r_min, r_max, z_max) is not stated; only the inner boundary and resolution are given. The domain size is needed to interpret the phrase "entire computational domain" and the volume averages.
  3. [Section 4] The discussion of limitations focuses on resolution for reconnection and plasmoids, but does not mention the sensitivity of β_ave to numerical floors; this omission should be addressed in the revision.
  4. [References] The reference "SÄ dowski" should be "Sądowski".
  5. [Figure 5 and Figure 8] The color maps and line styles for resistivity values η=10^-4 and η=10^-5 are hard to distinguish; consider labeling each panel with the η value more prominently and using a perceptually uniform colormap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MAD classification rests on an external φ_acc threshold, and the β_ave≤1 criterion is an in-sample empirical indicator, not a definitional or fitted substitute.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited in the paper's derivation chain. The MAD classification is anchored to an externally established threshold, φ_acc ≳ 50 in Gaussian units (Section 2.7), with φ_acc computed from the horizon radial magnetic field and mass accretion rate via Eqs. (11)–(14). The proposed β_ave diagnostic is a distinct quantity, and the statement that 'βave ≲ 1 when the flow transitions into the MAD state' (Section 3) is presented as an empirical correlation used as an indicator, not as the definition of MAD; the paper does not use β_ave to define the MAD state. Self-citations to R. Aktar et al. 2024a,b are methodological (effective Kerr potential implementation, torus initialization, MRI quality factor) and are not load-bearing for the central MAD conclusion, which is validated by comparison with the literature threshold for φ_acc. The β_ave criterion is not formally defined by an explicit averaging equation, and it may be sensitive to the atmosphere floor values and domain size; however, these are correctness and robustness concerns, not circular reductions, and the acknowledged resolution limitation in Section 4 does not itself indicate a circular step. Overall, no claim in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on a standard MHD framework plus a pseudo-Newtonian Kerr potential and a literature-derived MAD flux threshold. The headline Beta_ave <= 1 criterion is a post-hoc threshold, not a derived invariant, and uses a volume average that can be affected by numerical floors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • MAD threshold on average plasma beta = <= 1 (dimensionless)
    Chosen post hoc by visual inspection of Fig. 2c after matching the time when the normalized horizon flux crosses the MAD threshold; not derived or validated on an independent set of models.
  • BZ jet power coefficient kappa = 0.1
    Arbitrary constant in Eq. 17, described as 'for the sake of representation'; affects absolute jet power but not the relative ordering between models.
  • Numerical floor density and pressure = rho_floor = 1e-6 rho_0, P_floor = 1e-8 P_0
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.6; these floors can dominate the volume-average Beta_ave if the computational domain is mostly atmosphere, directly affecting the central MAD diagnostic.
  • Initial torus and magnetic configuration = r_min = 20 rg, r_max = 40 rg, beta_0 = 10, a_k = 0.95, lambda = 6.2
    Initial conditions chosen to match GRMHD MAD torus dimensions from the cited literature; the result 'all models become MAD' may depend on this highly magnetized starting point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Resistive MHD equations with a diagonal, globally uniform resistivity tensor describe accretion-flow reconnection adequately.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(4); no microphysical derivation of eta and no anisotropic resistivity is considered.
  • domain assumption The effective Kerr potential of Eq. (6) captures the essential spacetime features for MAD flux accumulation and jets.
    Section 2.2, based on Dihingia et al. 2018 and the authors' own Aktar et al. 2024a,b; the simulations are not full GRMHD.
  • domain assumption The normalized magnetic flux threshold phi_dot >= 50 defines the MAD state in this pseudo-Newtonian model.
    Section 2.7, taken from GRMHD literature and applied without re-derivation in the effective Kerr setup.
  • domain assumption The Blandford-Znajek jet power expression P_jet = kappa phi^2 Omega_H^2 with kappa=0.1 applies to these simulations.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (17); used to infer jet power instead of integrating the Poynting flux directly from the simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global resistive MHD accretion flows around spinning AGNs: impact of resistivity on MAD state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CWIRAK3U

@misc{pith2026250523051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global resistive MHD accretion flows around spinning AGNs: impact of resistivity on MAD state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CWIRAK3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23051}
}
abstract

In this study, we investigate the effect of resistivity on the dynamics of global magnetohydrodynamic accretion flows (Res-MHD) around a spinning supermassive black hole. We perform a comparative study of 2D and 3D resistive models around black holes. We examine accretion flow dynamics considering globally uniform resistivity values, ranging from $\sim 0$ to 0.1. During the simulation time of $t \lesssim 1000~t_g$, we find that the mass accretion rate is comparable for both the 2D and 3D models. However, as the flow becomes increasingly turbulent, non-axisymmetric effects begin to dominate, resulting in significant differences in the mass accretion rates between the 3D and 2D. All the resistive models in a highly magnetized flow belong to the Magnetically Arrested Disk (MAD) state. We propose an efficient and physically motivated approach to examine the magnetic state by estimating the spatial average plasma beta parameter across the computational domain. We find that when the average plasma beta is close to or below unity $( \beta_{\text{ave}} \lesssim 1 )$, the accretion flow enters the MAD state. Additionally, we find that high-resistivity flow reduces magnetorotational instability (MRI) turbulence in the accretion flow, while the turbulence structures remain qualitatively similar in low-resistivity flows. Moreover, we observe indications of plasmoid formations in low-resistivity flow compared to high-resistivity flow. Furthermore, we do not find a clear relationship between the variability of the accretion rate, magnetic flux, and resistivity. Lastly, our findings suggest that low-resistivity models produce higher power jets than those with higher resistivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of (a): density (log ρ) and (b): temperature (log T) of the initial equilibrium torus at t = 0 tg. Here, the grey lines represent magnetic field lines. and for the 3D model: ϕ˙ acc = √ 4π 2 p M˙ acc Z Z |Br|R=Rin r dz dϕ, (12) where Rin represents the inner boundary or the horizon for our model, and Br is the radial component of the magnetic field. In our model, we define the normalized magnetic flux in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of temporal evolution of (a): mass accretion rate (M˙ acc), (b): normalized magnetic flux (ϕ˙ acc) accumu￾lated at the black hole horizon, (c): spatial average plasma-β (βave) and (d): spatial average magnetic energy (B 2 ave) with the simulation time for different resistivity. Here, we consider the resistivity as η = 0.1, 0.01, 10−3 , 10−4 , 10−5 , and ∼ 0. See the text for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial variation of space-averaged MRI quality factor Qr (black) and Qz (red) for various resistivity η = 0.1, 0.01, 10−3 , 10−4 , 10−5 , and ∼ 0. Solid and dotted curves are for 3D and 2D models, respectively. 10−2 10−1 100 η = 0.1 3D 2D η = 0.01 10−2 10−1 100 αmag η = 10−3 100 101 102 η = 10−4 100 101 102 r(rg) 10−2 10−1 100 η = 10−5 100 101 102 r(rg) η ∼ 0 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 η = 0.1 3D 2D η = 0.01 10−4 10−3 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial variation of Left: Maxwell stress (αmag) and Right: Reynold stress (αgas) for various resistivity η = 0.1, 0.01, 10−3 , 10−4 , 10−5 , and ∼ 0. Black and red curves are for 3D and 2D models, respectively. becomes increasingly turbulent, the non-axisymmetric effec…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2D Model: Distribution of gas density (ρ), magnetization parameter (σM), temperature (T) and current density (J) for 2D model in first, second, third and fourth row, respectively. The grey lines represent the magnetic field lines. Here, we fix the different resistivity…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The plasmoid formation is shown for various time slices in a 2D model with resistivity of η = 10−5 . The specific time slices are as follows: (a) t = 8200 tg, (b) t = 8300 tg, (c) t = 8400 tg, (d) t = 8500 tg, (e) t = 8600 tg, and (f) t = 8700 tg. In the diagram, P1 an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Volume rendering of density (log ρ) with the magnetic field lines for (a): initial torus at t = 0tg and (b): at the t = 8500tg. See the text for details. models after reaching the MAD states. In this paper, we compare the simulation results of 2D and 3D models up to t …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D Model: Distribution of gas density (ρ), magnetization parameter (σM), temperature (T) and current density (J) for 3D model in first, second, third and fourth row, respectively. The grey lines represent the magnetic field lines. Here, we fix the different resistivity…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Jet power vs resistivity of the flow for 2D and 3D model. See the text for details. facilitating accretion through the intermittent penetration of dense, low-magnetic-pressure blobs into the magnetically supported inner regions (J. C. McKinney et al. 2012; C. J. White …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1978, A&A, 63, 221

    Abramowicz, M., Jaroszynski, M., & Sikora, M. 1978, A&A, 63, 221

    1978

  2. [2]

    2024a, MNRAS, 527, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3287

    Aktar, R., Pan, K.-C., & Okuda, T. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3287

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3287

  3. [3]

    2024b, ApJ, 972, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a8a Alfvén, H

    Aktar, R., Pan, K.-C., & Okuda, T. 2024b, ApJ, 972, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a8a Alfvén, H. 1942, Nature, 150, 405, doi: 10.1038/150405d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a8a 1942

  4. [4]

    K., Bautz, M

    Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45, doi: 10.1038/35092510

    doi:10.1038/35092510 2001

  5. [5]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/77

    Ball, D., Özel, F., Psaltis, D., & Chan, C.-k. 2016, ApJ, 826, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/77

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/77 2016

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    Ball, D., Özel, F., Psaltis, D., Chan, C.-K., & Sironi, L. 2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f 2018

  8. [8]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f

    Boyce, H., Haggard, D., Witzel, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Cowling, T. G. 1933, MNRAS, 94, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/94.1.39

    1933 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6

    Cui, Y., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    Curd, B., & Narayan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Kennea, J., et al

    Degenaar, N., Miller, J. M., Kennea, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/155

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Dhang, P., Bai, X.-N., & White, C. J. 2023, ApJ, 944, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb534

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    N., & Gammie, C

    Dhruv, V., Prather, B., Wong, G. N., & Gammie, C. F. 2025, ApJS, 277, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adaea6

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S

    Dihingia, I. K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 083004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083004

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1512

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3021 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a2

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Fromm, C. M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142295

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Genzel, R., Schödel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834294 17 GRAVITY Collaboration, Bauböck, M., Dexter, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A143,...

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    Hawley, J. F. 2000, ApJ, 528, 462, doi: 10.1086/308180

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2011, ApJ, 738, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/84

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 348, doi: 10.1086/318678

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2002, ApJ, 566, 164, doi: 10.1086/338059

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    F., Richers, S

    Hawley, J. F., Richers, S. A., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 772, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/102

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Igumenshchev, I. V. 2008, ApJ, 677, 317, doi: 10.1086/529025

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 668, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244196

    Janiuk, A., & James, B. 2022, A&A, 668, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244196

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Nathanail, A

    Jiang, H.-X., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., & Nathanail, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1106

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    A., & Livio, M

    Junor, W., Biretta, J. A., & Livio, M. 1999, Nature, 401, 891, doi: 10.1038/44780

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 921, doi: 10.1086/427720

    Kuwabara, T., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T., & Matsumoto, R. 2005, ApJ, 621, 921, doi: 10.1086/427720

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    1996, ApJ, 461, 115, doi: 10.1086/177041

    Matsumoto, R., Uchida, Y., Hirose, S., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 115, doi: 10.1086/177041

    1996 doi

  32. [41]

    2008, ApJL, 688, L17, doi: 10.1086/593147

    Meyer, L., Do, T., Ghez, A., et al. 2008, ApJL, 688, L17, doi: 10.1086/593147

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Younsi, Z., et al

    Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., Younsi, Z., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1753

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  37. [46]

    F., & Kulkarni, A

    Narayan, R., SÄ dowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  38. [47]

    M., Porth, O., et al

    Nathanail, A., Fromm, C. M., Porth, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1165

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16684, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16684

    Nathanail, A., Mizuno, Y., Contopoulos, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16684, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16684

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    A., Gammie, C., et al

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

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    A., et al

    Neilsen, J., Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 199, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/199

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    B., & Aktar, R

    Okuda, T., Singh, C. B., & Aktar, R. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5074, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1630

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    B., & Aktar, R

    Okuda, T., Singh, C. B., & Aktar, R. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1096

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    B., Das, S., et al

    Okuda, T., Singh, C. B., Das, S., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 49, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz021

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    R., et al

    Ponti, G., De Marco, B., Morris, M. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1537

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    Porth, O., Olivares, H., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    Proga, D., & Begelman, M. C. 2003, ApJ, 582, 69, doi: 10.1086/344537

    2003 doi

  48. [57]

    Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., & Philippov, A. A. 2020, ApJ, 900, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    2019, ApJS, 244, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3922

    Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., Porth, O., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3922

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    M., & Pringle, J

    Stone, J. M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 461, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04138.x

    2001

  52. [61]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  54. [63]

    Vourellis, C., Fendt, C., Qian, Q., & Noble, S. C. 2019, ApJ, 882, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32e2

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Stone, J

    White, C. J., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2016, ApJS, 225, 22, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/22

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Stone, J

    White, C. J., Stone, J. M., & Quataert, E. 2019, ApJ, 874, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c0c

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    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

  58. [67]

    Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, G. Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167b

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.