Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

A visual approach to global accretion disk instabilities

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Non-axisymmetric disk instabilities by themselves can provide accretion's needed effective viscosity.

desk verdict A clean visual and analytic study of SARI eigenmode structure; the linear alpha estimates in Table 2 are a useful consistency check, not a transport result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22672 v1 pith:5DDMNOUX submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.GA physics.plasm-ph

Nicolas Brughmans , Rony Keppens This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAphysics.plasm-ph
keywords accretiondiscsmagnetorotationalinstabilitysuper-AlfvénicrotationalMHDinstabilitiesangularmomentumtransportalphaviscosityspiralmodesdynamo
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

Accretion disks are thought to transport angular momentum outward through turbulence driven by the magneto-rotational instability (MRI), but this paper argues that a different, non-axisymmetric family of modes—the Super-Alfvénic Rotational Instability (SARI)—can do the same job on its own. The authors compute the full complex linear eigenmodes of a global disk annulus for vertical, helical, and nearly azimuthal magnetic fields, and show that superposing many still-growing SARI modes produces Maxwell and Reynolds stresses whose peak values of the standard alpha viscosity parameter (about $0.06$–$0.08$ for vertical and helical fields) fall in the range that accretion models invoke for angular momentum transport. They also find that MRI and SARI perturbations look and behave differently: MRI displaces magnetic field lines almost purely radially, while SARI modes displace them vertically as well, move with real phase speeds, and form trailing spiral arms. If this is right, angular momentum transport in disks does not require fully developed turbulence or even the axisymmetric MRI; purely linear, wall-insensitive modes can provide it.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the full complex-valued linear eigenfunction set of ideal MHD in a cylindrical disk annulus, obtained from the self-adjoint spectral equation for the Lagrangian displacement $\boldsymbol{\xi}$, namely $\mathcal{G}(\boldsymbol{\xi})-2\rho\tilde{\omega}U\boldsymbol{\xi}+\rho\omega^2\boldsymbol{\xi}=0$. The SARI modes studied are quasi-continuum near-eigenmodes: they occupy two-dimensional regions in the complex frequency plane above the overlapping forward and backward Alfvén continua, localise around the corotation radius $r_\ast$ where $\omega_r=m\Omega(r_\ast)$, and need only a minute (below machine precision) energy addition to be excited. The analytical core is a set of approximate incompressible, thin-disk expressions for the perturbed velocity and magnetic field in terms of the radial displacement $\chi$, from which the paper derives the polarization table: $B_r$ and $B_\theta$ anti-phase, $B_z$ in or anti-phase with them according to the sign of $m$, $v_r$ and $v_\theta$ in phase, and $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{B}\approx 0$ near corotation. These expressions also give the phase speeds of the spirals and support the generalisation of the anti-spiral theorem: only genuinely complex, overstable eigenmodes can display spiral structure, while purely oscillating waves cannot.

What would settle it

A direct numerical simulation of one of the paper's three equilibria (vertical, helical, or nearly azimuthal field with $B_0=0.01$, $\beta=10$) in a global annulus, started from broadband noise with no wall-attached channel modes, should show localised, wall-insensitive spiral disturbances with outward-moving phase fronts and vertical field displacements, and should reach peak $\alpha$ values near $10^{-2}$ before nonlinear saturation; if those structures or stress levels are absent, the SARI picture is falsified. A cheaper spectral test is to move the outer radial wall outward and check whether the quasi-continuum mode set and the resulting $\alpha$ profile survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quasi-continuum SARI modes—near-eigenmodes of ideal MHD that are localised around their corotation radius and insensitive to the artificial radial boundaries—are physically consequential, not spectral curiosities. When many such still-growing modes are superposed in a global disk model, their disk-averaged Maxwell and Reynolds stresses already give peak $\alpha$ values of order $10^{-2}$ (up to about $8\times 10^{-2}$ for the helical-field case), comparable to the lower range of saturated MRI turbulence, and this happens while the perturbations are still linear. The field perturbations are described as fundamentally different from those of the MRI: $B_r$ and $B_\theta$ stay in anti-phase as in the MRI cartoon, but the vertical component $B_z$ is now in phase or anti-phase with them depending on the sign of the azimuthal mode number $m$, so the eigenfunctions are truly complex, the mode has no zeroes of its envelope, and the field lines acquire vertical displacements. A linear superposition of two slightly misaligned opposite-$m$ SARI modes produces local, abruptly reversing field structures reminiscent of plasmoids and toroidal flux tubes, structures that axisymmetric MRI modes cannot create.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that quasi-continuum SARI modes are genuinely present in real disks even though they are not exact eigenmodes and require a tiny, machine-precision seed of energy to be excited; if actual disks never excite these near-modes, or if the artificial radial walls at $r=1$ and $r=2$ together with the vertical-localisation assumption shape the spectrum, the spiral structures, stress values, and alpha estimates would not transfer to real accretion disks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Superposed linear SARI modes alone produce disk-averaged alpha values in the $10^{-2}$ range, so angular momentum transport need not wait for fully developed turbulence.
  • SARI spiral shapes are stationary in the corotating frame and are not sheared away like transient non-axisymmetric MRI modes in shearing-box treatments.
  • The non-axisymmetry required for dynamo action is already present in the linear SARI stage, while MRI-dominated disks only acquire it through nonlinear evolution.
  • Opposite-$\pm m$ SARI superpositions create plasmoid-like field reversals and flux-tube-like structures within ideal MHD, offering a linear seed for reconnection sites.
  • Each growing SARI has a damped, time-reversed twin with opposite spiral handedness, so spiral structure itself is a signature of instability rather than stable oscillation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not pursue: because shearing-box coordinates discard the resonance structure that localises SARIs, local-box simulations may systematically underestimate this class of transport; a global initial-value simulation with the same equilibria would test this directly.
  • The alpha values are computed in the linear regime, so a natural next calculation is whether those stresses persist or grow after nonlinear saturation; if they do, SARI transport could rival MRI turbulence.
  • The predicted polarization signatures (the sign of $B_z$ relative to $B_r,B_\theta$ tied to $m$, and $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{B}\approx 0$ near corotation) could be searched for in existing global disk simulations by post-processing their Fourier modes.
  • If finite resistivity is added, the ideal-MHD field reversals seen in opposite-$m$ superpositions may reconnect genuinely, which would tie SARI directly to plasmoid formation and disk heating without invoking parasitic instabilities.
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. The paper uses the open-source Legolas code to compute linear ideal-MHD eigenmodes of a cylindrical global accretion disk model with vertical, helical, or nearly azimuthal background fields, for both the axisymmetric MRI and non-axisymmetric SARI modes. It visualizes the complex eigenfunctions in 2D and 3D, identifies spiral morphology and phase speeds, contrasts the polarization of MRI and SARI perturbations, and supports the polarization picture with analytic expressions in Appendix A. The final part of the paper superposes many linear MRI or SARI modes, renders synthetic 'turbulent' disks, and computes Maxwell and Reynolds stresses to obtain the Shakura-Sunyaev alpha values reported in Table 2. The abstract and Section 5.2 state the central claim: even superposed, still linearly growing SARI modes can already provide the effective alpha values invoked for angular momentum transport. The paper also claims that SARI field perturbations are fundamentally different from MRI perturbations, with vertical displacements and, for opposite-m superpositions, plasmoid-like field reversals.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would be significant: it would show that quasi-continuum, non-axisymmetric SARIs are not merely spectral curiosities but can produce transport stresses comparable to saturated MRI turbulence while naturally generating non-axisymmetric structure and plausible reconnection sites. The strength of the paper lies in its concrete, reproducible machinery: the mode lists and superposition coefficients are stored, the analysis uses the open-source Legolas code, and the visualizations are carefully tied to the underlying complex eigenfunctions. The analytic polarization appendix is a useful step beyond pure numerics and yields testable sign relations. However, the transport claim is currently not robust: the Table 2 alpha values are set by hand-chosen mode amplitudes and phases, no uncertainty or sensitivity analysis is given, and the quasi-continuum SARI modes are shown to be near-eigenmodes without a demonstration that real broadband disk perturbations excite them with the assumed amplitudes.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Table 2, Eq. (12)] The alpha values in Table 2 depend on the arbitrary amplitudes and phases assigned to the superposed modes in Sec. 5.1. The text states that each mode receives a randomized complex rotation and a 'semi-randomised amplitude, chosen such that the total growth at the end of the linear phase is somewhat uniform in the entire disk', and that the total perturbation is normalized to an initial field perturbation of at most 1e-4 B0. Since the stresses in Eq. (12) are quadratic in the perturbed fields, this normalization and amplitude prescription largely determines the resulting alpha values. No sensitivity study is provided for different amplitude distributions, phase choices, or time of evaluation, so Table 2 cannot be read as evidence that SARIs specifically provide the needed transport; it shows only that perturbations at the linear-phase threshold can produce stresses of this magnitude.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Sec. 2.3, Eq. (8)] The alpha values in Table 2 are close to a generic upper bound set by the linearity criterion itself. Equation (8) defines the linear phase by requiring the perturbed field to be everywhere weaker than B0, so the quadratic Maxwell stress is capped at order B0^2/p0 ~ 2/beta = 0.2 for beta = 10. The reported values, 0.006 to 0.08, are within one order of magnitude of this bound. The statement in Sec. 5.2 that the stresses 'imply that the linear dynamics may extend beyond the strictly defined linear regime' is therefore not supported: any perturbation at the amplitude threshold would produce comparable stresses. To substantiate the SARI-specific transport claim, the paper would need to show that these values are not simply a consequence of the amplitude cap, for example by comparing against random non-modal perturbations at the same amplitude.
  3. [Sec. 1, Sec. 3.1, Sec. 7] The central transport claim relies on quasi-continuum SARIs being excitable in real disks, but the paper only asserts this. Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.1 state that these modes are near-eigenmodes that 'require a minute (e.g. below machine precision) addition of energy to the system', and that this is de facto satisfied in direct numerical simulations. However, a numerical simulation is not an astrophysical disk: no initial-value calculation or projection of realistic broadband perturbations onto the quasi-continuum is presented, so it remains unknown whether the amplitude and phase structure assumed in Sec. 5.1 is representative. The discussion in Sec. 7 acknowledges this as an open question, but the abstract and Sec. 5.2 nevertheless present the alpha result as the paper's conclusion. The claim should be explicitly conditioned on this excitability assumption, or supported by an initial-value test.
  4. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A12)-(A13)] The analytic derivation of the SARI polarization in Appendix A uses the sign relations (A12)-(A13) for the radial derivatives chi'_r and chi'_i, which are introduced as empirical associations inferred from the trailing spiral structure. These relations are then used to derive the signs in Table 1, so the 'analytical confirmation' of the SARI polarization is partly an input rather than a derivation. Since the fundamental difference between MRI and SARI polarization is one of the paper's main claims, these sign relations should either be derived from the eigenmode equations or explicitly labeled as assumptions whose validity is checked numerically. As written, the argument is more of a consistency check than a proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2] The paper quotes peak values of alpha at the radius of strongest growth rather than a radial average; a radially averaged alpha, or a statement of how the quoted peak relates to the disk-averaged transport, would make the comparison to simulation values more meaningful.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The vertical-localization criterion is written as k > 70/r, which mixes a dimensionless wavenumber with a radius-dependent threshold; please clarify the units and the derivation, and state how the value 70 is obtained from L <= 2H.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The quasi-continuum selection criterion 1 << |k/m| < B from Eq. (91) of GK22 is used but the quantity B is not defined in this paper; a sentence defining it would improve self-containedness.
  4. [Data Availability] The text says the mode lists and coefficients are 'stored and reproducible' but the Data Availability statement offers them only on request; placing the data in a permanent repository would better support reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] Table 1 uses the symbols 0↑ and 0↓ without an explicit definition in the table caption; the surrounding text explains them, but a short note in the caption would prevent misreading.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed alpha-values in Sec. 5.2 are forced by the linear-phase definition and the chosen beta value, not by SARI mode structure.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.3 (Eq. 8) and Sec. 5.2 (Eq. 12, Table 2)]
    "We define 'linear' as the phase where the perturbed magnetic field is everywhere weaker than the equilibrium field B0. Put otherwise, Br ≲ B0, Bθ,z ≲ Bθ0,z0, (8) ... We quantify the stresses at the end of the linear phase ... The maximal stresses at the end of the linear phase for all SARI disks are collected in Table 2 and reach orders of magnitude comparable to the known range of alpha."

    The stresses in Eq. (12) are quadratic in the perturbation amplitudes, and Eq. (8) caps the perturbation at the evaluation time to be of order B0. Hence the computed alpha is necessarily of order B0^2/p = 2/beta. Since beta is fixed to 10 in Sec. 2.1, the alpha values are forced into the 'needed' range 0.01-1 quoted in Sec. 5.2. The claim that superposed, linearly growing SARI modes 'can already provide the needed alpha-values' is therefore a direct consequence of the adopted linear-phase definition and the beta input, not an independent result of the SARI dynamics. The specific entries in Table 2 vary with the geometric polarization of the modes, but their order of magnitude is set by the construction.

full rationale

The paper contains one significant circular step: the alpha transport claim. Because the linear-phase boundary (Eq. 8) sets the perturbation amplitude at of order B0, and stresses are quadratic (Eq. 12), alpha at that moment is of order 2/beta; with beta=10 this lands in the 'needed' range by construction. All other main results—the eigenmode structure, polarization, spiral and phase-speed analysis, and the anti-spiral argument—are derived from the MHD equations and numerical eigenfunctions, with self-citations to GK22 and Brughmans et al. 2024 providing independent analytical and numerical support rather than circular justification. The paper's visualizations and polarization findings stand on their own. The circularity is confined to the alpha-value interpretation, which is a highlighted abstract claim, so the overall score reflects partial circularity rather than a fully reductionist derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper builds on the SARI concept from GK22 and Brughmans et al. (2024) rather than introducing new physical entities. Its central quantitative claims rest on two hand-chosen inputs: the initial perturbation amplitude and the mode selection criteria. The analytic polarization argument also leans on empirically motivated sign relations for the SARI eigenfunctions.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial perturbation amplitude A0 = 10^-4 B0 with alpha evaluated at tmax
    Alpha values in Table 2 scale with the square of this arbitrary initial amplitude; the paper chooses A0=1e-4 B0 and evaluates at the end of the linear phase, so the reported alpha numbers are normalization-dependent, not predictions of a saturated state.
  • Mode selection thresholds = growth rate > 0.02, 1 << |k/m| < B, random k near k_max, m in [-20,20]
    These criteria, stated in Sec. 5.1, determine which quasi-continuum SARIs enter the superposition and hence control the visual pattern and stress values; they are choices, not derived from disk physics.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Ideal MHD with self-adjoint spectral operators and the Frieman-Rotenberg equation governs linear dynamics
    The whole eigenvalue analysis relies on this framework, introduced in Sec. 2.2 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption Thin disk vertical localization: modes satisfy k^2 r^2 >> m^2 and k > 70/r, with vertical variation frozen
    Sec. 2.1 restricts to vertically localized modes and ignores vertical stratification; this is necessary for the cylindrical model but is a modeling assumption, not imposed by observations.
  • domain assumption Quasi-continuum SARIs are near-eigenmodes requiring below-machine-precision energy addition and are treated as true growing normal modes
    Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.1 state this property; the entire SARI visualization and stress analysis depends on these modes being physically excitable.
  • ad hoc to paper Sign relations (A12)-(A13) relating chi' to chi for trailing spirals
    In Appendix A these sign relations are asserted from the trailing spiral behavior and used to derive the SARI polarization; they are justified by numerical observation rather than derived within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A visual approach to global accretion disk instabilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DDMNOUX

@misc{pith2026250722672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A visual approach to global accretion disk instabilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DDMNOUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22672}
}
read the original abstract

For over 30 years, the Magneto-Rotational Instability has been accepted as the mechanism driving accretion disk turbulence. Its physical basis is well understood, where an interplay between centrifugal forces and magnetic tension transfers angular momentum between oppositely displaced fluid elements. In this work, we revisit this picture in global disk models and various magnetic field topologies and generalise it to non-axisymmetric instabilities like the Super-Alfv\'enic Rotational Instability (SARI). We use the open-source \texttt{Legolas} software to quantify all complex-valued linear eigenfunctions for the (near-)eigenmodes and visualise the resulting spatio-temporal variations in real space in a manner that can be compared to direct numerical simulations of disks. The field perturbations are fundamentally different between the (axisymmetric) MRI and the novel, ultra-localised SARI modes, which bear some resemblance to spiral modes in galaxies but differ in important ways. We use a combined numerical-analytical approach to study the polarization of the magnetic and velocity field perturbations. Finally, we compare disks of differing magnetic topology where many linear modes are merely superposed to recreate a visual impression of `turbulent' fields and quantify the resulting stresses. We find that even superposed, still linearly growing SARI modes can already provide the needed effective viscosity-related alpha-values invoked for angular momentum transport. 3D views on the magnetic field perturbations show that SARI modes of opposite azimuthal mode number may naturally introduce plasmoid and toroidal flux-tube like field deformations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Mode structure of a SARI (𝑚 = 2, 𝑘 = 65, 𝜇1 = 0) with eigenfrequency 1.28533 + 0.24458𝑖. Snapshot of 𝐵𝑟 at 𝑡 = 0 of a horizontal cut at 𝑧 = 0. The number of spiral arms corresponds to the value of |𝑚|. (b) Eulerian perturbations of 𝐵𝑟 encountered by the red ‘corks’ at different radii moving with the equilibrium flow at the bottom of Panel (a). Even at the Alfvén resonances far away from corotation, where the per… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of a SARI (𝑚 = 2, 𝑘 = 65, 𝜇1 = 0, 𝜔 = 1.28533 + 0.24458𝑖) in a radial slice at 𝜃 = 0, 𝑧 = 0. Wave crests appear to move outwards in the laboratory frame. The radial phase speeds for the SARI from earlier can be read off from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One rather global MRI mode (𝑚 = 0, 𝑘 = 97, 𝜇1 = 0) shown in a vertical cut along the 𝑟 − 𝑧 plane. The projected magnetic field lines are featured on top of the 𝑣𝜃 perturbation at the end of the linear phase. Quivers denote the projected velocities. An animation is available in the online version of this article. 𝜃 = 0 of one global MRI mode. Note that 𝑣 𝜃 acts as a proxy for the angular momentum perturbation, since … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Relative amplitudes and orientations of the perturbed magnetic field components in cylindrical coordinates for the MRI in a vertical background field (𝑚 = 0, 𝑘 = 97, 𝜇1 = 0, 𝜔 = 0.1597𝑖). 𝐵𝑟 and 𝐵𝜃 are in anti-phase, and 90◦ out-of-phase with 𝐵𝑧. The field-aligned …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative amplitudes and orientations of the perturbed magnetic field components for the SARIs (𝑚 = ±2, 𝑘 = 65, 𝜔 = 1.28533 + 0.24458𝑖 and −1.23406 + 0.24240𝑖) in a vertical background field (𝜇1 = 0). 𝐵𝑟 and 𝐵𝜃 are in anti-phase, and 𝐵𝑧 is in phase or in anti-phase with…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One SARI mode (𝑚 = 2, 𝑘 = 65, 𝜔 = 1.20930 + 0.17815𝑖) in a vertical field (𝜇1 = 0), shown in a vertical cut along the 𝑟 − 𝑧 plane. The projected magnetic field lines are shown on top of the 𝑣𝜃 perturbation at the end of the linear phase. Quivers denote the projected ve…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Field lines for the MRI and 𝑚 = 2 and 𝑚 = −2 SARIs, respectively, in a helical field (𝜇1 = 1, top row, with wavenumbers 𝑘 = 137, 90, and 93, and eigenvalues −0.00074 + 0.25330𝑖, 1.17589 + 0.22422𝑖, −1.16113 + 0.2236𝑖, resp.) and nearly azimuthal field (𝜇1 = 10, bottom …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two slightly misaligned SARI modes with opposite 𝑚 (𝑚 = 2, 𝑘 = 90 and 𝑚 = −2, 𝑘 = 93) and similar growth rates (𝜔 = 1.17589 + 0.22422𝑖 and 𝜔 = −1.16113 + 0.22360𝑖) result in the formation of island-like structures in a vertical cut along the 𝑟 − 𝑧 plane (helical field …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cylindrical slices taken at 𝑧 = 0 of the perturbed radial magnetic field for MRI modes (first column) and SARI modes (second column) at many wavenumbers 𝑚, 𝑘 at three field orientations. Top row: vertical field, middle row: helical field (𝜇1 = 1), bottom row: nearly az…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Slices of a 3D MRI (back) and SARI (front) disk with modes at many wavenumbers and 𝜇1 = 10 at time 𝑡max/8. Colorbar shows the perturbed 𝑣𝑟 component. Field lines are shown in white. Note how the SARI field has a larger vertical displacement compared to the MRI. Severa…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Disk-averaged radial profiles of stresses in the SARI with vertical field case at 𝑡max. At this point, the fastest-growing modes near the inner parts of the disk dominate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., 1973, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112073000881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973JFM....61..609A 61, 609

    Acheson D. J., 1973, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112073000881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973JFM....61..609A 61, 609

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112073000881 1973

  2. [2]

    J., Hide R., 1973, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/36/2/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973RPPh...36..159A 36, 159

    Acheson D. J., Hide R., 1973, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/36/2/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973RPPh...36..159A 36, 159

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/36/2/002 1973

  3. [3]

    Arlt R., R \"u diger G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...374.1035A 374, 1035

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010797 2001

  4. [4]

    J., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2201.07262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220107262A p

    Armitage P. J., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2201.07262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220107262A p. arXiv:2201.07262

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.07262 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Begelman M

    Bacchini F., Arzamasskiy L., Zhdankin V., Werner G. R., Begelman M. C., Uzdensky D. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a94 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...86B 938, 86

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a94 2022

  6. [6]

    A., Werner G

    Bacchini F., Zhdankin V., Gorbunov E. A., Werner G. R., Arzamasskiy L., Begelman M. C., Uzdensky D. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.045202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvL.133d5202B 133, 045202

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.045202 2024

  7. [7]

    M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...30B 767, 30

    Bai X.-N., Stone J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...30B 767, 30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/30 2013

  8. [8]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...400..610B 400, 610

    doi:10.1086/172022 1992

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1998, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998RvMP...70....1B 70, 1

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    Barnier S., Done C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..201B 977, 201

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Armitage P

    Begelman M. C., Armitage P. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.5952B 521, 5952

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Scepi N., Dexter J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2040B 511, 2040

    Begelman M. C., Scepi N., Dexter J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2040B 511, 2040

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Frieman E

    Bernstein I. B., Frieman E. A., Kruskal M. D., Kulsrud R. M., 1958, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1958.0023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958RSPSA.244...17B 244, 17

    1958

  6. [14]

    Blokland J., Van der Swaluw E., Keppens R., Goedbloed J., 2005, , 444, 337

    2005

  7. [15]

    Blokland J. W. S., van der Holst B., Keppens R., Goedbloed J. P., 2007, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.04.018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007JCoPh.226..509B 226, 509

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Brughmans N., Keppens R., Goedbloed H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...19B 968, 19

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Claes N., Keppens R., 2023, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023CoPhC.29108856C 291, 108856

    2023

  10. [18]

    Claes N., De Jonghe J., Keppens R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abc5c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251...25C 251, 25

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Lesur G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2791D 473, 2791

    Das U., Begelman M. C., Lesur G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2791D 473, 2791

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Stone J

    Davis S. W., Stone J. M., Pessah M. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713...52D 713, 52

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    De Jonghe J., Keppens R., 2024, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0180535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhPl...31c2106D 31, 032106

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    De Jonghe J., Claes N., Keppens R., 2022, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377822000617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JPlPh..88c9021D 88, 905880321

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acff70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..20E 957, L20

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Foglizzo T., Tagger M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9502049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...301..293F 301, 293

    1995 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Foglizzo T., Tagger M., 1996, Astrophysical Letters and Communications, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApL&C..34..351F 34, 351

    1996

  18. [26]

    C., Anninos P., Roth N., Mishra B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...59F 959, 59

    Fragile P. C., Anninos P., Roth N., Mishra B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...59F 959, 59

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Frieman E., Rotenberg M., 1960, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.32.898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960RvMP...32..898F 32, 898

    1960 doi

  20. [28]

    P., 2018a, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5019831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25c2109G 25, 032109

    Goedbloed J. P., 2018a, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5019831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25c2109G 25, 032109

    doi

  21. [29]

    P., 2018b, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5019838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25c2110G 25, 032110

    Goedbloed J. P., 2018b, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5019838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25c2110G 25, 032110

    doi

  22. [30]

    Goedbloed H., Keppens R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac573c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...65G 259, 65

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/9781316403679

    Goedbloed H., Keppens R., Poedts S., 2019, Magnetohydrodynamics of Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas . Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/9781316403679

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Goodman J., Xu G., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...432..213G 432, 213

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Bacchini F., Zhdankin V., Werner G

    Gorbunov E. A., Bacchini F., Zhdankin V., Werner G. R., Begelman M. C., Uzdensky D. A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241002872G p. arXiv:2410.02872

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    W., de Blank H

    Haverkort J. W., de Blank H. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.016411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvE..86a6411H 86, 016411

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Gammie C

    Hawley J. F., Gammie C. F., Balbus S. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...440..742H 440, 742

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    arXiv:2505.06779

    Haywood A., Ebrahimi F., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250506779H p. arXiv:2505.06779

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Hermans J., Keppens R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.180H 686, A180

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Stone J

    Hirose S., Krolik J. H., Stone J. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..901H 640, 901

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    Keppens R., Demaerel T., 2016, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4971811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhPl...23l2117K 23, 122117

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569L.121K 569, L121

    Keppens R., Casse F., Goedbloed J. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569L.121K 569, L121

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Huysmans G

    Kerner W., Goedbloed J. P., Huysmans G. T. A., Poedts S., Schwarz E., 1998, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1006/jcph.1998.5910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JCoPh.142..271K 142, 271

    1998

  35. [44]

    N., Lesaffre P., Balbus S

    Latter H. N., Lesaffre P., Balbus S. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14395.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394..715L 394, 715

    2009

  36. [45]

    N., Fromang S., Faure J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3257L 453, 3257

    Latter H. N., Fromang S., Faure J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3257L 453, 3257

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    Lin D. N. C., Papaloizou J. C. B., Kley W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...416..689L 416, 689

    1993 doi

  38. [47]

    P., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/136.3.293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967MNRAS.136..293L 136, 293

    Lynden-Bell D., Ostriker J. P., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/136.3.293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967MNRAS.136..293L 136, 293

    1967 doi

  39. [48]

    Matsumoto R., Tajima T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175739 , 445, 767

    1995 doi

  40. [49]

    E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241105064M p

    Miravet-Ten \'e s M., Pessah M. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241105064M p. arXiv:2411.05064

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    C., Anderson J., Blankenship A., Li H., Nalewajko K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac938b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...31M 939, 31

    Mishra B., Fragile P. C., Anderson J., Blankenship A., Li H., Nalewajko K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac938b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...31M 939, 31

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    I., Pringle J

    Ogilvie G. I., Pringle J. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/279.1.152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.279..152O 279, 152

    1996 doi

  43. [52]

    I., Proctor M

    Ogilvie G. I., Proctor M. R. E., 2003, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112002003051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JFM...476..389O 476, 389

    2003 doi

  44. [53]

    Papaloizou J. C. B., Pringle J. E., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/208.4.721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.208..721P 208, 721

    1984 doi

  45. [54]

    A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..100R 900, 100

    Ripperda B., Bacchini F., Philippov A. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..100R 900, 100

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Markoff S

    Ripperda B., Liska M., Chatterjee K., Musoke G., Philippov A. A., Markoff S. B., Tchekhovskoy A., Younsi Z., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..32R 924, L32

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    B., Armitage P

    Salvesen G., Simon J. B., Armitage P. J., Begelman M. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..857S 457, 857

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    Seilmayer M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.024505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113b4505S 113, 024505

    2014 doi

  49. [58]

    B., Beckwith K., Armitage P

    Simon J. B., Beckwith K., Armitage P. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20835.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.2685S 422, 2685

    2012

  50. [59]

    J., Fedun V., Goossens M., Silva S

    Skirvin S. J., Fedun V., Goossens M., Silva S. S. A., Verth G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..176S 975, 176

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    C., Matsuda T., Inoue M., Sawada K., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/229.4.517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.229..517S 229, 517

    Spruit H. C., Matsuda T., Inoue M., Sawada K., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/229.4.517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.229..517S 229, 517

    1987 doi

  52. [61]

    Squire J., Bhattacharjee A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...67S 797, 67

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    Sullivan C., Kaszynski A., 2019, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01450 , 4, 1450

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    K., Taki T., Suriano S

    Suzuki T. K., Taki T., Suriano S. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71..100S 71, 100

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    C., 1996, , 279, 767

    Terquem C., Papaloizou J. C., 1996, , 279, 767

    1996

  56. [65]

    Toomre A., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...158..899T 158, 899

    1969 doi

  57. [66]

    Toomre A., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ARA&A..15..437T 15, 437

    1977

  58. [67]

    P., Ebrahimi F., Goodman J., Caspary K

    Wang Y., Gilson E. P., Ebrahimi F., Goodman J., Caspary K. J., Winarto H. W., Ji H., 2022, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-022-32278-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatCo..13.4679W 13, 4679

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    P., Ji H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241102361W p

    Wang Y., Ebrahimi F., Lu H., Goodman J., Gilson E. P., Ji H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241102361W p. arXiv:2411.02361

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.