Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

This paper argues that an opaque, gravitationally trapped fireshell of photons and electron-positron pairs around a black hole horizon can accelerate a small fraction of electrons into a runaway that reaches ultra-high energies, generating

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:43 UTC pith:BJOKOMG3

load-bearing objection A new speculative mechanism for UHE particles from a trapped pair halo, clearly written, but its central acceleration calculation uses the free-streaming flux in a medium the paper itself treats as diffusive — the runaway claim does not survive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.03702 v3 pith:BJOKOMG3 submitted 2025-12-03 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-ph

Trapped fireshell (halo) of photons and pairs around black-hole horizon: source for ultra-high-energy particles

She-Sheng Xue This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-ph
keywords ultra-high-energy cosmic raysCompton-rocket effectKlein-Nishina runawayphoton-pair fireshellblack hole horizongamma-ray burst central enginevery-high-energy photons and neutrinos
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes a new source for ultra-high-energy cosmic rays: a dense, hot halo of photons and electron-positron pairs trapped near a black hole horizon. It claims that the strong outward radiation force, acting through the Compton-rocket effect, can accelerate a small fraction of electrons to Lorentz factors of 10^9 or more, and that these electrons drag protons along via charge separation. Because the scattering cross section falls as energy rises (Klein-Nishina effect), the acceleration becomes a runaway rather than being damped. If true, this would provide a long-lived, non-transient mechanism for producing ultra-high-energy electrons and protons, with secondary TeV-PeV photons and neutrinos that track the halo's slow cooling.

Core claim

In a spherically symmetric, one-dimensional model, the paper shows that a thermal fluid of photons and pairs held in hydrostatic equilibrium near a black hole horizon has a strong radial temperature gradient and a corresponding radiation flux. Applying the Compton-rocket force to electrons, the authors find that the energy-dependent Klein-Nishina cross section creates an unstable runaway: fast electrons scatter less, so they are accelerated further. The computed fraction of electrons surviving to high Lorentz factors is non-trivial for horizon temperatures above roughly 10 electron masses, and the energy spectrum becomes flat for Lorentz factors above about 10^3. The paper then argues that t

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the Klein-Nishina runaway of the Compton-rocket effect: as an electron gains energy, its scattering cross section with photons decreases (Klein-Nishina), so collisions become rarer and the outward radiation force accelerates it further — an unstable feedback that turns microscopic perturbations into macroscopic runaway. The physical setting is the trapped fireshell halo: a dense, opaque, thermalized photon-pair fluid confined by gravity near the horizon, described by the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper applies a free-streaming radiation flux to accelerate electrons even though the same halo is described as optically thick and thermalized, with a mean free path as small as 10^-4 Compton lengths, so the actual radiation force inside the opaque fluid could be far weaker than assumed — if so, no runaway occurs.

What would settle it

A numerical radiation-transfer or particle-in-cell simulation of a photon-pair fluid with the parameters of Figures 2 and 3 (mean free path ~10^-4 lambda_e, optical depth ~10^21) should be run to compute the net radial radiation force on an electron. If the force is suppressed by the same factor as the blackbody luminosity (xi_gamma/2r_+ ~ 10^-22), the runaway probability drops to zero, falsifying the central claim. Observationally, the absence of a long-lived, flat-spectrum UHE/VHE component in gamma-ray burst afterglows would also count against it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the mechanism yields a long-lived, continuous source of ultra-high-energy electrons and protons, not a transient burst.
  • The energy spectrum of accelerated particles is a power law for Lorentz factors below about 10^3 and becomes flat (proportional to gamma^2 in luminosity) above 10^3, a distinctive observational signature.
  • The UHE protons and electrons interact with surrounding matter and fields to produce very-high-energy photons and neutrinos, whose light curves should track the halo's slow cooling.
  • The process is local and depends mainly on two parameters (horizon temperature and an acceleration number), so it applies to any dense, energetic fire spot, not just spherical black-hole halos.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The most direct test of the claim would be a radiation-transport simulation of the opaque halo: if the anisotropic radiation force on an electron is suppressed by the same screen factor that suppresses the blackbody luminosity (about 10^-22), the runaway would not occur. The paper does not address this consistency issue.
  • If the flat superthermal spectrum above gamma ~ 10^3 is real, it should appear as a hard, slowly declining component in the spectra of gamma-ray burst afterglows or other compact sources; searching for that signature in existing TeV-PeV data could confirm or rule out the mechanism.
  • The paper's assumption that protons are dragged along by the electric field requires the charge-separation field to be strong enough; a dedicated particle-in-cell simulation of the two-species runaway would clarify whether the proton component actually survives, since the paper's one-dimensional treatment simplifies this back-reaction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a gravitationally trapped, optically thick photon–electron-positron halo near a black-hole horizon (GRB central engine) can act as a Compton-rocket accelerator. Using a TOV equilibrium profile and one-dimensional radiation-force equations, it argues that Klein–Nishina suppression of scattering lets a small fraction of electrons run away to ultra-high energies; a charge-separation electric field then drags protons with them. The authors derive a superthermal Lorentz-factor tail, a long-lived UHE luminosity, and a gradual cooling of the halo, and discuss connections to VHE photons and neutrinos. The presentation is explicitly qualitative and repeatedly calls for numerical simulations.

Significance. If the mechanism worked, it would offer a novel, falsifiable UHE-particle source from compact objects, with distinctive spectral features (a flat superthermal tail above γ~10^3) and a long emission timescale. The paper is transparent about its one-dimensional, idealized setup, and its formulas are explicit enough to be checked or simulated. Its main strength is that it makes a concrete, quantitative claim that can in principle be tested by kinetic or PIC simulations. Unfortunately, the central acceleration mechanism relies on an internally inconsistent treatment of the radiation flux in an opaque medium, and this inconsistency propagates into the runaway probability and luminosity, so the quantitative claims do not stand as they are written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Eqs. (4.20)–(4.25)] The acceleration equations use F_γ=ρ_γc, the free-streaming flux of an optically thin radiation field, but the paper's own halo is opaque and diffusive: Fig. 3 gives ξ_γ~10^-4 λ_e, and Eq. (5.1) suppresses the escaping blackbody luminosity by ξ_γ/2r_+~8×10^-22. In the diffusion limit the anisotropic flux available to push a drifting electron is |F_diff|~(4/3)cU ξ/R~10^-21 ρ_γc, not ρ_γc. Replacing F_γ in Eq. (4.5) reduces the exponent by about 21 orders of magnitude, so γ_e remains ~1; consequently the runaway fraction (4.15) and the UHE luminosity (5.3) collapse. The sentence in §2.2 that L_γ=4πr²ρ_γc 'represents the diffusion flux' does not resolve the problem, because the force in Eq. (3.2) still uses the free-streaming value. A locally isotropic, optically thick radiation bath also produces Compton drag on a drifting electron unless a net anisotropic first moment is present; that fir
  2. [§3.3, §5.3, Eq. (5.6)] The proton acceleration is asserted rather than derived. The electric field E_pe=eN_e/(4πr²) is introduced, but no Poisson/charge-separation calculation connects it to the assumed N_e=N_p and β_e≈β_p. If electrons and protons co-move with equal densities, the net charge density vanishes and the large-scale field that supposedly accelerates protons does not exist; if they do separate, the co-motion assumption is unjustified. Moreover, eN_e/(4πr²) has the wrong dimensions for an electric field if N_e is the total particle number used elsewhere (3.3). The claim in §4.4 that the electron runaway fraction also describes protons relies on this unproven charge-separation model. Since UHE protons are central to the neutrino/VHE observational discussion, this is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation detail.
  3. [§2.1–2.4, §5.3] The quantitative output is exponentially sensitive to hand-chosen inputs: η=0.1, ρ_M=10ρ_n, T_γ^+=100m_e (or 20m_e), A=10^-3, and the γ_e~10^9 channel. The trapped halo itself is imported from Refs. [21–25]; the TOV boundary condition (2.4) fixes the normalization by choice. Because the runaway fraction (4.17) varies as exp(−m_p/m_e (m_e/T_γ^+)^2), a small change in T_γ^+ changes the claimed UHE luminosity by many orders of magnitude. Figures 6 and 7 are therefore illustrations of a chosen parameter set rather than robust predictions. The paper partially acknowledges this, but the claimed 'two basic parameters' (Sec. 6.1(3)) obscures the additional dependence on δℓ, B, and the adopted γ_e channel. A concrete improvement would be to show the mechanism survives for a conservative range of parameters derived from the TOV solution, not only for an ad hoc point in parameter space.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical issues: 'Thomason' should be 'Thomson' (§4.3.1, Fig. 4); 'ICECUB' should be 'IceCube'; 'Mathematics' should be 'Mathematica'. The symbol m_n in Eq. (4.3) appears to be a typo for m_p.
  2. [Eq. (4.5)] The exponent in Eq. (4.5) contains an extra factor 1/m_e relative to the integral form (4.4) unless δℓ is intended in units of the Compton length. This should be stated explicitly, since δℓ is used as a proper length (cm) in Eqs. (2.5) and (2.10).
  3. [Figs. 4 and 5] The caption says 'these figures also present the proton case with the substitution e→p,' but the proton fraction is not independently computed; it is the electron curve relabeled with m_eff. Please state clearly that this is an assumption following from §4.4, not a separate calculation.
  4. [§6.1(2)] The statement that results for 2m_e<T_γ^+<10m_e cannot be shown 'because the numerical precision is limited' should be quantified; the exponential factor is large but a high-precision evaluation or Padé estimate would be more informative than a placeholder.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; the UHE fraction and luminosity are explicit functions of stated inputs, not restatements of those inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The trapped-halo environment is set up from the TOV equation with explicit boundary conditions (Sec. 2.1), the Compton-rocket force is taken from the external reference O'Dell [5] (Eqs. 3.1–3.2), and the runaway fraction (Eqs. 4.10 and 4.15) follows by integrating the stated one-dimensional rate equations. The UHE luminosity (Eq. 5.3) is then a composition of those derived fractions with the chosen parameters T_gamma^+, B, A and delta_l; these are free inputs, not quantities fitted to the predicted luminosity, so no prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The self-citations [21–25] supply the halo scenario and the separatrix from prior work, but Sec. 2 re-derives the trapped configuration via TOV, and the acceleration result does not reduce to those references. The paper also repeatedly flags that numerical simulations are needed to verify the instability and runaway (Sec. 4.1, Sec. 4.4, Sec. 5.3), so it does not present the result as a closed forced conclusion. The possible inconsistency between using F_gamma = rho_gamma c for electron acceleration and the diffusion-suppressed blackbody luminosity (Eq. 5.1) is a physical correctness concern, not a definitional or fitted-input circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of an unobserved halo, on several hand-chosen boundary parameters (eta, rho_M, delta_ell, B/A, T_gamma^+, gamma_e), and on the questionable use of a free-streaming radiation force inside an opaque fluid. No new fundamental particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • eta = 0.1 = 0.1
    Boundary condition (2.4): rho_gamma^+/rho_M = eta and L_gamma^+ = eta L_pl; sets the overall density and temperature scale.
  • rho_M = 10 rho_n = ~10 rho_n
    Boundary choice (2.3) said to correspond to M=7.75 M_sun; fixes the horizon radius and normalizes all densities.
  • d_f = 30 = ~30
    Number of relativistic SM degrees of freedom in Eq. (2.8); converts energy density to temperature.
  • delta_ell = between lambda_e and 2GM, unspecified
    Proper thickness of the trapped shell in Eqs. (2.5), (4.5) and (5.4); directly controls halo energy, Lorentz factor and luminosity.
  • B (baryon loading) = B << 1
    Defines the number of bulk electrons/protons via N_e = B N_gamma in Eq. (3.3); controls the available charge population.
  • A (acceleration number) = 10^-3 in Figs. 6-7
    Defined in Eq. (5.4) as A = B sigma_T delta_ell m_e^3; directly multiplies the UHE luminosity (5.3).
  • T_gamma^+(0) = 100 m_e ~ 50 MeV in Fig. 7
    Initial horizon temperature chosen for the temporal integration; the results are exponentially sensitive to this value.
  • gamma_e channel = 10^9 in Fig. 7
    Lorentz factor channel selected to illustrate UHE electrons at ~10^3 TeV and protons at ~10^3 PeV.
  • m_eff = m_p + m_e = ~m_p
    Effective mass for the assumed co-moving electron-proton system, Eq. (4.25); sets the energy scale of accelerated protons.
axioms (8)
  • standard math TOV hydrostatic equilibrium in Schwarzschild geometry describes the radiation-pair halo.
    Eqs. (2.1)-(2.2) solve gravitational-pressure balance; assumes spherical symmetry and a static metric.
  • domain assumption Photons and pairs form an ideal radiation fluid with P = rho/3 and zero chemical potential.
    Used throughout Section 2 to map rho_gamma to T_gamma via the Stefan-Boltzmann relation (2.8).
  • domain assumption The gravitationally trapped fireshell (halo) exists and is metastable.
    Taken from the author's Refs. [21-25], especially [23]; no independent verification or stability analysis is given here.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiation force on drifting electrons is the optically thin O'Dell Compton-rocket force with F_gamma = rho_gamma c.
    Section 3.2 uses Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2) inside an opaque halo; this is the load-bearing assumption that the paper does not justify.
  • domain assumption Bulk electrons are locally at rest and only a small fraction 'drift' outward.
    Defined by Eqs. (3.3)-(3.4); separates the runaway population from the thermal bath.
  • domain assumption The Klein-Nishina cross section (4.1) governs energy-dependent scattering, and all other energy losses are neglected.
    Eqs. (4.1) and (4.13)-(4.14) drive the runaway; inverse-Compton and synchrotron losses are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Protons are dragged by a charge-separation electric field and co-move with electrons at the same Lorentz factor.
    Eqs. (4.20)-(4.25) set beta_e ~ beta_p, gamma_e ~ gamma_p, m_eff = m_p; the text calls this a 'speculated configuration'.
  • domain assumption Gravitational redshift in energy and gravitational time dilation can be simplified or omitted.
    Stated before Eq. (5.9) and in Section 4.1; affects luminosities and spectra near the horizon.
invented entities (1)
  • Gravitationally trapped fireshell (halo) around the black-hole horizon no independent evidence
    purpose: A metastable opaque photon-pair reservoir that supplies the radiation force and cools through UHE particle emission and blackbody radiation.
    Existence is imported from the author's earlier work (Refs. [21-25]); no observational detection or independent simulation is offered in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19411 in / 18914 out tokens · 173075 ms · 2026-08-03T18:43:41.212836+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the Compton-rocket effect of strong radiation force accelerating electrons in an opaque fireshell (or fire spot) of dense photons and electron-positron pairs, whose temperature is spatially inhomogeneous and exceeds the electron mass. We find the possibility of the charged-particle acceleration and the avalanche runaway process, leading to a non-trivial probability of ultra-high-energy (UHE) electrons and protons, which subsequently produce very-high-energy (VHE) photons and neutrinos. In a simplified one-dimensional model, we qualitatively show such peculiar dynamics using the fireball, Gamma-Ray Burst central engine, whose inner part inflows and forms a gravitationally trapped fireshell (halo) around the horizon of a black hole. The fireshell is metastable, cooling via UHE particle emissions and blackbody radiation. We calculate the UHE particle luminosity varying in time, and discuss the peculiar features of such produced UHE particles, which lead to VHE particles, in connection with possible numerical simulations, observations and experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Globus and R.D

    N. Globus and R.D. Blandford,Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics63(2025) 339 [2505.21846]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Cao and others (LHAASO collaboration),Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12γ-ray Galactic sources,Nature594(2021) 33

    Z. Cao and others (LHAASO collaboration),Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12γ-ray Galactic sources,Nature594(2021) 33. [3]MAGICcollaboration,Teraelectronvolt emission from theγ-ray burst grb 190114c, Nature575(2019) 455 [2006.07249]. [4]IceCubecollaboration,Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the Galactic plane, Science380(2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [5]

    O’Dell,Radiation force on a relativistic plasma and the Eddington limit, Astrophys

    S.L. O’Dell,Radiation force on a relativistic plasma and the Eddington limit, Astrophys. J. Lett.243(1981) L147

    1981

  4. [6]

    Sikora,Superluminous accretion discs,Mon

    M. Sikora,Superluminous accretion discs,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.196(1981) 257

    1981

  5. [7]

    Phinney,Acceleration of a relativistic plasma by radiation pressure,Mon

    E.S. Phinney,Acceleration of a relativistic plasma by radiation pressure,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.198(1982) 1109

    1982

  6. [8]

    Frederiksen,Stochastically induced gamma-ray burst wakefield processes,The Astrophysical Journal680(2008) L5

    J.T. Frederiksen,Stochastically induced gamma-ray burst wakefield processes,The Astrophysical Journal680(2008) L5

    2008

  7. [9]

    Del Gaudio, R.A

    F. Del Gaudio, R.A. Fonseca, L.O. Silva and T. Grismayer,Plasma wakes driven by photon bursts via compton scattering,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 265001 [2003.04249]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [10]

    Martinez, T

    B. Martinez, T. Grismayer and L.O. Silva,Compton-driven beam formation and magnetization via plasma microinstabilities,J. Plasma Phys.87(2021) 905870313 [2102.11590]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [11]

    Faure, D

    J.C. Faure, D. Tordeux, L. Gremillet and M. Lemoine,High-energy acceleration phenomena in extreme-radiation–plasma interactions,Phys. Rev. E109(2024) 015203 [2309.00366]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [12]

    Rees and P

    M.J. Rees and P. Meszaros,Relativistic fireballs - energy conversion and time-scales, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.258(1992) 41

    1992

  11. [13]

    Piran,The physics of gamma-ray bursts,Reviews of Modern Physics76(2004) 1143 [astro-ph/0405503]

    T. Piran,The physics of gamma-ray bursts,Reviews of Modern Physics76(2004) 1143 [astro-ph/0405503]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [14]

    M´ esz´ aros,Gamma-ray bursts,Reports on Progress in Physics69(2006) 2259 [astro-ph/0605208]

    P. M´ esz´ aros,Gamma-ray bursts,Reports on Progress in Physics69(2006) 2259 [astro-ph/0605208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [15]

    Berger,Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts,Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys52(2014) 43 [1311.2603]

    E. Berger,Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts,Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys52(2014) 43 [1311.2603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [16]

    D’Avanzo,Short gamma-ray bursts: A review,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7(2015) 73

    P. D’Avanzo,Short gamma-ray bursts: A review,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7(2015) 73

    2015

  15. [17]

    Kumar and B

    P. Kumar and B. Zhang,The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets,Physics Reports561(2015) 1 [1410.0679]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [18]

    Zhang,The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts, Cambridge University Press (2018), 10.1017/9781139226530

    B. Zhang,The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts, Cambridge University Press (2018), 10.1017/9781139226530

    doi:10.1017/9781139226530 2018

  17. [19]

    Ruffini, G

    R. Ruffini, G. Vereshchagin and S.-S. Xue,Electron-positron pairs in physics and astrophysics: from heavy nuclei to black holes,Phys. Rept.487(2010) 1 [0910.0974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [20]

    Kouveliotou, R.A.M.J

    C. Kouveliotou, R.A.M.J. Wijers and S. Woosley,Gamma-ray Bursts, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    2012

  19. [21]

    Ruffini, J.D

    R. Ruffini, J.D. Salmonson, J.R. Wilson and S.-S. Xue,On the pair electromagnetic pulse of a black hole with electromagnetic structure,Astron. Astrophys.350(1999) 334 [astro-ph/9907030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  20. [22]

    Ruffini, J.D

    R. Ruffini, J.D. Salmonson, J.R. Wilson and S.-S. Xue,On the pair-electromagnetic pulse from an electromagnetic black hole surrounded by a baryonic remnant,Astron. Astrophys.359(2000) 855 [astro-ph/0004257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [23]

    Ruffini, L

    R. Ruffini, L. Vitagliano and S.-S. Xue,On a separatrix in the gravitational collapse to an overcritical electromagnetic black hole,Phys. Lett. B573(2003) 33 [astro-ph/0309022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [24]

    Xue,Gravo-thermal catastrophe in gravitational collapse and energy progenitor of Gamma-Ray Bursts,JCAP07(2021) 044 [2104.03021]

    S.-S. Xue,Gravo-thermal catastrophe in gravitational collapse and energy progenitor of Gamma-Ray Bursts,JCAP07(2021) 044 [2104.03021]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [25]

    Xue,Collimated and spinning fireballs for ultra-relativistic jets: long vs short gamma-ray bursts by angular momentum and mass ratio,Eur

    S.-S. Xue,Collimated and spinning fireballs for ultra-relativistic jets: long vs short gamma-ray bursts by angular momentum and mass ratio,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 820 [2406.00454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [26]

    Wu and S.-S

    Y.-B. Wu and S.-S. Xue,Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process in the collision of a photon with two plane waves,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 013009 [1403.4798]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [27]

    Zhang, Z.-M

    B. Zhang, Z.-M. Zhang, Z.-G. Deng, W. Hong, J. Teng, S.-K. He et al.,Effects of Involved Laser Photons on Radiation and Electron-Positron Pair Production in one Coherence Interval in Ultra Intense Lasers,Sci. Rep.8(2018) 16862

    2018

  26. [28]

    Zhang, Z

    B. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z.-g. Deng, J. Teng, S.-K. He, W. Hong et al.,Quantum mechanisms of electron and positron acceleration through nonlinear Compton scatterings and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler processes in coherent photon-dominated regime,Scientific Reports9(2019) 18876

    2019

  27. [29]

    X. Xu, P. Yu, S.F. Martins, F.S. Tsung, V.K. Decyk, J. Vieira et al.,Numerical instability due to relativistic plasma drift in EM-PIC simulations,Computer Physics Communications184(2013) 2503 [1211.0953]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [30]

    Blumenthal,The Poynting-Robertson Effect and Eddington Limit for Electrons Scattering with Hard Photons,Astrophys

    G.R. Blumenthal,The Poynting-Robertson Effect and Eddington Limit for Electrons Scattering with Hard Photons,Astrophys. J.188(1974) 121

    1974

  29. [31]

    B¨ ohm-Vitense,Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics: Volume 3, Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics, Cambridge University Press (1989)

    E. B¨ ohm-Vitense,Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics: Volume 3, Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics, Cambridge University Press (1989). – 26 –

    1989