Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Puffy accretion disks: sub-Eddington, optically thick, and stable

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sub-Eddington black hole accretion disks can settle into a thermally stable “puffy” state: a thin dense core, a thick magnetically supported, optically thick layer, and a photosphere at height comparable to the…

desk verdict A genuinely new disk state in radiative GRMHD, but the stability claim leans on initial data engineered to be magnetically stable. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08396 v2 pith:36JTRWCW submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE

Debora Lančová , David Abarca , W{l}odek Kluźniak , Maciek Wielgus , Aleksander Sądowski , Ramesh Narayan , Jan Schee , Gabriel Török
show 1 more author
Marek Abramowicz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeaccretiondisksradiativeGRMHDsimulationspuffyradiationpressuremagneticsupportthermalstabilitysub-EddingtonM1closure
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 reports a new class of black hole accretion disk solutions found in three-dimensional, general-relativistic radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations. For a non-spinning ten-solar-mass black hole accreting at 0.6 Eddington rate, the disk has a dense core only $h_\rho\sim 0.1r$ tall, so it looks thin by density, but its photosphere sits at $H\sim r$, making it geometrically thick. Most of the inflow, turbulence, and radiation transport happen in this puffy, optically thick, magnetized layer, where magnetic pressure roughly balances gas plus radiation pressure, $\beta\sim1$. The authors argue that this configuration is thermally stable where standard radiation-pressure-dominated thin disks are unstable, and that it captures part of its own radiation, so it is dimmer than a thin disk at the same accretion rate.

What carries the argument

The key object is the puffy layer: the region between the density scale-height $h_\rho$ and the photosphere $H$, which contains most of the mass inflow, turbulence, and advected radiation. The simulation creates this state by advecting poloidal magnetic field with a significant radial component from a quadrupole mass reservoir, so that after magnetorotational instability saturation the plasma parameter $\beta=(p_{\rm gas}+p_{\rm rad})/p_{\rm mag}\sim1$. Magnetic pressure then stabilizes the disk against the thermal instability of radiation-pressure-dominated thin disks. Radiation transport is handled with the M1 closure, and the full three-dimensional flow is evolved in a Schwarzschild metric.

What would settle it

Run the same radiative GRMHD simulation at 0.6 Eddington rate starting from a radiation-pressure-dominated thin disk with only weak, tangled magnetic fields and no imposed radial poloidal flux: the puffy layer should not form if the claimed state depends on the advected field. Observationally, measure the inclination dependence of the isotropic luminosity and color temperature of a bright sub-Eddington black hole binary; puffy disks predict a bright axial funnel, a dark spot over the hole, and a large spectral color correction, unlike thin or slim disk images.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at sub-Eddington rates around 0.6 Eddington, the equilibrium state of a radiative black hole accretion disk is not a canonical thin, slim, or thick disk but a hybrid “puffy” disk. It combines a high-density equatorial core of height $h_\rho\sim 0.1r$, so thin by the density scale-height measure, with an extended lower-density optically thick region reaching the photosphere at $H\sim r$. The whole layer is turbulent and rotates at nearly Keplerian speed up to the photosphere; the accreting fluid is supported in part by magnetic pressure, and much of the radiation is advected inward and swallowed by the black hole rather than escaping vertically. The result is a disk that is thermally stable despite radiation-pressure dominance, with an inner luminosity of about 0.36 Eddington, less than a thin disk at the same accretion rate. The authors conclude that one-dimensional, height-integrated thin and slim disk models miss the meridional flow of matter and radiation that defines this state.

Load-bearing premise

The puffy, stable solution appears because the simulations are started with an advected poloidal magnetic field carrying significant radial flux; if real sub-Eddington disks do not naturally carry that magnetic flux, the state may be an artifact of the initial setup rather than the generic solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At accretion rates near 0.6 Eddington, black hole disks can be geometrically thin by density yet geometrically thick by photosphere, so the standard thin/slim/thick trichotomy is incomplete.
  • A radiation-pressure-dominated disk can be thermally stable when magnetic pressure contributes comparably to gas plus radiation pressure, resolving a long-standing instability that otherwise collapses such disks.
  • Radiation is advected inward and partly swallowed by the black hole, making the disk's luminosity lower than a thin disk at the same accretion rate.
  • The observable appearance depends strongly on inclination: a bright funnel near the axis, a dark shadow over the black hole, and obscuration of the near side at large inclinations.
  • Because most of the inflow occurs in the puffy layer above the dense core, one-dimensional height-integrated disk models miss the dominant accretion flow and radiation transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the puffy state is the generic sub-Eddington equilibrium, then classifying disk states by observed Eddington ratio is unreliable: the same intrinsic accretion rate can appear subluminous or super-Eddington depending on viewing angle through the funnel.
  • The central role of advected poloidal flux suggests puffy disks may be tied to the magnetic flux threading the black hole; varying the initial flux or including black hole spin would test whether the state persists across the parameter space of real sources.
  • A concrete spectral prediction follows from the paper's structure: the low-density, hot puffy layer should produce a large color correction and a spectrum that is not a sum of thin-disk blackbodies, so joint spectral and inclination fitting of bright X-ray binaries can distinguish puffy from slim states.
  • The photon stagnation surface implies that radiation advection is not confined to the disk body; coronal models that treat disk and corona as separate thermal components may systematically misattribute the emission of this layer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports global, three-dimensional, radiative GRMHD simulations with the koral code of a non-spinning 10 solar-mass black hole at a mass accretion rate of 0.6 Mdot_Edd. The resulting disk has a high-density core with density scale-height h_rho ~ 0.1r, but its photosphere lies at H ~ r, so the disk is simultaneously 'thin' by the density measure and 'thick' by the photospheric measure. The flow remains nearly Keplerian up to the photosphere, the plasma parameter beta = (pgas + prad)/pmag is order unity, and the disk is described as thermally stable despite radiation-pressure dominance. The authors argue that magnetic pressure support and inward advection of radiation define a new class of 'puffy' accretion disks distinct from thin, slim, and thick models, and that the resulting luminosity of 0.36 L_Edd is below the thin-disk expectation because a significant fraction of radiation is captured by the black hole. The Appendix gives numerical details: resolution 320x320x32, a pi/2 azimuthal wedge, MRI quality factors Q_theta ~ 25 and Q_phi ~ 20, inflow equilibrium out to r ~ 20 M over 15000 GM/c^3, and the seeding of lower-Mdot runs by rescaling a previous strongly magnetized stable solution.

Significance. If the claim is robust, this is a significant result: it would establish a sub-Eddington, optically thick disk branch in which the photosphere is decoupled from the density scale-height, magnetic pressure stabilizes a radiation-pressure-dominated state, and radiation advection reduces the effective luminosity. This would challenge the usual identification of sub-Eddington accretion disks with thin disks and has concrete observational consequences for spectra, inclination-dependent images, and timing behavior. The paper's strengths include a genuine numerical experiment with no fitting to data, explicit MRI resolution quality factors, inflow equilibrium, and ray-traced images that are falsifiable predictions. The main caveat is that the claimed new class is not yet shown to be the generic outcome of sub-Eddington accretion rather than a state reached only from specially prepared, strongly magnetized initial data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 (initial conditions) and Appendix] The stability mechanism is imposed through the initial conditions rather than shown to emerge. Section 2 states that “to ensure thermal stability … the disk was made to advect poloidal magnetic field with a significant radial component,” and the Appendix states that only reservoirs with quadrupole magnetic-field topology are used, with successively lower-Mdot runs seeded by rescaling a previous “strongly magnetized stable solution,” preserving beta. Because beta ~ 1 is the mechanism invoked for both magnetic support and thermal stability, the paper demonstrates the existence of a family of initial data that relaxes to a puffy disk, but it does not demonstrate that the puffy branch is the generic sub-Eddington solution. Please add at least one 0.6 Mdot_Edd run starting from different initial data, such as a much weaker poloidal field, a purely toroidal field, or beta >> 1 in the initial torus, and show whether it converges to the same puffy state or behaves differently. At minimum, reword the abstract and introduction so the claim is explicitly about a stable state reached from strongly magnetized initial conditions rather than about the generic sub-Eddington solution.
  2. [§2, Figs. 3–4] Thermal stability is asserted from a single run with no perturbation or convergence test. A single trajectory that reaches inflow equilibrium over 15000 GM/c^3 does not exclude a slow growth of the thermal instability or a long-lived metastable branch. Please provide a quantitative stability diagnostic: time histories of midplane beta, h_rho, H, and luminosity over the full run; a linear-growth or fluctuation analysis of the relevant thermal modes; or a second run at higher resolution or with full 2pi azimuth to show that the equilibrium and its fluctuations are converged. Without such evidence, the word “stable” in the title is stronger than what the simulation alone establishes.
  3. [§2, radiation transport] The radiation field is evolved with the M1 closure (Levermore 1984; Sadowski et al. 2013), which is known to systematically affect the angular distribution of radiation and the diffusion–free-streaming transition. The claimed sub-Eddington luminosity of 0.36 L_Edd and the detailed funnel radiation pattern in Fig. 3 (lower right) could be sensitive to this closure. While M1 is a standard approximation for global radiative GRMHD, the paper should state the expected quantitative uncertainty from M1 and, ideally, test at least one time-averaged snapshot with a different closure or a Monte-Carlo post-processing step to confirm that the inward radiation advection at r < 10 M and the photon capture fraction are not artifacts of the closure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] “appearence” should be “appearance”.
  2. [Appendix] The detailed numerical setup is deferred to “Lančová et al. (in preparation)”; for a Letter, at least the initial density and magnetic-field profiles, the radiative boundary conditions, and the exact rescaling procedure used to produce lower-Mdot runs should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The lower-right panel caption lists radiation temperature contours “from top to bottom” of 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 MK, but the panel itself shows contours at 6×10^6, 8×10^6, and 10^7 K; please unify these notations.
  4. [References] The reference list contains two entries for “Jiang et al. 2019” (arXiv:1904.01674 and ApJ 880, 67); please check whether these are duplicate citations of the same work and, if so, consolidate them.
  5. [Fig. 2] The use of both “R” and “r” for cylindrical radius is confusing; label the coordinate consistently and state clearly whether the super-Keplerian black contour refers to a time-averaged or instantaneous quantity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Stability and beta~1 are seeded by initial data, so the puffy disk's central stability claim is partly inherited; emergent geometry and advection remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (paragraph beginning 'We have performed global, 3D...'); Appendix (initial conditions)]
    "To ensure thermal stability (Zheng et al. 2011) the disk was made to advect poloidal magnetic field with a significant radial component (Sadowski 2016) from the toroidal mass reservoir often included in disk simulations. Upon evolution of this field through the MRI a major component of the pressure is due to the magnetic field, with the plasma parameter beta = (pgas + prad)/pmag ~ 1. ..."

    The stability and beta~1 that the abstract and Section 3 credit with making the disk thermally stable are not emergent from a generic weak-field sub-Eddington initial state; they are placed into the calculation. Section 2 says the disk 'was made to advect poloidal magnetic field' precisely 'to ensure thermal stability,' and the Appendix obtains lower-Mdot runs by rescaling a previous 'strongly magnetized stable solution' while preserving beta. Thus the central claimed property (stable radiation-pressure-dominated disk) is inherited by construction from the initial data, and the simulation demonstrates persistence of a pre-seeded stable branch rather than generic approach to it.

full rationale

This is a genuine numerical experiment with no data fitting, and much of the reported structure is emergent: the thin dense core, thick photosphere, Keplerian rotation up to that photosphere, inward radiation advection, and funnel-dominated emission all follow from the simulation rather than from the initial conditions. However, the load-bearing stability claim is conditioned on tailored initial data. The paper explicitly states that the disk was made to advect poloidal magnetic field 'to ensure thermal stability,' and the lower-accretion-rate runs are seeded from a prior 'strongly magnetized stable solution' with beta preserved. The stability mechanism is also imported from prior work by a coauthor (Sadowski 2016) and Zheng et al. (2011), so the central 'stable puffy disk' claim partially reduces to its own setup. The paper would need a run starting from generic, weakly magnetized sub-Eddington conditions to show that the puffy state is reached rather than merely persisting. The circularity is therefore partial rather than complete, since the geometrical and radiative findings remain independent simulation output.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the numerical setup: M1 radiation closure, a quadrupole magnetic reservoir chosen to advect poloidal flux, MRI resolution assumptions, a quarter-azimuth domain, and a single run of 15000 GM/c^3. The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the puffy disk is an emergent configuration of standard GRMHD with radiation.

free parameters (2)
  • Mass accretion rate = 0.6 M_Edd
    Chosen simulation input; all conclusions are demonstrated at this single rate and are not shown to generalize.
  • Initial magnetic field configuration = Quadrupole topology, advected poloidal field, beta ~ 1
    Chosen by hand to produce a stable magnetized disk; the puffy state depends on this choice being representative of real accretion flows.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption M1 closure approximates the radiation field
    The radiation field is evolved in the M1 closure scheme (Levermore 1984; Sadowski et al. 2013), which is accurate in optically thick regimes but can be approximate in the funnel and near the photon stagnation surface, affecting the captured-radiation and luminosity claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial advected poloidal magnetic field with quadrupole topology
    The initial reservoir is constructed to advect poloidal magnetic flux specifically to ensure thermal stability; the resulting beta ~ 1 support is therefore partly an input, not a generic outcome.
  • domain assumption MRI is resolved with quality factors Q_theta ~ 25 and Q_phi ~ 20
    The grid resolution 320x320x32 is stated as sufficient to resolve the MRI, but no convergence study is presented in this Letter.
  • domain assumption A pi/2 azimuthal wedge with periodic boundaries is representative
    The simulation uses a quarter azimuthal domain and cites Sadowski 2016 for equivalence to full 2pi; large-scale non-axisymmetric structures may be suppressed.
  • domain assumption Inflow equilibrium to r ~ 20 M in 15000 GM/c^3 is sufficient to judge stability
    Stability is inferred from a single run lasting 15000 GM/c^3; no explicit perturbation or longer-duration test is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Puffy accretion disks: sub-Eddington, optically thick, and stable." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36JTRWCW

@misc{pith2026190808396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Puffy accretion disks: sub-Eddington, optically thick, and stable},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36JTRWCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08396}
}
abstract

We report on a new class of solutions of black hole accretion disks that we have found through three-dimensional, global, radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations in general relativity. It combines features of the canonical thin, slim and thick disk models but differs in crucial respects from each of them. We expect these new solutions to provide a more realistic description of black hole disks than the slim disk model. We are presenting a disk solution for a non-spinning black hole at a sub-Eddington mass accretion rate, $\dot M=0.6\,\dot M_{\rm Edd}$. By the density scale-height measure the disk appears to be thin, having a high density core near the equatorial plane of height $h_{\rho} \sim 0.1 \,r$, but most of the inflow occurs through a highly advective, turbulent, optically thick, Keplerian region that sandwiches the core and has a substantial geometrical thickness comparable to the radius, $H \sim r$. The accreting fluid is supported above the midplane in large part by the magnetic field, with the gas and radiation to magnetic pressure ratio $\beta \sim 1$, this makes the disk thermally stable, even though the radiation pressure strongly dominates over gas pressure. A significant part of the radiation emerging from the disk is captured by the black hole, so the disk is less luminous than a thin disk would be at the same accretion rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots showing various physical properties of the puffy disk with M˙ = 0.6M˙ Edd. The location of the photosphere is shown by the solid white line (the optical depth was computed along lines parallel to the z axis), the dashed white line shows the density scale-height, hρ. Upper left: gas density ρ. Upper right: gas momentum density ρv and vectors of gas velocity in poloidal plane. Lower left: plasma parameter β … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular velocity frequency Ω distribution scaled by the Keplerian value ΩKep = (GM) 1/2R −3/2 where R is the cylindrical radius. Note that the fluid in the disk is Keplerian essentially all the way up to the photosphere. The black contour encloses the super-Keplerian region. region of Keplerian rotation is quite thick. Presumably the co-rotation is enforced by the turbulence. As the above discussion makes clear, the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-averaged properties of the puffy disk with M˙ = 0.6M˙ Edd. The panels correspond to the panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass accretion rate as a function of the radius. Dashed lines: S¸adowski (2016). Solid lines: the current work. From top to bottom (at larger radii), red: integrated over the whole range of the polar angle; black: integrated under the photosphere; blue: integrated betw…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ray-traced image of the inner part of the puffy disk for line of sight inclination θ of 30◦ and 50◦ to the axis. The 0.6 M˙ Edd accretion rate in the reported simula￾tion may correspond, close to the peak of their bright￾ness, to such black hole sources as LMC X-3,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Non-Newtonian corrections to radiative viscosity: Israel-Stewart theory as a viscosity limiter

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    The infinite Chapman-Enskog series for radiative shear viscosity is computed exactly for linear incompressible flows, and Israel-Stewart theory with shear-heat coupling is shown to reproduce the resulting non-Newtonia...

  2. Stepping Up Superradiance Constraints on Axions

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Including superradiant axion states through n=5 with relativistic scattering rates strengthens black-hole spin-down constraints on axions by roughly an order of magnitude.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    ȧŐC^_>l 1y /m vwD-7]

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

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    1988, ApJ, 332, 646

    Abramowicz\,M.A., Czerny\,B., Lasota\,J.-P., Szuszkiewicz\,E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    Abramowicz, M., Jaroszy\'nski, M., & Sikora, M., 1978, A&A, 63, 221

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    A., Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., Hawley, J. F. 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Begelman, M.C., Silk, J., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2311

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Arras P., Fragile P

    Blaes O. M., Arras P., Fragile P. C., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 12

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    D., Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., Payne, D. G., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Brandenburg A., Nordlund A., Stein R.F., Torkelsson U., 1995, ApJ, 446, 741

    work page 1995

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    D., Bursa, M., Dov c iak, M., Fabrika, S., Castro-Tirado, A

    Caballero-Garcia, M. D., Bursa, M., Dov c iak, M., Fabrika, S., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Karas, V., 2017, Contrib. Astron. Obs. Skalnat\'e Pleso 47, 84

    2017

  2. [10]

    Czerny, B., 2019, Univ, 5, 131

    2019

  3. [11]

    Davis S.W., Done, C., Blaes, O.M., 2006, ApJ, 647, 525

    2006

  4. [12]

    C., Etheridge, S

    Fragile, P. C., Etheridge, S. M., Anninos, P., Mishra, B., & Klu \'z niak, W.\ 2018, , 857, 1

    2018

  5. [13]

    Igumenshchev I.V., Abramowicz M.A., 2000, ApJSS vol 130, pp. 463-484

    2000

  6. [14]

    & Paczy \'n ski\,B

    Jaroszy\'nski\,M., Abramowicz\,M.A. & Paczy \'n ski\,B. 1980, Acta Astron., 30, 1

    1980

  7. [15]

    Jiang, Yan-Fei, Blaes, O., Stone, J.M., Davis, S.W., 2019, arXiv:1904.01674

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W.\ 2019, , 880, 67

    2019

  9. [17]

    Kato S., 2001, PASJ, 53, 1

    2001

  10. [18]

    Kawaguchi, T., 2003, ApJ, 593, 69

    2003

  11. [19]

    Klu\'zniak, W.; Kita, D., 2000, arXiv:astro-ph/0006266

    2000 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2004, ApJ, 601, 428

    Kubota, A., Makishima, K. 2004, ApJ, 601, 428

    2004

  13. [21]

    Lee, W.H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., 2002, ApJ, 577, 893

    2002

  14. [22]

    D., 1984, J

    Levermore C. D., 1984, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 31, 149

    1984

  15. [23]

    Li\,L., Zimmerman\,E.R., Narayan\,R., McClintock\,J.E., 2005, ApJS, 157, 335

    2005

  16. [24]

    1974, ApJ, 187, L1

    Lightman\,A.P., Eardley\, D.M. 1974, ApJ, 187, L1

    1974

  17. [25]

    Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., 2019, MNRAS 487, 550

    2019

  18. [26]

    Machida, M., Matsumoto, R., 2003, ApJ, 585, 429

    2003

  19. [27]

    Klu \'z niak, W., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3245

    Mazur, G.P., Zanotti, O., S a dowski, A., Mishra, B. Klu \'z niak, W., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3245

    2016

  20. [28]

    C., Johnson, L

    Mishra, B., Fragile, P. C., Johnson, L. C., Klu \'z niak, W.\ 2016, , 463, 3437

    2016

  21. [29]

    H., Manousakis A., Fragile P

    Mishra B.,Vincent F. H., Manousakis A., Fragile P. C., Paumard T., Klu\'zniak W., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4036

    2017

  22. [30]

    Mishra, B., Begelman, M.C., Armitage, Philip J., Simon, J.B., 2019, arXiv190708995

    2019

  23. [31]

    Mitsuda, K.; Inoue, H.; Koyama, K.; Makishima, K.; Matsuoka, M.; Ogawara, Y.; Shibazaki, N.; Suzuki, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Hirano, T., 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  24. [32]

    Muchotrzeb, B., Paczy\'nski, B., 1982, Acta Astron., 32, 1

    1982

  25. [33]

    Narayan, R., Zhu, Y., Psaltis, D., S a dowski, A., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 608

    2016

  26. [34]

    Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., 2011, ApJ 736, 2

    2011

  27. [35]

    A., & Rafikov, R

    Philippov, A. A., & Rafikov, R. R.\ 2017, , 837, 101

    2017

  28. [36]

    Piran T., 1978, ApJ, 221, 652

    1978

  29. [37]

    Pringle, J.E., 1976, MNRAS, 177, 65

    1976

  30. [38]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49

    2006

  31. [39]

    Regev, O., Gitelman, L., 2002, A&A, 396, 623

    2002

  32. [40]

    Rezzolla L., Yoshida S., Zanotti O., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 978

    2003

  33. [41]

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., Tchekhovskoy A., Zhu Y., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3533

    2013

  34. [42]

    C., & Tchekhovskoy, A., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503

    S a dowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., & Tchekhovskoy, A., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503

    2014

  35. [43]

    S a dowski, A., 2016, MNRAS, 459, p.4397-4407

    2016

  36. [44]

    & Sunyaev\,R.A

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

    1973

  37. [45]

    & Sunyaev\,R.A., 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613

    Shakura\,N.I. & Sunyaev\,R.A., 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613

    1976

  38. [46]

    Straub\,O., Bursa\,M., S a dowski\,A., Steiner\,J.F., Abramowicz\,M.A., Klu \'z niak\,W., McClintock\,J.E., Narayan\,R., Remillard\,R.A., 2011, A&A 533, id.A67

    2011

  39. [47]

    Urpin, V. A. 1984, Sov. Astron., 28, 50

    1984

  40. [48]

    Vierdayanti, K., Mineshige, S., Ebisawa, K., & Kawaguchi, T.\ 2006, , 58, 915

    2006

  41. [49]

    V., 1999, Phys

    Wagoner R. V., 1999, Phys. Rep., 311, 259

    1999

  42. [50]

    Zheng, S.-M., Yuan, F., Gu, W.-M., & Lu, J.-F.\ 2011, , 732, 52

    2011

  43. [51]

    Zhu, Y., Narayan, R., Sadowski, A., & Psaltis, D.\ 2015, , 451, 1661

    2015

  44. [52]

    M.\ 2018, , 857, 34

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

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.