Ray-tracing GR-MHD-generated Outflows from AGNs Hosting Thin Accretion Disks: An Analysis Approaching Horizon Scales

Bidisha Bandyopadhyay; Christian Fendt; Dominik R.G. Schleicher; Felipe Agurto-Sepulveda; Javier Pedreros; Neil M. Nagar

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Ray-tracing GR-MHD-generated Outflows from AGNs Hosting Thin Accretion Disks: An Analysis Approaching Horizon Scales

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a black hole's mass and accretion rate determine whether its horizon-scale emission shows outflow or the lensed photon ring, purely through where the observing frequency sits on the synchrotron spectrum.

desk verdict Useful exploratory ray-tracing study with a mass-dependent optical-thickness claim that is more model-dependent than the abstract suggests; deserves peer review with pressure to fit or caveat the SED peak. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16846 v1 pith:4SYUF5CF submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE

Bidisha Bandyopadhyay , Christian Fendt , Dominik R.G. Schleicher , Neil M. Nagar , Felipe Agurto-Sepulveda , Javier Pedreros This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords blackholeaccretionthindisksGR-MHDsimulationsraytracingsynchrotronself-absorptionphotonringAGNjetsandoutflowsEventHorizonTelescope

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 argues that for accreting black holes, the observability of outflows versus the lensed photon ring at a given frequency is set by the position of that frequency on the thermal synchrotron spectrum, which in turn is fixed by the black hole mass and accretion rate. Using resistive GR-MHD simulations of thin Keplerian disks, ray-traced under the mass and spectral constraints of M87 and SgrA*, the authors find that at 230 GHz a low-mass system sits on the self-absorbed side of the spectrum and therefore appears optically thick, with disk-wind and jet emission dominating the image. A high-mass system with similar physics sits on the optically thin side, so the lensed photon ring dominates. The authors conclude that probing outflow emission on horizon scales favors low-mass AGNs, while high-mass AGNs are better targets for gravitational-lensing and photon-ring tests.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is synchrotron self-absorption relative to the SED peak: below the peak the source is optically thick and brightness traces density, while above it the source is optically thin and brightness traces the electron distribution. The peak frequency itself is shown to depend on black hole mass (shifting lower for higher mass) rather than on the details of the simulation, so the observer's frequency relative to the peak determines whether the disk, outflow, or photon ring dominates the image. This is implemented by postprocessing resistive GR-MHD snapshots of a thin Keplerian disk with the GRTRANS ray-tracing code, using an electron-temperature prescription with a plasma-beta-dependent ion-to-electron temperature ratio.

What would settle it

Take a low-luminosity AGN of roughly $10^{6}$ to $10^{7}$ solar masses with a measured SED peak above 230 GHz, and image it at 230 GHz with a space-VLBI baseline resolving about 0.16 microarcsecond: the paper predicts the emission should be optically thick and dominated by outflow/jet structure rather than the lensed photon ring, so observing a ring-dominated image would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a given dynamical model, the emission properties at an observing frequency are completely determined by where that frequency lies on the synchrotron SED, and the SED's peak frequency is set by the black hole mass and accretion rate. Because synchrotron self-absorption makes the spectrum optically thick below the peak, a low-mass system like SgrA* at 230 GHz is self-absorbed and its low-density outflow regions brighten, whereas a high-mass system like M87 at the same frequency is on the optically thin tail and exhibits mainly the lensed photon ring. The paper demonstrates this mass-dependent contrast through synthetic intensity maps and radial profiles, separates disk from outflow contributions, and notes that the Eddington ratios inferred from thin-disk SED fits match those derived by the EHT with thicker MAD/SANE models.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that a thin, axisymmetric, resistive Keplerian disk with numerical density floors is a faithful stand-in for the real accretion-ejection flow near the horizons of low-luminosity AGNs such as M87 and SgrA*, whose observed emission is usually modeled with thicker, optically thin flows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At 230 GHz, low-mass AGNs (SgrA*-like) should show outflow-dominated, optically thick emission, while high-mass AGNs (M87-like) should show a dominant lensed photon ring.
The outflow component generally contributes the maximum to total emission at low inclination angles for most models, except the strongest-magnetic-field run.
Doppler beaming strongly modulates outflow brightness with viewing angle, especially in low-mass systems.
Current EHT resolution (about 20 microarcseconds) cannot distinguish the different thin-disk models; a space-VLBI baseline (Geo- or L2-class) is needed to separate them.
Because the inferred Eddington ratios match those from thicker MAD/SANE models, the thin-disk geometry requires higher density and optical depth to produce the same accretion power.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mass-position-on-SED logic holds beyond thin disks, it suggests a selection rule for future VLBI targets: low-mass LLAGNs are the natural laboratories for outflow-launching physics, and high-mass ones for strong-gravity tests, regardless of whether the underlying flow is thin or thick.
The same reasoning predicts that pushing to higher observing frequencies (e.g., 345 GHz) should make high-mass systems even more ring-dominated, while low-mass systems only become optically thin at still higher frequencies; this is testable with ngEHT-class arrays.
A direct observational discriminator would be a low-mass AGN with a known SED peak above 230 GHz: if sub-microarcsecond imaging still shows a ring-dominated image, the thin-disk assumption or the SED-position logic would need revision.
The axisymmetric thin-disk setup cannot capture turbulent, non-axisymmetric structures, so a natural next test is a 3D resistive GR-MHD run with slow-light ray tracing to see whether the mass-dependent outflow/ring contrast survives realistic variability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the arXiv paper. The thing to know: this is a cleanly executed exploratory ray-tracing study of resistive GR-MHD thin-disk models, and the central mass-dependent optical-thickness claim is a model output, not something the SED fits to M87/SgrA* actually constrain. The paper is honest about that—Section 4 concedes the observed SEDs peak above 230/345 GHz for both sources, which would put both on the self-absorbed slope—but the abstract and conclusions state the LOW/HIGH contrast in more general terms than the models support.

The new bit is applying GRTRANS to these specific rHARM3D thin-disk simulations, separating disk from outflow with a polar-angle cut, and showing that in these models 230 GHz falls on opposite sides of the synchrotron peak for high- and low-mass scalings. That is a legitimate extension of the dynamical work from Bandyopadhyay et al. (2021), and it gives EHT/ngEHT target selectors a concrete hypothesis to check. The pipeline is described well: public ray-tracing code, six models, transparent parameter choices.

The load-bearing weakness is that the peak placement for the HIGH-mass case is not actually fit to the M87 data—the fits target low-frequency points only, and the peak position is essentially a consequence of the thin-disk model's density and temperature structure. The paper itself admits the real sources' SEDs peak above 230 GHz. So the 'photon-ring ideal' conclusion for high-mass systems is conditional on the toy model, not on the data. There are also no uncertainties on the Eddington ratios, the Rlow=1/Rhigh=80 and 10-degree decomposition are hand-picked, and the analysis deliberately retains models the SED fits rule out (SIM26 and SIM20 for M87; SIM26 and SIM23 for SgrA*). Those are real flaws, but the authors flag them; it is more overreach in framing than hidden error.

Who this is for: someone working on EHT/ngEHT image interpretation and accretion-state contrasts. It won't settle whether M87 or SgrA* is thick or thin, but it lays out a crisp prediction that can be checked with multi-frequency VLBI.

Send it to peer review. The methods are reproducible, the limitations are mostly acknowledged, and the mass-dependent SED-peak argument is worth airing even if the current data don't pin the peak. A good referee should push for the authors to either fit the peak frequency to the observed SEDs or soften the abstract.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents six axisymmetric resistive GR-MHD simulations of thin Keplerian accretion disks, post-processed with the GRTRANS ray-tracing code. The authors scale the scale-free simulations to the masses and SEDs of M87 (HIGH-mass) and SgrA* (LOW-mass), adjusting the Eddington ratio to fit low-frequency radio data. They find that at 230 GHz and 345 GHz the HIGH-mass models lie on the optically thin synchrotron branch (yielding a lensed-photon-ring-dominated image), while the LOW-mass models lie on the self-absorbed branch (yielding relatively brighter outflow emission). They conclude that high-mass systems are ideal for probing photon rings and low-mass systems for probing outflows, and that current EHT resolution cannot distinguish the models.

Significance. If the central mass-dependent optical-thickness dichotomy were robustly established, it would be a useful organizing principle for interpreting EHT/ngEHT images of low-luminosity AGNs and for planning space-VLBI observations. The paper's strengths are a clearly described numerical pipeline using public codes (rHARM3D, GRTRANS), an explicit enumeration of six dynamical models with different floor densities, spins, and magnetic field strengths, and falsifiable predictions (e.g., photon-ring dominance for high-mass systems at 230 GHz, outflow brightness for low-mass systems). The models also reproduce Eddington-ratio magnitudes consistent with EHTC MAD/SANE fits. However, the central result depends on the position of the synthetic SED peak, which is not constrained by the fitted data and is in tension with the observed SEDs cited by the authors themselves.

major comments (4)

[Sections 2.2, 3.2, and 4] The claim in Sect. 3.2 that 230 GHz and 345 GHz lie on the optically thin branch for the HIGH-mass system rests on the unconstrained location of the SED peak: Section 2.2 states that the fits target 'data points at low frequencies,' and Section 4 concedes that the observed M87 and SgrA* SEDs peak above 230/345 GHz, which would put both sources on the self-absorbed slope at these frequencies. The high-mass optically thin result is therefore an output of the toy model's assumed SED shape rather than a consequence of the observational constraints used to label the systems. Because the outflow-versus-photon-ring dichotomy follows entirely from this placement, this issue is load-bearing.
[Section 3.1] The analysis uses models that the authors themselves rule out. The text states that SIM26 and SIM20 'can be completely ruled out' for the M87 SED and that SIM26 and SIM23 'can be completely ruled out' for the SgrA* SED, yet the subsequent image analysis and the general conclusions in Sections 3.3-3.5 and 5 draw on the full set of six models. Since the optically-thick/outflow-prominent behavior may be driven by the excluded models, the authors should either restrict the analysis to the viable subset (SIM21, SIM22, SIM24) or demonstrate that the conclusions are unchanged when the ruled-out models are removed.
[Sections 2.1 and 4] The generalization of the conclusions to real sources is not secure because the models are thin, axisymmetric, resistive Keplerian disks with density floors, whereas M87 and SgrA* are normally modeled as thick, optically thin ADAF-like MAD/SANE flows. The authors acknowledge this ('toy model'), but the conclusions are phrased for 'HIGH-mass systems' and 'LOW-mass systems' and specifically mention M87 as an example where photon-ring probing is favorable. A quantitative discussion of how a thick-disk geometry would shift the SED peak for the same mass and Eddington ratio is needed to support the applicability of the mass dichotomy to the EHT targets.
[Section 3.1 and Table 1] No uncertainties are provided for the Eddington ratios from the SED fits, and the fits fix Rlow=1, Rhigh=80, and i=17° without exploring the degeneracy of these parameters with the accretion rate. Because the position of 230 GHz relative to the peak is the key diagnostic, the absence of a parameter study or error estimate weakens the quantitative strength of the central claim. At minimum, the authors should identify how much the peak frequency and the 230-GHz optical depth vary over the plausible ranges of these postprocessing parameters.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction] There is a stray closing bracket after the citation: 'SED data of M87 and SgrA* (Narayan et al. 1998; Prieto et al. 2016)] as the constraint parameters.'
[Section 3.1] In 'The thermal synchrotron spectra generated thus for HIGH-mass and LOW-mass systems is shown in Fig. 1,' the verb should agree with the plural subject 'spectra.'
[Section 2.2] The sentence 'The reference data at different frequencies may have been obtained with a resolution and field of view (FOV) greater than or less than those assumed to obtain the total SED in this work, but for a broad comparison between the different models, an approximate fit to the data points at low frequencies is assumed to be correct' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the comparison to data is normalized to the total SED or to the fitted frequency range, and this should be clarified.
[Section 3.2] The statement that 'the peak frequency being the same for a given black hole mass irrespective of the simulated model implies that the peak frequency is determined by the emission from the shape of the accreting disk' is not fully explained; the relation to the disk shape rather than to the magnetic field strength should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 230 GHz optical-depth contrast is a model output, not a restatement of the SED fit; the admitted mismatch with observed peak frequencies is a validity concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The dynamical snapshots are taken from the authors' earlier paper (Bandyopadhyay et al. 2021), but the radiative postprocessing (GRTRANS ray tracing, SED construction, disk/outflow decomposition, telescope convolution) is performed in the present work. The Eddington ratios are fit parameters, obtained by matching synthetic spectra to observed low-frequency SEDs (Section 2.2, Table 1), and the paper explicitly states this is "an approximate fit to the data points at low frequencies." The central optical-depth contrast at 230 GHz is then computed from the ray-traced maps and synthetic SEDs; it is an output of the fitted models rather than a quantity used in the fit. The concern that the observed M87 and SgrA* SEDs peak above 230/345 GHz (Section 4: "the SEDs for these systems as shown in the literature have peak frequencies which are higher than the 230 GHz and 345 GHz for both M87 and SgrA*") is a genuine external-validity problem for the toy thin-disk model, but it is the opposite of circularity: the model's prediction is in tension with an unfitted part of the data. Self-citations to Bandyopadhyay et al. (2021), e.g., "The GR-MHD models that we used in this study are the same as in Bandyopadhyay et al. (2021)", are transparent references to the origin of the simulations and scaling relations, not unverified premises invoked to forbid alternatives. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular steps are exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the fitted Eddington ratios, hand-chosen temperature ratios and inclination, and an arbitrary outflow-defining cut. No new physical entities are introduced. The key model assumptions are the thin-disk resistive MHD setup, the electron temperature prescription, and the reliability of the M87/SgrA* SED data.

free parameters (6)

Eddington ratio for HIGH-mass SED fit = 2e-5, 1e-5, 7e-5, 3e-6, 4e-7, 2e-7 for SIM20-26
Fit to the observed M87 SED (Prieto et al. 2016) by varying the accretion rate; sets density, temperature, and magnetic field scaling, directly shifting the synchrotron SED and hence the optical depth at 230 GHz.
Eddington ratio for LOW-mass SED fit = 5.6e-7, 5e-7, 5e-6, 1.5e-7, 2e-8, 1e-8 for SIM20-26
Fit to the observed SgrA* SED (Narayan et al. 1998); same role as above.
Rlow (electron-proton temperature ratio, weakly magnetized regions) = 1
Chosen by hand (not fitted) to avoid SED changes and maximize features in emission maps; directly affects the electron temperature and synchrotron emissivity/absorption.
Rhigh (electron-proton temperature ratio, strongly magnetized regions) = 80
Chosen by hand; affects the jet/outflow temperature and the SED shape at high frequencies.
Inclination angle for SED fits = 17 degrees
Fixed to a plausible M87/SgrA* orientation; affects Doppler beaming and the image morphology, and was not varied during the spectral fits.
Outflow separation half-angle = 10 degrees
Chosen by hand to separate disk emission from outflow emission; the decomposition of total intensity into disk and outflow components is sensitive to this cut.

assumptions (7)

standard math The resistive GR-MHD equations with a Kerr spacetime, as implemented in rHARM3D, correctly describe the accretion-ejection dynamics.
The paper relies on the established HARM/rHARM3D code and general relativity, without providing independent verification for these simulations.
domain assumption A thin, geometrically thin Keplerian disk in resistive GR-MHD reaches a quasi-steady state with continuous accretion and disk wind launch, representative of AGN inner regions.
Section 2.1 defines the simulation setup; the rest of the paper depends on this structure being a useful model for M87/SgrA*-like systems, which are usually modeled with thick disks.
domain assumption The floor density/pressure values do not artificially dominate the emission in the jet and outflow regions.
The authors acknowledge floor density affects the BZ jet, and some models (SIM21, SIM23) use floor values that 'may not physically exist' (Section 2.1). The outflow emission in those models could be partially numerical.
domain assumption The electron temperature is determined by the Moscibrodzka et al. formula with Rlow=1, Rhigh=80, and beta_crit=1.
Equation (1) in Section 2.2 sets the electron temperature, which is the key input for thermal synchrotron emission and absorption.
domain assumption Thermal synchrotron radiation is the dominant emission and absorption mechanism in the modeled frequency range, with no non-thermal electrons or other radiative processes.
Section 2.2 states this emission process is assumed; the spectral fits and optical-depth classification depend on this.
domain assumption Axisymmetry (2.5D) is sufficient to capture the emission structure relevant for the conclusions.
The simulations are axisymmetric (Section 2.1), so 3D instabilities, hot spots, and time variability are excluded.
domain assumption The observed SEDs of M87 and SgrA* used for fitting (Prieto et al. 2016; Narayan et al. 1998) are reliable and representative across the relevant frequency range.
The Eddington ratios are fit to these data; any systematic errors propagate into the optical-depth classification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ray-tracing GR-MHD-generated Outflows from AGNs Hosting Thin Accretion Disks: An Analysis Approaching Horizon Scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SYUF5CF

@misc{pith2026250516846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ray-tracing GR-MHD-generated Outflows from AGNs Hosting Thin Accretion Disks: An Analysis Approaching Horizon Scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SYUF5CF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16846}
}

read the original abstract

AGNs exhibit a wide range of black hole masses and inflow/outflow properties. It is now possible to probe regions close to the event horizons of nearby SMBHs using VLBI with earth-sized baselines, as performed by the EHT. This study explores the emission properties of accretion and outflows near the event horizon of both low-mass and high-mass SMBHs. Using resistive GR-MHD simulations, we model AGNs with thin Keplerian disks. This contrasts with widely studied models featuring thick disks, such as magnetically arrested disks (MADs) or the standard and normal evolution (SANE) scenario. Our models serve as simplified representations to study disk-jet-wind structures. These simulations are postprocessed and ray-traced, using constraints of black hole mass and observed SEDs. Thermal synchrotron emission generated near the event horizon is used to create emission maps, which are analysed by separating accretion and outflow components to determine their contributions to the total intensity. Whether the emission appears optically thick or thin at a given frequency depends on its position relative to the synchrotron SED peak. At 230 GHz, low-mass SMBHs appear optically thicker than high-mass ones, even at lower accretion rates. Doppler beaming affects the brightness of emission from outflows with changing viewing angles in low-mass systems. Eddington ratios from our models align with those inferred by the EHTC for M87 and SgrA* using thicker MAD/SANE models. Although thin disks are optically thicker, their spectral properties make high-mass systems appear optically thinner at 230 GHz; ideal for probing GR effects like photon rings. In contrast, low-mass systems remain optically thicker at these frequencies because of synchrotron self-absorption, making outflow emissions near the horizon more pronounced. However, distinguishing these features remains challenging with current EHT resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16846 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Thermal synchrotron spectra for the simulated dynamical models obtained for HIGH-mass (left) and LOW-mass (right) system parameters. The Eddington ratio obtained for each of the simulations by fitting the model spectra to the data for HIGH-mass (Prieto et al. 2016) and LOW-mass systems (Narayan et al. 1998) is shown in the columns 7 and 8 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** SEDs applying Eddington ratios from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** SEDs for simulations with black hole masses similar to M87 (blue curves, HIGH-mass) and SgrA* (orange curves, LOW-mass) for SIM20 with the same accretion rate. The three vertical lines correspond to 86 GHz, 230 GHz, and 345 GHz, respectively. The figure also marks the optically thin and optically thicker regions of the thermal synchrotron which lie on the right and left sides of the thermal synchrotron peak marked… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Normalized emission maps (25 Rg across) for an edge-on view for all our simulations applied for HIGH-mass (upper 3 rows) and LOW-mass (lower 3 rows) systems at 86 GHz, 230 GHz and 345 GHz obtained with the Eddington ratio detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Normalized 230 GHz emission maps (25 Rg across) for total, disk and "outflow" region normalized with the maximum of flux in the total emission map for edge-on inclination (left) and face-on inclination (right) for HIGH-mass (left 3 columns) and LOW-mass (right 3 column…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Normalized 230 GHz emission maps (25 Rg across) for all the models with the total emissions, only the disk emissions and the emission from the "outflow" region for HIGH-mass (left 3 columns) and LOW-mass (right 3 columns) systems for an inclination angle of 17◦ . view…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Normalized intensity profiles for the emission maps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Normalized blurred emission maps (25 Rg across) for inclination angles of 0◦ , 17◦ , and 163◦ for HIGH-mass (upper 3 rows) and LOWmass (lower 3 rows) systems assuming the resolutions with baselines that of EHT with θ = 20 µas (upper left), Geo-VLBI with θ = 5 µas (upp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

2017, AJ, 153, 159

Akiyama, K., Ikeda, S., Pleau, M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 159

2017
[2]

Bandyopadhyay, B., Fendt, C., Schleicher, D. R. G., & V ourellis, C. 2021, MN- RAS, 507, 4933

work page 2021
[3]

Bardeen, J. M. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 215–239

work page 1973
[4]

& Done, C

Beckwith, K. & Done, C. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1217

work page 2005
[5]

Blandford, R. D. & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

1999
[6]

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

1982
[7]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

1977
[8]

E., Gold, R., Karami, M., et al

Broderick, A. E., Gold, R., Karami, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 139

work page 2020

Show all 55 references

[9]

& Keppens, R

Casse, F. & Keppens, R. 2002, ApJ, 581, 988

2002
[10]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 5209

Chael, A., Rowan, M., Narayan, R., Johnson, M., & Sironi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5209

2018
[11]

A., Johnson, M

Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 11

2016
[12]

2016, MNRAS, 462, 115

Dexter, J. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 115

2016
[13]

C., & Agol, E

Dexter, J., McKinney, J. C., & Agol, E. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1517

2012
[14]

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

Dihingia, I. K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3596 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 964, L25 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 681, A79 Event Horizon Telescope Col...

2021
[15]

1997, A&A, 319, 340

Ferreira, J. 1997, A&A, 319, 340

1997
[16]

L., Shea, M., & Akiyama, K

Fish, V . L., Shea, M., & Akiyama, K. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 65, 821

2020
[17]

F., McKinney, J

Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444

2003
[18]

Gralla, S. E. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 044017

2020
[19]

E., Holz, D

Gralla, S. E., Holz, D. E., & Wald, R. M. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 024018

2019
[20]

Gralla, S. E. & Lupsasca, A. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 044031

2020
[21]

E., Lupsasca, A., & Marrone, D

Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., & Marrone, D. P. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 124004

2020
[22]

1977, ApJ, 214, 840

Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840

1977
[23]

V ., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

Igumenshchev, I. V ., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042

2003
[24]

2022, ApJ, 934, 145

Issaoun, S., Wielgus, M., Jorstad, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 145

2022
[25]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

2021
[26]

2013, ApJ, 777, 170

Johannsen, T. 2013, ApJ, 777, 170

2013
[27]

P., Broderick, A

Kim, J.-Y ., Krichbaum, T. P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A69 La Bella, N., Issaoun, S., Roelofs, F., Fromm, C., & Falcke, H. 2023, A&A, 672, A16

2020
[28]

F., Rudnitskiy, A

Likhachev, S. F., Rudnitskiy, A. G., Shchurov, M. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 668

2022
[29]

Luminet, J. P. 1979, A&A, 75, 228

1979
[30]

Marscher, A. P. 1987, in Superluminal Radio Sources, ed. J. A. Zensus & T. J. Pearson, 280–300

1987
[31]

McKinney, J. C. & Gammie, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977 Mo´scibrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38 Mo´scibrodzka, M., Gammie, C. F., Dolence, J. C., Shiokawa, H., & Leung, P. K. 2009, ApJ, 706, 497

2004
[32]

M., Falcke, H., & Wilson, A

Nagar, N. M., Falcke, H., & Wilson, A. S. 2005, A&A, 435, 521

2005
[33]

V ., & Abramowicz, M

Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V ., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69

2003
[34]

E., Popham, R

Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., Grindlay, J. E., Popham, R. G., & Gammie, C. 1998, ApJ, 492, 554

1998
[35]

F., & Kulkarni, A

Narayan, R., SÄ dowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241

2012
[36]

Narayan, R. & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710

1995
[37]

C., Gammie, C

Noble, S. C., Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Del Zanna, L. 2006, ApJ, 641, 626

2006
[38]

C., Krolik, J

Noble, S. C., Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2009, ApJ, 692, 411

2009
[39]

Novikov, I. D. & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 343– 450

1973
[40]

W., Palumbo, D

Pesce, D. W., Palumbo, D. C. M., Narayan, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 260

2021
[41]

A., Fernández-Ontiveros, J

Prieto, M. A., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., Markoff, S., Espada, D., & González- Martín, O. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3801

2016
[42]

2017, ApJ, 834, 29

Qian, Q., Fendt, C., Noble, S., & Bugli, M. 2017, ApJ, 834, 29

2017
[43]

2018, ApJ, 859, 28

Qian, Q., Fendt, C., & V ourellis, C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 28

2018
[44]

J., Begelman, M

Rees, M. J., Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Phinney, E. S. 1982, Nature, 295, 17

1982
[45]

2019, ApJS, 244, 10

Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., Porth, O., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 10

2019
[46]

2023, Galaxies, 11, 12

Roelofs, F., Blackburn, L., Lindahl, G., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 12

2023
[47]

M., Mizuno, Y ., et al

Roelofs, F., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A56

2021
[48]

B., Phinney, E

Sanders, D. B., Phinney, E. S., Neugebauer, G., Soifer, B. T., & Matthews, K. 1989, ApJ, 347, 29

1989
[49]

1963, Nature, 197, 1040

Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040

1963
[50]

Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

1973
[51]

2012, ApJ, 757, 65

Sheikhnezami, S., Fendt, C., Porth, O., Vaidya, B., & Ghanbari, J. 2012, ApJ, 757, 65

2012
[52]

& Fendt, C

Stepanovs, D. & Fendt, C. 2016, ApJ, 825, 14

2016
[53]

& Malkan, M

Sun, W.-H. & Malkan, M. A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 68 V ourellis, C., Fendt, C., Qian, Q., & Noble, S. C. 2019, ApJ, 882, 2

1989
[54]

& Narayan, R

Yuan, F. & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

2014
[55]

2007, A&A, 469, 811 Article number, page 13 of 13

Zanni, C., Ferrari, A., Rosner, R., Bodo, G., & Massaglia, S. 2007, A&A, 469, 811 Article number, page 13 of 13

2007

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

2017, AJ, 153, 159

Akiyama, K., Ikeda, S., Pleau, M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 159

2017

[2] [2]

Bandyopadhyay, B., Fendt, C., Schleicher, D. R. G., & V ourellis, C. 2021, MN- RAS, 507, 4933

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Bardeen, J. M. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 215–239

work page 1973

[4] [4]

& Done, C

Beckwith, K. & Done, C. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1217

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Blandford, R. D. & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

1999

[6] [6]

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

1982

[7] [7]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

1977

[8] [8]

E., Gold, R., Karami, M., et al

Broderick, A. E., Gold, R., Karami, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 139

work page 2020