Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Limb-Brightened Jet in M87 from Anisotropic Nonthermal Electrons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M87's double-edged jet traced to field-aligned electrons

desk verdict Anisotropic nonthermal electrons with field-aligned velocities are a plausible new mechanism for M87's limb brightening, and the controlled comparison is solid, but the extreme anisotropy assumed is not yet physically established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14862 v2 pith:5DRZM3JQ submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yuh Tsunetoe , Dominic W. Pesce , Ramesh Narayan , Andrew Chael , Zachary Gelles , Charles F. Gammie , Eliot Quataert , Daniel C. M. Palumbo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords anisotropicelectrondistributionlimbbrighteningM87jetsynchrotronradiationGRMHDGRFFEradiativetransferblackholejets
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

Radio images of M87 show a jet that is brighter at its edges than down its spine, from the horizon scale to hundreds of milliarcseconds, but standard emission models have failed to reproduce this double-edged structure. This paper proposes that synchrotron-emitting nonthermal electrons in the jet have a strongly anisotropic distribution, with velocities concentrated parallel to the local magnetic field rather than isotropic. Coupled to GRMHD and GRFFE jet models with electron energy supplied by the Poynting flux and cooled by synchrotron losses, this single ingredient produces limb-brightened images that match M87 at frequencies from 8 to 86 GHz and scales from tens of microarcseconds to hundreds of milliarcseconds. The authors argue the anisotropy is essential: isotropic electrons yield broad or single-edged emission even when jet emission is confined to an outer sheath.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an anisotropic double power-law electron distribution function f(gamma, xi) = $\varphi$(xi) f_iso(gamma), with anisotropy parameter eta controlling the pitch-angle dependence through $\varphi$(xi) = P(p, eta)^{-1}[1 + (eta - 1) $cos^{2}$ xi]^{-p/2}. In the large-gamma limit the synchrotron emissivity and absorption coefficients factor into the isotropic coefficients multiplied by $\varphi$(theta_B), where theta_B is the angle between the ray and the magnetic field, so emission is preferentially directed along the field. The electron number density and cooling break are set by assuming injected energy is proportional to the Poynting flux and integrating synchrotron cooling over the dynamical time, giving the standard slow/fast cooling double power law of Sari et al. (1998). The prescription is implemented in both GRMHD (KORAL) simulations and an axisymmetric GRFFE jet model, with a magnetization cutoff and an ad hoc suppression of bulk Lorentz factor in the GRFFE case, and images are made with polarized general relativistic ray tracing.

What would settle it

Compare the predicted polarization pattern: if transverse VLBI profiles at 43 and 86 GHz show intensity concentrated perpendicular to the local magnetic field rather than parallel to it, or if a kinetic simulation of a jet-like plasma with $\beta$ near $10^{-2}$ shows the electron firehose instability isotropizes the distribution on timescales shorter than the dynamical time, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that synchrotron emission from a power-law population of nonthermal electrons with pitch-angle anisotropy (eta = 0.01, strongly favoring velocities parallel to B) is concentrated along the local helical magnetic field, and this geometric alignment is what makes the jet appear limb-brightened. In GRMHD images of the jet-launching region, the anisotropy brightens both edges by two mechanisms: Doppler beaming on the approaching side, and field-aligned anisotropic emission on the receding side. In GRFFE images on larger scales, where the field is nearly toroidal and bulk motion nearly poloidal, the same prescription produces a symmetric double-edged jet out to roughly 250 milliarcseconds. The paper treats this as the first unified model that can produce limb-brightening for a range of black hole spins and across three orders of magnitude in scale, and it provides explicit predictions for 230 and 345 GHz images for next-generation instruments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the extreme pitch-angle anisotropy (eta = 0.01, meaning most electron velocities lie almost parallel to the magnetic field) actually exists and persists throughout the jet; if pitch-angle scattering or kinetic instabilities isotropize the electrons, the limb-brightening mechanism disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the anisotropic emission model is correct, limb-brightening is a natural consequence of the jet's helical field geometry, not a separate process that needs fine-tuned spine suppression.
  • The same emission prescription, being scale-invariant, can be applied to other jet sources and may unify horizon-scale and kiloparsec-scale jet images.
  • The 230 and 345 GHz images at 15-20 microarcsecond (ngEHT-like) and 4-10 microarcsecond (BHEX-like) resolution give concrete tests of the model's jet-launching morphology.
  • The model predicts a specific relationship between jet-edge brightness asymmetry and the balance of Doppler beaming versus field-aligned anisotropic emission, which can be compared with multi-frequency limb asymmetry measurements.
  • Fast-light GRRT distortions, particularly longitudinal stretching of jet features, will need slow-light calculations before snapshot-level comparisons with M87 are quantitative.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper does not develop: if the pitch-angle distribution is as extreme as eta = 0.01, the linear polarization pattern across the jet should carry a distinctive signature of field-aligned emission, so existing and future polarimetric VLBI maps could independently constrain eta.
  • The same mechanism should apply to other limb-brightened jets such as 3C 84, Centaurus A, and NGC 315, and if it does, transverse intensity profiles can be used as a probe of the acceleration physics at the jet boundary.
  • A testable extension would be to let eta vary with plasma beta or distance instead of holding it fixed; the model then predicts a characteristic radial profile of limb contrast that could discriminate between acceleration-induced and cooling-induced anisotropy.
  • If future kinetic simulations show that the electron firehose instability isotropizes the distribution faster than the dynamical time, the mechanism would fail, so the stability of eta = 0.01 in a jet-like plasma is itself a falsifiable prediction of this work.
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. The paper proposes that the limb-brightened, double-edged structure of the M87 jet arises from synchrotron emission by nonthermal electrons with a strongly anisotropic distribution function, parameterized by η = 0.01, in which electron velocities are preferentially aligned with the local magnetic field. The authors implement this emission prescription in both GRMHD simulations (fiducial spin a* = 0.9) and an axisymmetric GRFFE model, coupling the nonthermal electron energy density to the ZAMO-frame Poynting flux and including synchrotron cooling via a broken power-law energy distribution. They compute multi-frequency, multi-scale images with the GRRT code SHAKO and compare them against VLBI observations of M87 at 8–86 GHz. A controlled comparison in Figure 1 shows that, within their model, anisotropic nonthermal electrons (η = 0.01) produce limb brightening whereas isotropic nonthermal electrons do not, even with the same sigma cutoff. The paper also presents predictions for 230/345 GHz images for ngEHT and BHEX, and argues that the same prescription can be applied to other jet sources. The main physical claim is that such an extreme field-aligned anisotropy is realized and maintained throughout the emitting jet, motivated by PIC simulations of acceleration, synchrotron cooling, and adiabatic invariance arguments.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, this paper offers a unified, scale-invariant explanation for the long-standing limb-brightening puzzle in M87, with falsifiable predictions for upcoming high-frequency VLBI instruments. The authors should be credited for the controlled comparison in Figure 1, which cleanly isolates the role of anisotropy from the sigma cutoff, and for openly acknowledging the main limitations of the model, including the fast-light approximation and the absence of a stability calculation for the anisotropic electron distribution. The multi-scale comparison from tens of microarcseconds to hundreds of milliarcseconds is ambitious and the qualitative agreement with observations is encouraging. However, the physical plausibility of the assumed η = 0.01 is not established in the manuscript, and because Figure 1 shows that the limb brightening disappears when the distribution is isotropic, this is the load-bearing assumption of the paper. The manuscript is therefore a promising but incomplete case for a new emission mechanism; the result is significant if the anisotropy can be shown to survive over jet dynamical times.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Fig. 1] The central mechanism requires η = 0.01 to be sustained throughout the emitting volume, but Section 2.5 concedes that adiabatic driving yields only η ~ 0.15 at z = 100 rg, that synchrotron cooling is effective at 86 GHz only near r ~ 100 rg, and that PIC acceleration anisotropy is 'less prominent at higher electron energies.' The paper offers no stability calculation; it notes explicitly that the relativistic electron-only firehose has not been studied, and the energetic argument is stated as confidence rather than derivation. Since the third panel of Figure 1 shows that an isotropic distribution with the same sigma cutoff gives no limb brightening, the physical plausibility of the entire model rests on an unexamined kinetic stability assumption. The authors should provide a concrete kinetic stability estimate or PIC calculation for β ~ 10^-2 anisotropic relativistic electrons, or at least quantify the pitch-angle scattering rate from candidate instabilities (e.g., oblique or whistler modes) relative to the 5000 tg averaging time and the jet propagation time.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (6)] The GRFFE model removes the region ψ(r, θ) < ψ(r_H, 65°), i.e., the inner ~80% of the jet width at large distances, before computing the images. This spine cutoff is a strong ad hoc selection that, by construction, removes the central ridge and biases the image toward limb brightening. Unlike the GRMHD case, where Appendix D presents a control with a less aggressive sigma cutoff (σ_m = 25) to show that anisotropy rather than the cutoff produces the limb brightening, no analogous GRFFE control without the θ_fp = 65° spine cutoff is presented. Since the GRFFE images are used to claim limb brightening out to hundreds of milliarcseconds, the paper should quantify how much of the large-scale limb brightening survives if the spine cutoff is relaxed or removed; otherwise the large-scale result is a partly built-in property of the model geometry.
  3. [Appendix A, footnote 15; §2.5] The cooling model used for the electron energy distribution, Equations (A3)–(A14), is explicitly derived for an isotropic distribution, per footnote 15, yet Section 2.5 invokes synchrotron cooling as a driver of anisotropy using a steady-state distribution ∝ (sin^2 α)^{-1} γ^{-p-1} that assumes anisotropic cooling. These two treatments are not consistent. The paper should either implement anisotropic cooling self-consistently in the emission model, or clearly state that the anisotropic-cooling argument in §2.5 is a heuristic motivation that does not correspond to the isotropic cooling actually adopted in the GRRT calculations, and then show that the adopted broken power law is an acceptable approximation for the images. As written, the physical motivation for η = 0.01 relies on a cooling mechanism that the manuscript's own cooling model does not include.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, §3.2] The authors acknowledge that the fast-light approximation can distort snapshot images of beamed jets, and state that slow-light calculations are essential for quantitative comparisons. It would be helpful to state in the Figure 2 caption that the snapshot images are fast-light and to comment on how much of the limb-to-spine contrast and spiral structure might change under slow-light ray tracing.
  2. [§2.2, §3.3] The hard ceiling on the bulk Lorentz factor is given as γ_bulk ≤ 6.5 in Section 2.2, but Section 3.3 states that the fiducial model has a ceiling of γ_bulk = 6. Please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Appendix D] The word 'ansitropy' appears in the last paragraph of Appendix D; it should be 'anisotropy.'
  4. [Footnote 9] The phrase 'futurel applications' in footnote 9 is a typo for 'future applications.'
  5. [§4, Fig. 4] The paper describes the limb-to-spine ratio as a key observational quantity, but the model images are not quantified or compared to the observed limb-to-spine ratios (e.g., ~2–5 on sub-mas scales). A quantitative profile comparison, even for a few representative radii, would strengthen the claim of agreement with observations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Large-scale limb brightening is partly built into the GRFFE model by cutting out the inner 80% of the jet, while the small-scale GRMHD result is a genuine forward calculation.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Equation (6), and Section 3.3]
    "In analogy with the sigma cutoff σm applied in the GRMHD model, we exclude the spine region in the GRFFE model as well. We cut out the region with ψ(r, θ) < ψ(rfp, θfp) (6) for the northern jet, and the symmetrical region in the southern hemisphere; here rfp = rH, the horizon radius, and θfp is set to 65◦. This corresponds to a cutoff of the inner ∼80% of the jet width at large distances. ... At larger scales – as illustrated by the 15 and 8 GHz images in Figure 4 – the model produces a symmetrical double-edged jet that extends out to hundreds of milliarcseconds."

    The GRFFE emitting region is defined, by Equation (6), to exclude the inner ~80% of the jet width, leaving only a thin hollow conical sheath. Any optically thin, axisymmetric hollow shell is limb-brightened in projection because sight lines tangent to the shell pass through much more emitting material than sight lines through the center. The paper then presents the resulting 'symmetrical double-edged jet' at 8 and 15 GHz as evidence that anisotropic nonthermal electrons produce limb-brightening on large scales.

full rationale

The small-scale GRMHD result is, by contrast, a genuinely forward calculation: Figure 1 shows that with the same sigma cutoff, isotropic nonthermal electrons produce no limb-brightened jet while η = 0.01 anisotropic electrons do, and Appendix D verifies that a less severe constant cutoff (σm = 25) still yields limb brightening. The anisotropy η = 0.01 is an assumed input motivated by PIC simulations, not fitted to the M87 limb-brightening data; Section 2.5 candidly notes that adiabatic driving is too weak and that the relativistic electron-only firehose instability has not been studied. Those are physical-robustness limitations rather than circular reasoning. The flux normalizations h and Mdot are fitted to observed 86 GHz and 230 GHz total fluxes, so total brightness is calibrated rather than predicted; however, the multi-frequency morphology and the 230/345 GHz images are extrapolations and are not forced by those fits. The main circularity is confined to the GRFFE large-scale claim: cutting out the spine by construction creates a hollow emitting cone whose projection is naturally double-edged, and the paper treats that projection as confirmation of the anisotropic-electron mechanism. Because one headline-scale claim reduces by construction while the central small-scale mechanism retains independent content, the overall circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on the assumed eDF anisotropy, the Poynting-flux injection ansatz, and several ad hoc cutoffs; these are the load-bearing inputs not paid for upstream.

free parameters (9)
  • h (injection efficiency) = 0.0025 (a*=0.9), 0.005 (a*=0.5)
    Chosen so the fiducial GRMHD model gives ~1.1 Jy average total flux at 86 GHz, matching observations; sets the normalization of nonthermal electron energy density (Eq. 7).
  • eta (anisotropy parameter) = 0.01
    Chosen to be highly field-aligned, motivated by PIC simulations but not derived from M87 data. Central to producing limb brightening.
  • sigma_m(r) (sigma cutoff) = 300/sqrt(r)
    Ad hoc cutoff limiting nonthermal emission to the jet sheath; excludes spine emission and contributes to edge brightening (Eq. 2).
  • gamma_m (minimum Lorentz factor) = 30
    Set a factor of a few above the thermal peak; not explored in the paper.
  • GRFFE spine cutoff theta_fp = 65 degrees
    Excludes field lines with psi < psi(rfp, theta_fp), i.e., inner ~80% of the jet width, directly forcing edge-dominated emission (Eq. 6).
  • GRFFE bulk velocity suppression and ceiling = suppression factor 0.54, ceiling gamma_bulk <= 6.5
    Ad hoc adjustments to bring GRFFE Lorentz factors in line with GRMHD and to keep the jet visible; claimed to be validated by observed jet extension.
  • Mdot (mass accretion rate) = 5e-4 M_sun/yr (a*=0.9), 1.1e-3 M_sun/yr (a*=0.5)
    Chosen so that the thermal disk/wind emission matches ~0.5 Jy at 230 GHz (EHT).
  • p (power-law index) = 2.5
    A standard value for the injected electron distribution, not fitted here.
  • gamma_max (maximum Lorentz factor) = 1e8
    Arbitrary because p>2 makes it energetically irrelevant.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption GRMHD simulation data accurately represent magnetic field and velocity in the jet despite density floors
    The authors ignore density and temperature from the simulation and rely on B and velocity from Narayan et al. (2022); no independent validation in the jet funnel is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Nonthermal electron energy density is proportional to the ZAMO-frame Poynting flux, u_nt,inj = h |S|/c
    Eq. 7; a stated ansatz, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron cooling occurs in a constant magnetic field, yielding the standard double power-law eDF
    Appendix A; the authors note this ignores field decay along the jet and anisotropy in cooling.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic eDF factorizes as phi(xi) f_iso(gamma) and the Melrose (1971) large-gamma approximation for emissivity and absorption applies
    Eqs. 12-18; used to build the GRRT coefficients; circular polarization expressions are valid only in a limited frequency range but are not used.
  • domain assumption Force-free electrodynamics is a valid description of the jet on scales up to 1e5 rg, with the Gelles et al. (2024) GRFFE model providing the field and velocity structure
    Section 2.2; relies on a cited model, not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The fast-light approximation is adequate for the GRMHD image calculations
    Section 2.4; the authors state slow light is essential for beamed jets, so this is a questionable assumption that may distort the simulated images.
  • domain assumption Electron anisotropy with eta=0.01 is kinetically stable in strongly magnetized jets
    Section 2.5; argued by analogy and energy balance, not demonstrated by a stability calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Limb-Brightened Jet in M87 from Anisotropic Nonthermal Electrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DRZM3JQ

@misc{pith2026250114862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Limb-Brightened Jet in M87 from Anisotropic Nonthermal Electrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DRZM3JQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14862}
}
read the original abstract

Very long baseline interferometry observations reveal that relativistic jets like the one in M87 have a limb-brightened, double-edged structure. Analytic and numerical models struggle to reproduce this limb-brightening. We propose a model in which we invoke anisotropy in the distribution function of synchrotron-emitting nonthermal electrons such that electron velocities are preferentially directed parallel to magnetic field lines, as suggested by recent particle-in-cell simulations of electron acceleration and the effects of synchrotron cooling. We assume that the energy injected into nonthermal electrons is proportional to the jet Poynting flux, and we account for synchrotron cooling via a broken power-law energy distribution. We implement our emission model in both general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations and axisymmetric force-free electrodynamic (GRFFE) jet models and produce simulated jet images at multiple scales and frequencies using polarized general relativistic radiative transfer. We find that the synchrotron emission is concentrated parallel to the local helical magnetic field and that this feature produces limb-brightened jet images on scales ranging from tens of microarcseconds to hundreds of milliarcseconds in M87. We present theoretical predictions for horizon-scale M87 jet images at 230 and 345 GHz that can be tested with next generation instruments. Due to the scale-invariance of the GRMHD and GRFFE models, our emission prescription can be applied to other targets and serve as a foundation for a unified description of limb-brightened synchrotron images of extragalactic jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-averaged images of the M87* BH and its jet at 86 GHz, based on the a∗ = 0.9 GRMHD model, for four electron energy distribution prescriptions. Top panel: assuumes thermal electrons in the disk and wind, which are defined as the region with magnetization σ ≤ 1, and no radi￾ation from the jet, which is defined as the region with σ > 1. Second panel: thermal electrons in the disk and wind, and nonthermal electrons … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between images from a snapshot of the a∗ = 0.9 GRMHD simulation (left column) and single-epoch observed images (right column) of the M87 jet structure at 43 GHz (top row) and 86 GHz (bottom row). The left and right images in each row share a common field of view, with the spatial scale indicated using a scale bar in units of rg (for the simulated images) or µas (for the observed images). We blur the simul… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Snapshot images from the a∗ = 0.9 GRMHD simulation at 86, 230 and 345 GHz, blurred with circular Gaussian beams of 40, 20, and 15 µas, respectively, as appropriate for future ngEHT ground-based observations. Right: Same as the left, but blurred with smaller beams of 10, 6, and 4 µas, appropriate for the projected resolution of the future BHEX space VLBI mission. Note that the range of brightness temperatures i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between simulated GRFFE images (left column) and observed images (right column) of the M87 jet across four frequencies and at matched spatial scales; from top to bottom, the observing frequencies are 8, 15, 43, and 86 GHz. We blur the simulated images using …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example electron energy distribution functions corresponding to the slow-cooling (upper panel) and fast-cooling (lower panel) regimes. The solid black curves show the exact distributions from Equation A11 and Equation A12, and the red dashed curves show the double powe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

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. Simulation-based inference for AGN jet population modelling: Towards more robust comparisons of black hole jet speeds

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using neural-posterior-estimation simulation-based inference on the MOJAVE FSRQ sample, the authors infer a Lorentz factor distribution slope b = -1.32 (+0.20, -0.19), consistent with X-ray binary jets at 2 sigma.

  2. Dynamics and geometry of the inner sub-parsec-scale jet in 3C 279 observed with the Event Horizon Telescope

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EHT 2021 images of 3C 279 reveal an intrinsic, sideways-elongated jet base whose components move at apparent speeds up to 10c, implying a sub-parsec bend toward the observer and viewing angles below one degree.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/151

    Abramowski, A., Acero, F., Aharonian, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/151

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/151 2012

  2. [2]

    Arras, P., Knollm¨ uller, J., Junklewitz, H., & Enßlin, T. A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.02174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1803.02174

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.02174 2018

  3. [3]

    D., Kasper, J

    Bale, S. D., Kasper, J. C., Howes, G. G., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 211101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.211101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.211101 2009

  4. [4]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  5. [5]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  6. [6]

    H., & Perley, R

    Bridle, A. H., & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535

    arXiv 1984

  7. [7]

    E., & Loeb, A

    Broderick, A. E., & Loeb, A. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1164

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1164 2009

  8. [8]

    2018, A&A, 613, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732149

    Bronzwaer, T., Davelaar, J., Younsi, Z., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732149

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732149 2018

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A07107, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013043

    Camporeale, E., & Burgess, D. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A07107, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013043

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1692

    Chael, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1692

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    N., & Quataert, E

    Chael, A., Lupsasca, A., Wong, G. N., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 958, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92d

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Chael, A., Narayan, R., & Johnson, M. D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz988

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Narayan, R., & Sad ¸owski, A

    Chael, A. A., Narayan, R., & Sad ¸owski, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1345

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    F., Foucart, F., & Quataert, E

    Chandra, M., Gammie, C. F., Foucart, F., & Quataert, E. 2015, ApJ, 810, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/162

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1241

    Comisso, L., & Jiang, B. 2023, ApJ, 959, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1241

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, PhRvL, 127, 255102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.255102 —

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 255102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.255102 —. 2022, ApJL, 936, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8422

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Kohl, J

    Cranmer, S. R., Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 511, 481, doi: 10.1086/306675

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01506-w

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, A&A, 632, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150

    Davelaar, J., Olivares, H., Porth, O., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526

    Dexter, J. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & McKinney, J

    Dexter, J., Agol, E., Fragile, P. C., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/1092

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al

    Doeleman, S. S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 107, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11050107 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2019a, ApJL, 875, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 —

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 875, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 —. 2019b, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 —. 2019c, ApJL, 875, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c96 —. 2019d, ApJL, 875, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c57 —. 2019e, ApJL, 875, L4, doi: 10.3847/20...

    doi

  16. [24]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de —. 2021b, ApJL, 910, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe71d Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    doi

  17. [25]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acff70

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acff70

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Ferraro, V. C. A. 1937, MNRAS, 97, 458, doi: 10.1093/mnras/97.6.458

    1937 doi

  19. [27]

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

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

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa77

    Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 957, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa77

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & T´ oth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594 Limb-Brightened Jet in M87 from Anisotropic Nonthermal Electrons 23

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00954

    Gelles, Z., Chael, A., & Quataert, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00954

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0431-2

    Giovannini, G., Savolainen, T., Orienti, M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0431-2

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, Galaxies, 5, 2, doi: 10.3390/galaxies5010002

    Hada, K. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 2, doi: 10.3390/galaxies5010002

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/70 —

    Hada, K., Kino, M., Doi, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/70 —. 2016, ApJ, 817, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/131

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    E., & Krawczynski, H

    Harris, D. E., & Krawczynski, H. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446

    2006

  27. [35]

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

    Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1...

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., & Takahashi, H. R. 2023, ApJ, 949, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc94a

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Kim, J.-S., Mueller, H., Nikonov, A. S., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00540, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00540

    doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    S., Roth, J., et al

    Kim, J.-S., Nikonov, A. S., Roth, J., et al. 2024b, A&A, 690, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449663

    doi

  33. [41]

    Y., Krichbaum, T

    Kim, J. Y., Krichbaum, T. P., Lu, R. S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832921

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05843-w

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Miller, B

    Marshall, H. L., Miller, B. P., Davis, D. S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 683, doi: 10.1086/324396 Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., P´ erez-Torres, M. A., & Brunthaler, A. 2011, A&A, 529, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016105

    2002 doi

  36. [45]

    Melrose, D. B. 1971, Ap&SS, 12, 172, doi: 10.1007/BF00656148 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526630

    1971 doi

  37. [46]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb2d

    Nakamura, M., Asada, K., Hada, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb2d

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

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

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

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

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

    2003 doi

  40. [49]

    C., & Farmer, A

    Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., & Farmer, A. J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11272.x

    2007

  41. [50]

    N., & Lobanov, A

    Pashchenko, I. N., & Lobanov, A. P. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3061

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 626, doi: 10.1086/500349

    Zanna, L. 2006, ApJ, 641, 626, doi: 10.1086/500349

    2006 doi

  43. [52]

    1974, MNRAS, 167, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.3.457

    Okamoto, I. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.3.457

    1974 doi

  44. [53]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources (W. H. Freeman and Company)

    1970

  45. [54]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e17

    Panaitescu, A. 2019, ApJ, 886, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e17

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5584

    Park, J., Hada, K., Kino, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5584

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7137

    Park, J., Zhao, G.-Y., Nakamura, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7137

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    S., Adams, S

    Perlman, E. S., Adams, S. C., Cara, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/119

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269 S¸ adowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269 S¸ adowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

    1998 doi

  50. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 S¸ adowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Zhu, Y

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 S¸ adowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Zhu, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts632

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    E., & Narayan, R

    Sironi, L., Rowan, M. E., & Narayan, R. 2021, ApJL, 907, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd9bc

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1994, Plasma Physics, An Introduction to the Theory of Astrophysical, Geophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139170598

    1994 doi

  53. [62]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae832

    Takahashi, K., Toma, K., Kino, M., Nakamura, M., & Hada, K. 2018, ApJ, 868, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae832

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 551, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13425.x

    2008

  55. [64]

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

    2011

  56. [65]

    2024a, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae083

    Tsunetoe, Y., Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2024a, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae083

    doi

  57. [66]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08116

    Tsunetoe, Y., Narayan, R., & Ricarte, A. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08116

    doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcc

    Junor, W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcc

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 24 Tsunetoe et al

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 24 Tsunetoe et al

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    2024, A&A, 687, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449497

    Cruz-Osorio, A. 2024, A&A, 687, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449497

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    W., & Uzdensky, D

    Zhdankin, V., Kunz, M. W., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2023, ApJ, 944, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf54

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.