Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Bulk Motions in the Black Hole Jet Sheath as a Candidate for the Comptonizing Corona

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The boundary layer between a black hole's jet and its accretion disk—the jet sheath—is proposed as the Comptonizing corona that produces hard X-rays.

desk verdict Solid simulation analysis, but the key ~100 keV bulk temperature claim is likely inflated by shear contamination. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10662 v2 pith:7ZEYH64Y submitted 2024-11-16 astro-ph.HE gr-qcphysics.plasm-ph

Navin Sridhar (1) , Bart Ripperda (2) , Lorenzo Sironi (3) , Jordy Davelaar (4) , Andrei M. Beloborodov (3) ((1) Stanford , (2) CITA , (3) Columbia/Flatiron Institute , (4) Princeton) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcphysics.plasm-ph
keywords blackholeaccretionjetsheathmagneticreconnectionComptonizationcoronaGRRMHDsimulationsplasmoidsX-raybinaries
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

The paper tries to establish that the boundary layer between a black hole's jet and its accretion disk—the jet sheath—can serve as the hot corona that scatters soft disk photons into hard X-rays. Using a two-dimensional general relativistic resistive magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a magnetically arrested disk around a spinning black hole, it finds that the sheath carries electromagnetic power comparable to the total accretion power and dissipates about 20% of it between 2 and 10 gravitational radii. In that same layer, reconnection produces plasmoid chains whose trans-relativistic, churning bulk motions, measured in the frame moving with the mean flow, resemble a Maxwellian with an effective temperature near 100 keV. Those are precisely the ingredients of cold-chain Comptonization, in which soft photons are boosted by bulk plasmoid motions rather than by hot electrons. If correct, the jet sheath would be the physical location of the corona, tying the hard X-ray state naturally to the compact radio jet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dissipative jet sheath, defined by plasma beta beta > 0.1 and hot magnetization sigma_h > 0.15—more magnetized than the disk but less magnetized than the jet core. The mechanism is cold-chain Comptonization: soft disk photons are upscattered not by hot electrons but by the trans-relativistic stochastic bulk motions of reconnection plasmoids, whose comoving energy distribution the simulation finds resembles a Maxwellian with effective bulk temperature near 100 keV. The argument is carried by two quantitative measurements: the radial Poynting flux in the sheath, which gives about two to three times the jet-core power and a roughly 20% dissipation between 2 and 10 gravitational radii, and the comoving-frame bulk-motion spectra, together with Thomson optical-depth scalings that yield tau ≈ 0.01–0.1 when applied to Cygnus X-1 parameters.

What would settle it

Run a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation of the same magnetically arrested state with self-consistent radiation and physical, non-floor densities, and measure the Thomson optical depth across the jet sheath between 2 and 10 gravitational radii; if it falls below about 0.01, or if the comoving bulk-motion energy distribution lacks a Maxwellian-like component near 100 keV, the sheath cannot produce the observed hard X-ray spectra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a two-dimensional GRRMHD simulation of a magnetically arrested disk around a rapidly spinning black hole, the paper claims that the dissipative jet sheath—the layer between the Poynting-flux jet and the accretion disk, selected by beta > 0.1 and hot magnetization sigma_h > 0.15—is a viable Comptonizing corona. In this layer the time-averaged electromagnetic power is about twice that in the jet core and comparable to the accretion power, with roughly 20% of it dissipated between 2 and 10 gravitational radii via reconnection layers and plasmoid chains. The bulk plasma moves along a nearly paraboloidal surface with radial 4-velocity <Gamma beta_r> ≈ 1.2 ± 0.5, and in the frame moving with the mean velocity the stochastic bulk motions follow a Maxwellian-like distribution with effective bulk temperature of about 100 keV. Scaled to Cygnus X-1 parameters, the Thomson depth across the sheath is estimated at 0.01–0.1 for a pair plasma, enough, the paper argues, for cold-chain Comptonization of soft photons into the hard nonthermal tail.

Load-bearing premise

The mass density in the jet sheath is not controlled by the numerical floor values the simulation uses to keep the plasma density from becoming too small; if it is, the estimated Thomson optical depth of 0.01–0.1 is not physical and the sheath might be too tenuous to Comptonize efficiently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dissipative jet sheath is an important dissipation site: reconnection layers and plasmoid chains appear copiously, and about 20% of the sheath's electromagnetic power is dissipated between 2 and 10 gravitational radii.
  • The electromagnetic power in the jet sheath is about two to three times that in the jet core and comparable to the total accretion power, so it can energetically supply the nonthermal X-ray luminosity of hard-state sources such as Cygnus X-1.
  • The stochastic bulk motions in the sheath, viewed in the local mean-velocity frame, resemble a Maxwellian with effective temperature near 100 keV—the value required by cold-chain Comptonization to produce the hard nonthermal X-ray tail.
  • The sheath is a paraboloidal trans-relativistic outflow with radial 4-velocity about 1.2, implying the Comptonizing region is not static; this geometry and speed affect the reflection and polarization of the Comptonized X-rays.
  • Recurrent reconnection layers in the sheath vary on timescales of roughly 10–100 gravitational radii over the speed of light, matching the fast variability timescales seen from hard-state sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the jet sheath is the corona, the long-known radio–X-ray correlation in hard states would have a single physical anchor: the same Poynting-flux sheath that feeds the jet also supplies the Comptonizing motions, so jet and corona should switch on and off together.
  • The model predicts that hard X-ray polarization should be parallel to the disk normal, with a degree that grows with the sheath outflow speed; comparing X-ray polarimetry of Cygnus X-1 with synthetic polarization from these snapshots would test it.
  • Because the roughly 100 keV effective temperature comes from bulk motions rather than electron temperature, the spectral cutoff may be relatively insensitive to electron-ion coupling and pair production, unlike thermal coronae.
  • A direct next step would be Monte Carlo radiative transfer through these GRRMHD snapshots to produce synthetic hard-state spectra, which would turn the sheath-corona claim into a falsifiable spectral prediction.
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 manuscript analyzes a two-dimensional GRRMHD simulation of a magnetically arrested disk around a rapidly spinning black hole and identifies the jet-disk interface (the jet sheath) as a dissipation site. It isolates a 'dissipative jet sheath' using thresholds σ_h > 0.15 and β > 0.1, documents recurrent current sheets and plasmoid chains, and reports that the radial electromagnetic power in the sheath is about twice that in the jet core (η_js ≈ 2), with about 20% of the sheath's electromagnetic power lost between 2 and 10 gravitational radii. The paper further reports trans-relativistic mean bulk motions and a Maxwellian-like distribution of stochastic bulk motions with an effective temperature of about 100 keV when measured in the frame of the mean radial velocity. Scaling to Cygnus X-1 parameters yields a Thomson optical depth of 0.01–0.1 for the sheath, leading the authors to propose the dissipative jet sheath as a viable Comptonizing corona in the cold-chain Comptonization scenario. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and limitations, and it quantifies some definitional sensitivities in the appendices.

Significance. If the central claims withstand scrutiny, this paper provides a valuable bridge between global accretion-jet simulations and local kinetic reconnection studies: it assigns a concrete power budget, location, geometry, and velocity statistics to the putative corona and connects them to testable predictions for reflection, polarization, and X-ray spectral formation. The authors' preceding PIC and radiative-transfer work (SB20, SSB21, SSB23) gives independent support for the cold-chain mechanism, and the paper is careful to distinguish measured simulation quantities from interpretive links. The two load-bearing quantitative claims—the ~100 keV effective bulk temperature and the sheath-to-core power ratio—are, however, sensitive to the frame definition and selection thresholds; those sensitivities must be resolved before the central conclusions can be relied upon. The paper's strengths include the high-resolution resistive-MHD simulation, the clear presentation of method and definitions, and the unusually candid reporting of limitations and definition-dependent alternatives in Appendices B and C.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 9] The central claim that the stochastic bulk motions in the dissipative sheath have an effective temperature of ~100 keV is derived in a frame defined by a single polar-angle- and time-averaged mean velocity at each radius (the mean shown in the left panel of Fig. 8). The dissipative sheath is a thin shear layer: at r=15 Rg its angular thickness is Δθ ≈ 0.07π (Appendix B), and across that width the radial 4-velocity changes from relativistic (jet) to sub-relativistic (disk). Subtracting only the θ-averaged mean leaves the coherent shear profile in the residuals, which alone can produce a broad, Maxwellian-looking histogram and inflate the inferred effective temperature. The paper's own statement that plasmoid motions are 'largely determined by global stresses, rather than by the local reconnection dynamics' (§3.2.1) reinforces that this contamination is not obviously negligible. I ask the authors to recompute Fig. 9 in comoving frames defined with local polar-angle bins (or by otherwise subtracting the local shear profile) and to report how the effective temperature changes; if the 100 keV value is substantially reduced, the observational anchor of the cold-chain interpretation is weakened.
  2. [§3.3 and Appendix B] The headline result η_js ≈ 2 (electromagnetic power in the sheath relative to the jet core) is obtained with the Poynting-flux width criterion ⟨(E×B)_r⟩ ≥ 0.75 ⟨(E×B)_r⟩_peak. Appendix B shows that with the σ_h/β thresholds used elsewhere in the paper the same ratio is η_js ≈ 1.1 when averaged only over active times and ≈ 0.24 when averaged over all quasi-steady-state times. Because the abstract and §3.3 use η_js ≈ 2 to argue that the sheath power is comparable to the accretion power and twice the core power, this definition sensitivity is load-bearing for the energetic viability claim. Please either adopt and justify one time- and space-averaging convention in the main text (with the sensitivity reported there) or weaken the claim to a range and explain which definition is appropriate for a time-averaged Comptonizing corona.
  3. [§3.5, Eq. (14)] The electron-proton optical depth τ_e-p ∼ 10^-3–10^-2 is stated, after Eq. (14), to be a reasonable estimate only if the sheath density is not dominated by the GRRMHD algorithm's density floors. Since the optical depth is one of the paper's principal coronal-viability diagnostics, this caveat should be turned into a quantitative test: report the ratio of the physical density to the floor density inside the dissipative-sheath mask as a function of radius (especially in the 2–10 Rg region used for the τ estimates), or perform a floor/resolution variation and show that τ is stable. Without such a check, the quoted optical depth remains an uncontrolled estimate. The paper is transparent about other 2D and non-radiative limitations, which is commendable, but this particular one has a concrete and feasible fix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, Discussion item 4] The reference list contains a bare '?' between Wong et al. (2021) and Davelaar et al. (2023); this placeholder should be replaced or removed.
  2. [Fig. 9] Please state explicitly whether the 100 keV and 200 keV Maxwellian curves are fits to the histograms or reference curves; if they are fits, report the fit range and goodness-of-fit, since the 'resembles a Maxwellian' claim is central.
  3. [§3.3 and Appendix C] The '20% dissipation' between 2 and 10 Rg is a decrease in the radially-outflowing electromagnetic power, not a directly measured local dissipation rate; the text should phrase it as a proxy or lower/upper bound to avoid over-interpretation.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract's phrase 'about 20% of the sheath power is dissipated between 2 and 10 Rg' could be misread as a direct dissipation measurement; consider matching the more careful wording used in §3.3 and Appendix C.
  5. [§3.2.1] The statement that plasmoid motion 'is largely determined by global stresses' appears to be in tension with the later interpretation of the same motions as stochastic reconnection products; a sentence reconciling these two descriptions would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all central quantities are measured from the GRRMHD simulation, and the self-cited kinetic PIC results are independent support rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as a measurement-and-scaling exercise. The dissipative jet sheath is identified by thresholds (β>0.1, σh>0.15) applied to the GRRMHD output; the electromagnetic power, 20% dissipation fraction, trans-relativistic mean 4-velocity, and ~100 keV effective bulk temperature are all computed directly from simulation fields, not fitted to any observed spectrum or to the cold-chain Comptonization requirement. The optical-depth estimates (Eqs. 14 and 16) apply prior analytic scalings (Beloborodov 2017) to measured simulation quantities (ℓB, σc, ξ) with stated caveats about density floors and absent radiative physics, so the estimates are contingent predictions, not identities. The cold-chain Comptonization framework is imported from the authors' own PIC studies (SB20/SSB21/SSB23), but those are independent kinetic simulations with upstream conditions that do not include the present GRRMHD sheath; they provide external support rather than a fitted constraint. The main interpretive caveat—that subtracting only the polar- and time-averaged mean velocity may leave coherent shear in the 'stochastic' residual and inflate kT_eff—is a measurement-validity concern, not a circular reduction; the paper itself acknowledges that sheath motions are largely set by global stresses. A missing reference placeholder appears in §4 point 4 ('?'), but it is unrelated to circularity. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the GRRMHD simulation setup (axisymmetric, non-radiative, uniform resistivity, MAD state), on hand-chosen thresholds to define the dissipative jet sheath, on scaling assumptions to Cygnus X-1, and on the authors' prior PIC studies for the spectral mechanism. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Hot magnetization threshold sigma_h > 0.15 = 0.15
    Hand-chosen lower bound on hot magnetization to identify the dissipative jet sheath; controls which regions enter all statistics and optical depth profiles.
  • Plasma beta threshold beta > 0.1 = 0.1
    Hand-chosen lower bound on plasma beta; excludes the jet core and weakly magnetized disk, selects reconnection layers.
  • Poynting-flux sheath width factor = 0.75
    Factor relative to peak <(E x B)_r> used to define jet sheath angular extent; affects eta_js and the power partition calculation.
  • Current sheet aspect ratio w/r = 0.1
    Assumed width of current sheets in the sheath (w ~ 0.1 r), used in Eqs. 14 and 16 for optical depth estimates.
  • Fraction f_HE of magnetic energy to high-energy particles = 0.3
    Taken from prior PIC studies (SB20, SSB21, SSB23); used in the pair optical depth estimate in Section 3.5.
  • Fraction f_pm of particle energy to e+- rest mass = 0.1
    Taken from Svensson (1987) via Beloborodov (2017); used in the pair optical depth estimate.
  • Accretion efficiency xi = 0.2
    Adopted for scaling the simulation to Cygnus X-1, converting accretion power to luminosity, and used in Eq. 16.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kerr metric and GRMHD equations with uniform resistivity describe the accretion flow and reconnection.
    The simulation assumes axisymmetry, uniform resistivity eta = 5e-5, and a MAD initial flux state; described in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional axisymmetry with phi-invariance captures the relevant jet sheath physics.
    3D instabilities such as kink and drift-kink modes are disabled; the authors acknowledge this in the Discussion as a limitation.
  • domain assumption A non-radiative simulation approximates the low/hard state inner accretion flow.
    The paper argues in Section 1.2 that jet and sheath properties, being magnetically dominated, are conceivably similar between radiative and non-radiative models.
  • domain assumption Cold-chain Comptonization results from local PIC simulations apply to the global jet sheath.
    The paper cites SB20, SSB21, and SSB23 to connect the measured 100 keV effective bulk temperature to observed hard X-ray spectra.
  • domain assumption Numerical density floors in the GRRMHD algorithm do not dominate the sheath density.
    Stated in Section 3.5 as a condition for Eq. 14 to be a reasonable optical depth estimate; the paper notes this assumption explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bulk Motions in the Black Hole Jet Sheath as a Candidate for the Comptonizing Corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZEYH64Y

@misc{pith2026241110662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bulk Motions in the Black Hole Jet Sheath as a Candidate for the Comptonizing Corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZEYH64Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10662}
}
abstract

Using two-dimensional general relativistic resistive magnetohydrodynamic simulations, we investigate the properties of the sheath separating the black hole jet from the surrounding medium. We find that the electromagnetic power flowing through the jet sheath is comparable to the overall accretion power of the black hole. The sheath is an important site of energy dissipation as revealed by the copious appearance of reconnection layers and plasmoid chains. About 20% of the sheath power is dissipated between 2 and 10 gravitational radii. The plasma in the dissipative sheath moves along a nearly paraboloidal surface with trans-relativistic bulk motions dominated by the radial component, whose dimensionless 4-velocity is $\sim1.2\pm0.5$. In the frame moving with the mean (radially-dependent) velocity, the distribution of stochastic bulk motions resembles a Maxwellian with an `effective bulk temperature' of $\sim$100 keV. Scaling the global simulation to Cygnus X-1 parameters gives a rough estimate of the Thomson optical depth across the jet sheath $\sim 0.01-0.1$, and it may increase in future magnetohydrodynamic simulations with self-consistent radiative losses. These properties suggest that the dissipative jet sheath may be a viable `coronal' region, capable of upscattering seed soft photons into a hard, nonthermal tail, as seen during the hard states of X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the mass accretion rate M˙ (in code units) into the event horizon (top panel), the magnetic flux Φ thread￾ing the horizon (middle panel), and the Blandford-Znajek jet power LBZ normalized by M˙ (bottom panel) in our MAD simulation. The downward-facing triangles at the top of each panel denote the times corresponding to the snapshots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels [a,b,c] in the top row show the comoving plasma density, the dimensionless temperature (p/ρc2 ), and the bulk energy per unit rest mass energy (Γ − 1), at time T c/Rg = 2870. The black hole is centered at [x, z] = [0, 0], the red solid curve is the ergosphere, and the red dashed curve is the inner light surface. The overplotted curves are magnetic field lines. The time-evolution of these parameters (during th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Realizations of plasmoid-mediated reconnection layers identified in the jet sheath by the conditions σh > 0.15 and β > 0.1 at various times (in different rows). Panels [a-d] show σh; panels [e-h] show β; panels [i-l] show the current density. The bulk energy per particle in this region (i.e., where σh > 0.15 and β > 0.1) is shown in panels [m-p]. In all panels, the black hole is centered at [x, z] = [0, 0], the red … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-evolution of the quantities in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Strength of the out-of-plane magnetic field Bout at different times (same times as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: time- and θ-averaged histogram of the out-of-plane field strength (Bout) in units of the in-plane field strength (Bin), measured between 5 Rg (blue) and 40 Rg (red) in increments of 5 Rg. The histograms are normalized with respect to the peak of the histogr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel [a]: Radial Poynting flux at time T c/Rg = 2870. Panel [b]: Time-evolution of the radial Poynting flux as a function of the polar angle θ at the fiducial radius of r = 15 Rg. The black curve in the top sub-figure shows the time-average ⟨(E × B)r⟩[θ]. The angle wh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: solid curves denote the radial dependence of the average of the 4-velocity components Γβr (red), Γβθ (green), and Γβϕ (blue). Right panel: the black solid curve shows the mean bulk energy ⟨Γ−1⟩ as a function of radius. The dashed yellow curve shows the mean…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: time- and θ-averaged bulk energy spectra, calculated in the local comoving frame between 5 Rg (blue) and 40 Rg (red), in bins of 5 Rg. The black dotted and dashed curves denote 100 keV and 200 keV Maxwellian distributions, respectively. Right panel: mean bu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polar- and time-averaged radial profiles of the comoving magnetic energy density (red), the magnetic compactness (green), the optical depth of electron-positron pairs (blue) and of electron￾proton plasma (brown) in the dissipative jet sheath, as obtained from our simu…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Panels [a,b,c] show the radial, polar, and toroidal components of the Poynting flux at T c/Rg = 2870. In all panels, colors denote values of the Poynting flux > 0, while the greyscale denotes values < 0. Tagliacozzo, D., Marinucci, A., Ursini, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time-evolution of the radial Poynting flux as a function of θ. Each panel denotes a different radius. All the quantities shown are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Time-averaged radial Poynting flux ⟨(E × B)r⟩ as a function of θ calculated at the fiducial radius of r = 15 Rg. The blue and green dotted curves denote ⟨(E × B)r⟩ computed only at the times when the criteria σh > 0.15, β > 0.1 for jet sheath, and σh > 1, β < 0.1 crit…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-averaged radially flowing electromagnetic power, E˙ (EM)(r) = 2π R √ g rr⟨E × B⟩r √ −gdθ (for Cygnus X-1 parameters) as a function of radius, along the jet sheath defined by our σh > 0.15 and β > 0.1 thresholds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.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. X-ray polarization from accretion disk winds

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Single Thomson scattering in equatorial accretion disk winds can explain the high X-ray polarization degrees observed in X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei.

  2. X-ray properties of coronal emission in radio quiet Active Galactic Nuclei

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of X-ray observations of the corona in radio-quiet AGN, covering its size, geometry, temperature, variability, and empirical relations with the accretion disk and other components.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    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...

    2019

  4. [4]

    N., Fabian , A

    Alston , W. N., Fabian , A. C., Kara , E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 597, 10.1038/s41550-019-1002-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-1002-x 2020

  5. [5]

    Arnowitt , R., Deser , S., & Misner , C. W. 1959, Physical Review, 116, 1322, 10.1103/PhysRev.116.1322

    doi:10.1103/physrev.116.1322 1959

  6. [6]

    A., & Hawley , J

    Balbus , S. A., & Hawley , J. F. 1991, , 376, 214, 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  7. [7]

    2018, , 862, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    Ball , D., Sironi , L., & \"O zel , F. 2018, , 862, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac820 2018

  8. [8]

    2017, , 850, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa906a

    Beheshtipour , B., Krawczynski , H., & Malzac , J. 2017, , 850, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa906a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa906a 2017

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 1998, , 496, L105, 10.1086/311260

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    1999, , 510, L123, 10.1086/311810

    ---. 1999, , 510, L123, 10.1086/311810

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, , 850, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    ---. 2017, , 850, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, 10.1063/1.3264103

    Bhattacharjee , A., Huang , Y.-M., Yang , H., & Rogers , B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, 10.1063/1.3264103

    2009 doi

  5. [14]

    S., & Blinnikov , S

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S., & Blinnikov , S. I. 1976, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 2, 191. astro-ph/0003275

    1976 arXiv

  6. [15]

    S., & Ruzmaikin , A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S., & Ruzmaikin , A. A. 1974, , 28, 45, 10.1007/BF00642237

    1974 doi

  7. [16]

    1976, , 42, 401, 10.1007/BF01225967

    ---. 1976, , 42, 401, 10.1007/BF01225967

    1976 doi

  8. [17]

    D., & Znajek , R

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

    1977

  9. [18]

    2021, Physical Review Letters, 127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.055101

    Bransgrove, A., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.055101

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    2013, , 428, 71, 10.1093/mnras/sts005

    Bucciantini , N., & Del Zanna , L. 2013, , 428, 71, 10.1093/mnras/sts005

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    F., Figueiredo, E., et al

    Bugli, M., Lopresti, E. F., Figueiredo, E., et al. 2024, Relativistic reconnection with effective resistivity: I. Dynamics and reconnection rate, arXiv, 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.20924

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    Cao, Z., Lucchini, M., Markoff, S., Connors, R. M. T., & Grinberg, V. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/mnras/stab3080

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    Chandran , B. D. G., Foucart , F., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2018, JPP, 84, 905840310, 10.1017/S0022377818000387

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    1960, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 46, 253, 10.1073/pnas.46.2.253

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1960, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 46, 253, 10.1073/pnas.46.2.253

    1960 doi

  15. [24]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.15738

    Chashkina , A., Bromberg , O., & Levinson , A. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.15738. 2106.15738

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.205101

    Crinquand, B., Cerutti, B., Dubus, G., Parfrey, K., & Philippov, A. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.205101

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    2023, , 959, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0b79

    Davelaar , J., Ripperda , B., Sironi , L., et al. 2023, , 959, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0b79

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    Dexter , J., & Begelman , M. C. 2024, , 528, L157, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad182

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Dexter , J., Scepi , N., & Begelman , M. C. 2021, , 919, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    2005, , 433, 604, 10.1038/nature03335

    Di Matteo , T., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2005, , 433, 604, 10.1038/nature03335

    2005 doi

  21. [30]

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

    Dihingia , I. K., Vaidya , B., & Fendt , C. 2022, , 517, 5032, 10.1093/mnras/stac3021

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    2023, , 677, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346781

    El Mellah , I., Cerutti , B., & Crinquand , B. 2023, , 677, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346781

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al

    Fabian , A. C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al. 2015, , 451, 4375, 10.1093/mnras/stv1218

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    P., Belloni , T

    Fender , R. P., Belloni , T. M., & Gallo , E. 2004, , 355, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x

    2004

  26. [36]

    Fiorillo , D. F. G., Petropoulou , M., Comisso , L., Peretti , E., & Sironi , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.18254, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.18254

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    G., & Moncrief , V

    Fishbone , L. G., & Moncrief , V. 1976, , 207, 962, 10.1086/154565

    1976 doi

  28. [38]

    C., Chatterjee , K., Ingram , A., & Middleton , M

    Fragile , P. C., Chatterjee , K., Ingram , A., & Middleton , M. 2023, , 525, L82, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad099

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    A., Rosner , R., & Vaiana , G

    Galeev , A. A., Rosner , R., & Vaiana , G. S. 1979, , 229, 318, 10.1086/156957

    1979 doi

  30. [40]

    2023, , 130, 115201, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., Quataert , E., et al. 2023, , 130, 115201, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201

    2023 doi

  31. [41]

    2018, , 478, L132, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083

    Gallo , E., Degenaar , N., & van den Eijnden , J. 2018, , 478, L132, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    2005, , 436, 819, 10.1038/nature03879

    Gallo , E., Fender , R., Kaiser , C., et al. 2005, , 436, 819, 10.1038/nature03879

    2005 doi

  33. [43]

    P., & Pooley , G

    Gallo , E., Fender , R. P., & Pooley , G. G. 2003, , 344, 60, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06791.x

    2003

  34. [44]

    A., Steiner , J

    Garc \' a , J. A., Steiner , J. F., McClintock , J. E., et al. 2015, , 813, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/84

    2015 doi

  35. [45]

    2008, , 688, 555, 10.1086/592345

    Goodman , J., & Uzdensky , D. 2008, , 688, 555, 10.1086/592345

    2008 doi

  36. [46]

    M., Sironi , L., & Philippov , A

    Gro s elj , D., Hakobyan , H., Beloborodov , A. M., Sironi , L., & Philippov , A. 2024, , 132, 085202, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.085202

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    2024, , 527, 6065, 10.1093/mnras/stad3573

    Gupta , S., Sridhar , N., & Sironi , L. 2024, , 527, 6065, 10.1093/mnras/stad3573

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    2021, , 908, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a6

    Hirotani , K., Krasnopolsky , R., Shang , H., Nishikawa , K.-i., & Watson , M. 2021, , 908, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a6

    2021 doi

  39. [49]

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

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

    2003 doi

  40. [50]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab345f

    Inda-Koide, M., Koide, S., & Morino, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab345f

    2019 doi

  41. [51]

    R., & Motta , S

    Ingram , A. R., & Motta , S. E. 2019, , 85, 101524, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  42. [52]

    F., Fabian , A

    Kara , E., Steiner , J. F., Fabian , A. C., et al. 2019, , 565, 198, 10.1038/s41586-018-0803-x

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    L., Lohfink , A., & Kara , E

    King , A. L., Lohfink , A., & Kara , E. 2017, , 835, 226, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/226

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski , H., Muleri , F., Dov c iak , M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, 10.1126/science.add5399

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    D., & Reig , P

    Kylafis , N. D., & Reig , P. 2024, , 690, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450337

    2024 doi

  46. [56]

    D., Reig , P., & Tsouros , A

    Kylafis , N. D., Reig , P., & Tsouros , A. 2023, , 679, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346379

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    Liska , M. T. P., Musoke , G., Tchekhovskoy , A., Porth , O., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2022, , 935, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    2022 doi

  48. [58]

    F., Schekochihin , A

    Loureiro , N. F., Schekochihin , A. A., & Cowley , S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, 10.1063/1.2783986

    2007 doi

  49. [59]

    2022, , 517, 5853, 10.1093/mnras/stac2904

    Lucchini , M., Ceccobello , C., Markoff , S., et al. 2022, , 517, 5853, 10.1093/mnras/stac2904

    2022 doi

  50. [61]

    2022, , 516, 5907, 10.1093/mnras/stac2634

    Marinucci , A., Muleri , F., Dovciak , M., et al. 2022, , 516, 5907, 10.1093/mnras/stac2634

    2022 doi

  51. [62]

    A., & Wilms , J

    Markoff , S., Nowak , M. A., & Wilms , J. 2005, , 635, 1203, 10.1086/497628

    2005 doi

  52. [63]

    L., Zdziarski , A

    McConnell , M. L., Zdziarski , A. A., Bennett , K., et al. 2002, , 572, 984, 10.1086/340436

    2002 doi

  53. [64]

    C., & Gammie , C

    McKinney , J. C., & Gammie , C. F. 2004, , 611, 977, 10.1086/422244

    2004 doi

  54. [67]

    M., Werner , G

    Mehlhaff , J. M., Werner , G. R., Uzdensky , D. A., & Begelman , M. C. 2020, , 498, 799, 10.1093/mnras/staa2346

    2020 doi

  55. [68]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577, 10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y

    M \'e ndez , M., Karpouzas , K., Garc \' a , F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577, 10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y

    2022 doi

  56. [70]

    2001 b , , 328, 958, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04925.x

    ---. 2001 b , , 328, 958, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04925.x

    2001

  57. [71]

    2002, , 332, 165, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05288.x

    ---. 2002, , 332, 165, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05288.x

    2002

  58. [72]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.09087

    Moscibrodzka , M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.09087. 2309.09087

    2023 arXiv

  59. [73]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Publications of the Astr. Society of Japan, 55, L69, 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  60. [74]

    C., & Farmer , A

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

    2007

  61. [75]

    M., Porth , O., et al

    Nathanail , A., Fromm , C. M., Porth , O., et al. 2020, , 495, 1549, 10.1093/mnras/staa1165

    2020 doi

  62. [76]

    M., & Rezzolla , L

    Nathanail , A., Mpisketzis , V., Porth , O., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2022, , 513, 4267, 10.1093/mnras/stac1118

    2022 doi

  63. [77]

    a ttil \

    N \"a ttil \"a , J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7026, 10.1038/s41467-024-51257-1

    2024 doi

  64. [78]

    2019, , 629, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559

    Olivares , H., Porth , O., Davelaar , J., et al. 2019, , 629, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559

    2019 doi

  65. [79]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.035101

    Parfrey, K., Philippov, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.035101

    2019 doi

  66. [80]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics & Cosmology, 4, 1, 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    Porth , O., Olivares , H., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics & Cosmology, 4, 1, 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    2017 doi

  67. [81]

    Poutanen , J., Veledina , A., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2023, , 949, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd33e

    2023 doi

  68. [82]

    2018, , 859, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd36

    Qian , Q., Fendt , C., & Vourellis , C. 2018, , 859, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd36

    2018 doi

  69. [83]

    Qiao , E., & Liu , B. F. 2015, , 448, 1099, 10.1093/mnras/stv085

    2015 doi

  70. [84]

    A., & McClintock , J

    Remillard , R. A., & McClintock , J. E. 2006, , 44, 49, 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  71. [85]

    Ripperda , B., Bacchini , F., & Philippov , A. A. 2020, , 900, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab

    2020 doi

  72. [86]

    2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda , B., Liska , M., Chatterjee , K., et al. 2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  73. [87]

    2019 a , , 485, 299, 10.1093/mnras/stz387

    Ripperda , B., Porth , O., Sironi , L., & Keppens , R. 2019 a , , 485, 299, 10.1093/mnras/stz387

    2019 doi

  74. [88]

    2019 b , , 244, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3922

    Ripperda , B., Bacchini , F., Porth , O., et al. 2019 b , , 244, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3922

    2019 doi

  75. [89]

    M., Fender , R

    Russell , D. M., Fender , R. P., Gallo , E., & Kaiser , C. R. 2007, , 376, 1341, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11539.x

    2007

  76. [90]

    D., & Krolik , J

    Schnittman , J. D., & Krolik , J. H. 2010, , 712, 908, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908

    2010 doi

  77. [91]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd0b0

    Selvi, S., Porth, O., Ripperda, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd0b0

    2023 doi

  78. [92]

    Sironi , L., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2020, , 899, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba622

    2020 doi

  79. [93]

    E., & Narayan , R

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

    2021 doi

  80. [94]

    Sridhar , N., Bhattacharyya , S., Chandra , S., & Antia , H. M. 2019, , 487, 4221, 10.1093/mnras/stz1476

    2019 doi

  81. [95]

    A., Steiner , J

    Sridhar , N., Garc \' a , J. A., Steiner , J. F., et al. 2020, , 890, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f5

    2020 doi

  82. [96]

    Sridhar , N., Sironi , L., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2021, , 507, 5625, 10.1093/mnras/stab2534

    2021 doi

  83. [97]

    2023, , 518, 1301, 10.1093/mnras/stac2730

    ---. 2023, , 518, 1301, 10.1093/mnras/stac2730

    2023 doi

  84. [98]

    A., & Truemper , J

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Truemper , J. 1979, , 279, 506, 10.1038/279506a0

    1979 doi

  85. [99]

    1987, , 227, 403, 10.1093/mnras/227.2.403

    Svensson , R. 1987, , 227, 403, 10.1093/mnras/227.2.403

    1987 doi

  86. [100]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10213, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.10213

    Tagliacozzo , D., Marinucci , A., Ursini , F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10213, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.10213

    2023 doi arXiv

  87. [101]

    1972, , 177, L5, 10.1086/181042

    Tananbaum , H., Gursky , H., Kellogg , E., Giacconi , R., & Jones , C. 1972, , 177, L5, 10.1086/181042

    1972 doi

  88. [102]

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

    2011

  89. [103]

    2022, , 510, 3674, 10.1093/mnras/stab3745

    Ursini , F., Matt , G., Bianchi , S., et al. 2022, , 510, 3674, 10.1093/mnras/stab3745

    2022 doi

  90. [104]

    A., Loureiro , N

    Uzdensky , D. A., Loureiro , N. F., & Schekochihin , A. A. 2010, Physical Review Letters, 105, 235002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    2010 doi

  91. [105]

    1959, Sov

    Velikhov, E. 1959, Sov. Phys. JETP, 36, 995

    1959

  92. [106]

    Vourellis , C., Fendt , C., Qian , Q., & Noble , S. C. 2019, , 882, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32e2

    2019 doi

  93. [107]

    2021, , 910, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abec79

    Wang , J., Mastroserio , G., Kara , E., et al. 2021, , 910, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abec79

    2021 doi

  94. [108]

    C., Ramsey , B., O'Dell , S., et al

    Weisskopf , M. C., Ramsey , B., O'Dell , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz , 99051...

    2016 doi

  95. [109]

    R., Uzdensky , D

    Werner , G. R., Uzdensky , D. A., Begelman , M. C., Cerutti , B., & Nalewajko , K. 2018, , 473, 4840, 10.1093/mnras/stx2530

    2018 doi

  96. [110]

    N., Du , Y., Prather , B

    Wong , G. N., Du , Y., Prather , B. S., & Gammie , C. F. 2021, , 914, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b8

    2021 doi

  97. [111]

    A., & Gierli \'n ski , M

    Zdziarski , A. A., & Gierli \'n ski , M. 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 99, 10.1143/PTPS.155.99

    2004 doi

  98. [112]

    A., Lubi \'n ski , P., & Smith , D

    Zdziarski , A. A., Lubi \'n ski , P., & Smith , D. A. 1999, , 303, L11, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02343.x

    1999

  99. [113]

    A., Poutanen , J., Mikolajewska , J., et al

    Zdziarski , A. A., Poutanen , J., Mikolajewska , J., et al. 1998, , 301, 435, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02021.x

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.