Quantum signatures in black hole accretion: Pair production in dynamical magnetic fields

S. Shankaranarayanan (IIT Bombay); Susobhan Mandal; Tausif Parvez

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Quantum signatures in black hole accretion: Pair production in dynamical magnetic fields

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Time-dependent magnetic fields in black-hole accretion disks can create electron–positron pairs whose synchrotron radiation is observable with next-generation radio telescopes.

desk verdict The qualitative idea—pair production during SANE-to-MAD transitions giving a radio signature—is new, but the quantitative prediction is undone by the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09355 v1 pith:RJBRKHAF submitted 2025-05-14 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-th

Susobhan Mandal , Tausif Parvez , S. Shankaranarayanan (IIT Bombay) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th

keywords SchwingerpairproductionmagneticallyarresteddiskblackholeaccretionsynchrotronradiationBogoliubovcoefficientsradioastronomyquantumfieldtheoryinbackgroundfields

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 time-varying magnetic fields of magnetically arrested disks (MADs) around black holes drive electron–positron pair production through the Schwinger mechanism, and that those pairs emit a characteristic synchrotron signal in the $1$–$3000$ MHz band. If correct, quantum pair creation would become observable in black hole accretion for the first time, and the signal would also serve as a direct electromagnetic signature of the MAD state. The paper's chain runs from strong poloidal fields ($B \sim 10^4$–$10^8$ G) varying on timescales of $10^5$ s (supermassive) or $1$ s (stellar-mass) black holes, to Bogoliubov coefficients for a charged scalar field, to a total pair number of order $10^{38}$ for a supermassive black hole, to a predicted peak spectral flux density of roughly $1$–$100$ mJy at $B \sim 10^8$ G. The whole argument rests on the numerical Bogoliubov coefficients that quantify how many pairs are created.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a charged complex scalar field (electron mass) coupled to a time-dependent, symmetric-gauge vector potential $A_\mu = (0, -B(t)y/2, B(t)x/2, -A_\parallel(t))$, with $B(t) = B_0 e^{-t^2/\Delta^2}$ and $A_\parallel(t) = a_\parallel \operatorname{sech}(t/\Delta)$. In this background the field mode equation reduces to a harmonic oscillator with time-dependent frequency, $(\partial_t^2 + \omega_{n,k_\parallel}^2(t)) f_{n,k_\parallel} = 0$, where $\omega_{n,k_\parallel}^2 = 2|eB|(n+1/2) + (k_\parallel + eA_\parallel)^2 + m^2$. Particle production is extracted through the Bogoliubov transformation, whose late-time coefficient $|\beta_{n,k_\parallel}|^2$ gives the number of pairs in each mode; the total pair number is $N(t) = V |eB(t)|/(4\pi^2) \sum_n \int dk_\parallel \, |\beta_{n,k_\parallel}|^2$. The produced pairs are then fed through the standard synchrotron radiation machinery, with single-particle flux $S_e(\omega) = (\sqrt{3} e^3 B)/(4\pi d^2 m c^2) F(\omega/\omega_c)$ and kernel $F(x) = x \int_x^\infty K_{5/3}(\xi)\,d\xi$, to produce the predicted spectrum.

What would settle it

Recompute the Bogoliubov coefficients from the paper's evolution equations with the stated parameters and compare $|\beta|$ with the adiabatic lower bound $\exp(-\pi m\Delta) \sim \exp(-10^{27})$; a high-precision run that lands near $10^{-9}$–$10^{-11}$ would support the prediction, while a value consistent with the exponential bound would erase the predicted flux.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that a MAD's dynamically evolving magnetic field — modeled locally as a time-dependent gauge potential in Minkowski spacetime — is not merely a classical background but an active source of quantum pair production. The paper computes the Bogoliubov coefficients for a charged complex scalar field in this background and finds a total pair number $N \sim 10^{38}$ for a supermassive black hole during the transition into the MAD state. These pairs are accelerated by the ordered poloidal field to Lorentz factors $\gamma \sim 10^2$ and emit synchrotron radiation with peak frequency $\omega_c = 3\gamma^2 eB/(4\pi m_e c) \sim 1$–$3000$ MHz. For $B \sim 10^8$ G the predicted peak spectral flux density is $\sim 1$–$100$ mJy, which the paper identifies as detectable with next-generation radio facilities. This is offered as a direct, observable signature of quantum field theory operating in black hole accretion environments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerically computed pair-production coefficients, $|\beta| \sim 10^{-11}$ for supermassive and $\sim 10^{-9}$ for stellar-mass black holes, are physically valid despite the field's extreme slowness ($d\ln\omega_B/d\tau \sim 10^{-27}$), which naively would suppress them to $\exp(-10^{27})$ and eliminate the predicted radio signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The predicted emission falls inside the frequency coverage of planned low-frequency to centimetric radio arrays, so a positive detection would directly test the model.
Because both electrons and positrons radiate, the signal may be visible even when the main jet points away from Earth, removing a common orientation bias.
The peak frequency rises with magnetic field strength, so measuring the spectral peak would constrain the field at the pair-production site.
The non-thermal synchrotron shape distinguishes this emission from thermal disk radiation, giving a clean search template.
If the predicted flux of $1$–$100$ mJy is confirmed, MADs around supermassive black holes would become the first astrophysical environments where Schwinger pair production is detected.

Reading between the lines

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

A stricter numerical check of $|\beta|$ against the paper's own adiabaticity estimate would settle whether the $10^{-9}$–$10^{-11}$ coefficients are physical or exponentially suppressed; this is not discussed in the paper.
The same background-field machinery could be applied to faster-varying magnetospheres such as magnetar flares, where the adiabatic suppression is weaker and the predicted pair yield correspondingly higher.
If the signal is detected, its high linear polarization would separate pair synchrotron emission from competing disk processes, a diagnostic the paper does not model in detail.
Because the pair number scales with $|eB|$ and the radiating volume, the model makes population-level predictions: brighter, higher-frequency signals should come from the most strongly magnetized MADs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The paper is a serious attempt to connect QFT pair production to MAD accretion, but the quantitative core doesn't survive contact with its own equations. What is actually new: applying Schwinger-mechanism pair production to the SANE-to-MAD transition and predicting synchrotron radio emission from the produced pairs. That is a legitimate new application, the machinery is standard, and the exposition is clear. The qualitative idea is worth thinking about.

The soft spots are load-bearing, not cosmetic. Equation (9) says d ln ω_B/dτ ~ (mΔ)^−1, which for the stated SuMBH timescale is ~10^-26 or 10^-27. Adiabatic perturbation theory then gives |β| ~ exp(−const × mΔ), utterly negligible. Yet Fig. 3 reports |β| ~ 10^-11 to 10^-9. That cannot come from solving Eq. (A9) with those parameters. For the StMBH case, mΔ ~ 10^21, so |β| ~ 10^-9 is also off by many dozens of orders of magnitude. Since N(t) and the flux are proportional to |β|^2, the central prediction collapses before astrophysics enters.

The inconsistencies continue. Fig. 5 shows a peak frequency around 2 GHz for B0 = 10^7 G, but plugging γ = 80–100 and B = 10^7 G into their own Eq. (B17) gives ν_c ~ 10^17 Hz, not GHz—a discrepancy of eight orders of magnitude. Either the plot or the formula is wrong. Also, the acceleration to γ ~ 10^2 is asserted without a mechanism; with E∥/B0 ~ 10^−30 from their parameters, the weak parallel field cannot accelerate pairs. Finally, the abstract's 1–100 mJy claim for B ~ 10^8 G is never derived; the only flux plots, at 10^7 G, give microjanskys and nanojanskys. The scaling from 10^7 to 10^8 G cannot bridge to millijanskys through the shown expressions. There is also a smaller inconsistency in using (mΔ)^−1 = 10^−27 for both black-hole classes, even though Δ differs by 10^5.

Who gets value from this? Someone working on QFT in time-dependent fields might use the setup as a starting exercise, but as an astrophysical prediction it is not usable. The paper is not sloppy in exposition; it is numerically self-inconsistent. My recommendation: desk reject. The authors need to redo the calculation, benchmark |β| against known adiabatic limits, fix the synchrotron frequency, and then derive the mJy claim honestly. If they can do that, a revised version might be worth serious refereeing.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the time-varying, coherent magnetic fields of magnetically arrested disks (MADs) around black holes trigger Schwinger pair production, with the produced electron-positron pairs radiating observable synchrotron emission. The authors model a local Minkowski-space patch with a charged complex scalar field coupled to the gauge potentials (2)-(3), reduce the mode equation to a harmonic oscillator with time-dependent frequency (10), solve the Bogoliubov equations (A9) numerically, and combine the pair number (14) with the standard synchrotron kernel (15) to predict radio flux densities. Representative results are |β| ~ 1e-11 (SuMBH) and ~1e-9 (StMBH) (Fig. 3), pair numbers N ~ 1e38 (Fig. 4), and peak fluxes of ~60 µJy (SuMBH) and ~10 nJy (StMBH) at ~2 GHz for B0 = 1e7 G (Fig. 5). The abstract extrapolates these predictions to 1-100 mJy for B ~ 1e8 G and argues that SKA and ngVLA can detect the signal.

Significance. If the calculations were correct, this would be an interesting new bridge between quantum field theory in background fields and black hole accretion phenomenology, with a falsifiable radio prediction. The paper is also commendable for clearly stating the gauge choice, the WKB/Bogoliubov framework, and the astrophysical parameters used. However, the central quantitative chain is not supported by the manuscript's own equations: the reported Bogoliubov coefficients contradict the stated adiabaticity parameters, the synchrotron peak frequency contradicts the critical-frequency formula in Eq. (B17), and the energy distribution used in the flux integral is not derived from the actual mode occupations. These are not presentation issues; they invalidate the predicted flux. The paper would need a corrected calculation, ideally with the numerical code released, before the astrophysical claims can be assessed.

major comments (4)

[III, Eq. (9) and Fig. 3] Eq. (9) states d ln omega_B/dtau ~ (m Delta)^-1 = 1e-27; the stated StMBH parameters give the less extreme but still tiny value 1/(m Delta) ~ 1e-21. For a scalar mode with such a slowly varying frequency, the late-time Bogoliubov coefficient in the WKB/adiabatic basis is exponentially suppressed, |beta| ~ exp(-C m Delta), and the equivalent induced-electric-field estimate gives eE/m^2 ~ e (a_parallel/m)/(m Delta) ~ 1e-39, i.e., a Schwinger exponent exp(-pi m^2/eE) ~ exp(-1e39). The values in Fig. 3, |beta| ~ 1e-11 (SuMBH) and ~1e-9 (StMBH), are inconsistent with these bounds by many orders of magnitude. Because N(t) in Eq. (14) is proportional to |beta|^2, the pair number, the synchrotron flux, and the abstract's mJy detection claim are unsupported unless the numerical solution is reconciled with Eq. (9); no degeneracy factor in Eq. (14) can compensate.
[IV, Eq. (B17) and Fig. 5] For B0 = 1e7 G and gamma = 100, Eq. (B17) in Gaussian units gives nu_c = 3 gamma^2 eB/(4 pi m c) ~ 4e17 Hz, yet Fig. 5 reports the peak at ~2 GHz. For gamma >= 1 and B0 >= 1e4 G, the same formula places the critical frequency in the infrared-optical range or above, not in the 1-3000 MHz band claimed in the abstract. Either Eq. (B17) is not the formula used to produce Fig. 5, or the frequency calibration is in error; in either case, the radio-frequency identification and the comparison with SKA/ngVLA are not supported.
[IV, Eq. (15) and footnote [63]] The flux integral (15) uses an energy distribution N(E) defined as the Fourier transform of N(t). The total pair number as a function of time is not the energy distribution of the produced particles; the correct distribution should be assembled from the |beta_{n,k_parallel}|^2 occupations as a function of n and k_parallel. As written, the spectral flux density is therefore not the synchrotron power emitted by the produced pairs, independent of the magnitude of |beta|. This step requires a proper derivation before the quantitative predictions can be used.
[II, Eq. (4)] The amplitude a_parallel/m = 1e-12 is introduced without a derivation from MAD simulations or from observed field structures, yet the pair-production probability and the resulting flux depend exponentially on the induced parallel electric field, eE/m^2 ~ e (a_parallel/m)/(m Delta). Since this parameter effectively decides whether any pairs are produced at all, the claim of significant production requires either a first-principles estimate or an explicit sensitivity analysis across a_parallel. Without this, the central prediction is not a robust consequence of the model.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'This work provides a direct and observable signatures' should be 'a direct and observable signature'.
[I] The text 'to arrest the the accretion flow' contains a doubled article.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'for SuMBH (StMBH), B0 = 104 G(105 G)', which is inconsistent with Eq. (4), where B0 = 1e6 G, and with Fig. 5, where B0 = 1e7 G; the value used for each curve should be stated explicitly.
[Fig. 5] The axis labels are garbled, e.g., 'Ptot( )(10 5) (Jy)', and the x-axis label should specify the frequency units.
[Eq. (A1)] The Landau-level term is written as sqrt(2|eB|)(n+1/2); to match Eq. (7), it should be 2|eB|(n+1/2).
[References] Reference [61] lacks complete publication information such as journal, volume, and pages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted flux is a forward-model consequence of explicitly assumed field profiles and standard QED/synchrotron formulas, not a fitted or self-referential result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) specify toy electromagnetic profiles A_parallel(t) = a_parallel sech(t/Delta) and B(t) = B0 exp(-t^2/Delta^2) with stated constants (Eqs. 2-4); (ii) solve the time-dependent Bogoliubov equation (A9) for |beta_{n,k_parallel}|^2; (iii) sum modes to get the pair number N(t) via Eq. (14); (iv) feed N and assumed gamma and B0 into the standard synchrotron flux formula (Eqs. 15, B17, B18). Each step is a forward calculation from explicit inputs. The claimed peak flux density is not used as an input, no parameter is fitted to the predicted signal, and no target result is defined in terms of the output. The only self-citation, Ref. [40], supports the weak-curvature local-Minkowski approximation and is not load-bearing: removing or replacing it would not alter the pair-production calculation. The MAD timescales and field strengths are cited to external astrophysical sources. The ad hoc choice of A_parallel(t) and the apparent numerical inconsistency between the adiabaticity estimate in Eq. (9) and the reported |beta| values are serious model-validation and correctness concerns, but they are not circularity within the definitions used here. The paper does not rename a known result or smuggle an ansatz in through self-citation; it openly states the adopted profiles as a model. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pair-production and spectral predictions depend on several hand-chosen parameters, most importantly the amplitude a_parallel of the extra vector potential A_parallel(t), which sets the electric field and thus the pair-production rate. The vacuum treatment ignores the conducting plasma of the disk. The temporal profiles B(t) and A_parallel(t) are ad hoc and not derived from MAD dynamics.

free parameters (5)

a_parallel/m = 10^-12
Amplitude of the ad hoc vector potential A_parallel(t) in Eq. (3); it sets the electric field E_parallel and thus the pair-production rate, but is not derived from any disk model or observation.
B0 = 10^6 G (Eq. 4); 10^4-10^8 G used in figures
Peak magnetic field amplitude, taken from astrophysical estimates; the specific values used in the numerical plots vary (10^4, 10^5, 10^7 G) without a stated selection rule.
Delta (t_MAD) = 10^5 s (SuMBH), 1 s (StMBH); (m Delta)^-1 = 10^-27 in Eq. 4
Timescale of magnetic field evolution; controls the adiabaticity parameter. The SuMBH and StMBH values are from astrophysical estimates, but the Eq. (4) value (m Delta)^-1 = 10^-27 is inconsistent with Sec. III.
gamma (Lorentz factor of produced pairs) = ~10^2
Assumed Lorentz factor of the pairs after 'acceleration'; no acceleration mechanism is provided, and magnetic fields do no work.
Functional forms B(t)=B0 exp(-t^2/Delta^2), A_parallel(t)=a_parallel sech(t/Delta) = chosen profiles
Ad hoc temporal profiles not derived from MAD dynamics; the pair-production rate is sensitive to these choices.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Local Minkowski spacetime approximation for the accretion disk environment
Used to justify the flat-space QFT calculation; ignores curvature and gravitational potential, though the disk is at r ~ 10^3-10^4 r_g.
domain assumption Vacuum pair production, plasma response ignored
The disk is a highly conducting plasma with beta << 1; the plasma would screen induced electric fields, likely quenching Schwinger pair production, but the calculation treats the background as a vacuum.
standard math Adiabatic WKB choice W = omega, V = 0 for the reference basis
Conventional in QFT in background fields; the resulting equations are cited from standard references.
ad hoc to paper The particle energy distribution N(E) can be obtained from the Fourier transform of N(t)
This is not a standard relation; the Fourier transform of the total pair number as a function of time does not give the energy spectrum of the produced particles.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum signatures in black hole accretion: Pair production in dynamical magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJBRKHAF

@misc{pith2026250509355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum signatures in black hole accretion: Pair production in dynamical magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJBRKHAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09355}
}

abstract

Accretion disks around black holes host extreme conditions where general relativity and magnetohydrodynamics dominate. These disks exhibit two distinct dynamical regimes -- Standard and Normal Evolution (SANE) and Magnetically Arrested Disk (MAD). In the MAD regime, these systems exhibit magnetic fields up to $10^8$ G and variability on gravitational timescales $t_g \sim 10^{-4}$ s for stellar-mass black holes. While classical magnetohydrodynamics has been extensively applied, quantum effects in these high-energy environments remain unexplored. Here, we employ quantum field theory in background gauge fields (QFTBGF) to demonstrate that the dynamic magnetic fields of MADs drive significant pair production via the Schwinger mechanism. The resulting pairs emit non-thermal (synchrotron) radiation with a peak frequency tunable across $ \sim 1 - 3000$ MHz, depending on the magnetic field strength (peaking at higher frequencies for stronger fields). For $ B \sim 10^8 $ G, our model predicts a peak spectral flux density of $ \sim 1 - 100$ mJy, detectable with next-generation radio telescopes (e.g., SKA, ngVLA). This work provides a direct and observable signatures of quantum effects in black hole accretion disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09355 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Plot of number of particle-antiparticle pairs generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Plot of particle production efficiency in the cases of SuMBH and StMBH with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Plot of gauge invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Fender, in Compact stellar X-ray sources , Vol

R. Fender, in Compact stellar X-ray sources , Vol. 39, edited by W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis (2006) pp. 381–419

work page 2006
[2]

Multifrequency Behavior of Microquasars in the GeV--TeV era: A review

V. Bosch-Ramon, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. 83, 194 (2012), arXiv:1106.2059 [astro-ph.HE]. 18

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 1 (2013), arXiv:1104.5499 [astro- ph.HE]

arXiv 2013
[4]

M. A. Abramowicz and O. Straub, Scholarpedia 9, 2408 (2014), revision #145813

work page 2014
[5]

N. I. Shakura and Others, Physics Uspekhi 62, 1126 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

C. F. Gammie, J. C. McKinney, and G. T´ oth, Astrophys. J. 589, 444 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0301509 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2003
[7]

S. W. Davis and A. Tchekhovskoy, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58, 407 (2020), arXiv:2101.08839 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020
[8]

Vigan` o, R

D. Vigan` o, R. Aguilera-Miret, F. Carrasco, B. Mi˜ nano, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D101, 123019 (2020), arXiv:2004.00870 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020

Show all 68 references

[9]

Sironi, M

L. Sironi, M. Petropoulou, and D. Giannios, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 183 (2015), arXiv:1502.01021 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[10]

Yuan and R

F. Yuan and R. Narayan, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 529 (2014), arXiv:1401.0586 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[11]

Matthews, A

J. Matthews, A. Bell, and K. Blundell, New Astron. Rev. 89, 101543 (2020), arXiv:2003.06587 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Brandenburg, A

A. Brandenburg, A. Nordlund, R. F. Stein, and U. Torkelsson, Astrophys. J. 446, 741 (1995)

1995
[13]

Beckwith, J

K. Beckwith, J. F. Hawley, and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 707, 428 (2009), arXiv:0906.2784 [astro-ph.HE]

2009 arXiv
[14]

Tchekhovskoy, R

A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Akiyama et al

K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Porth et al

O. Porth et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 243, 26 (2019), arXiv:1904.04923 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, International Series of Mono- graphs on Physics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961)

S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, International Series of Mono- graphs on Physics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961)

1961
[18]

Jafari, (2019), arXiv:1904.09677 [astro-ph.HE]

A. Jafari, (2019), arXiv:1904.09677 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[19]

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

1998
[20]

Narayan, A

R. Narayan, A. Sadowski, R. F. Penna, and A. K. Kulkarni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426, 3241 (2012), arXiv:1206.1213 [astro-ph.HE]. 19

2012 arXiv
[21]

Blandford, D

R. Blandford, D. Meier, and A. Readhead, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 467 (2019), arXiv:1812.06025 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Hovatta and E

T. Hovatta and E. Lindfors, New Astron. Rev. 87, 101541 (2019), arXiv:2003.06322 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[23]

M. C. Begelman, N. Scepi, and J. Dexter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 2040 (2022), arXiv:2111.02439 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Akiyama et al

K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 910, L12 (2021), arXiv:2105.01169 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Ichimaru, Astrophys

S. Ichimaru, Astrophys. J. 214, 840 (1977)

1977
[26]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 179, 433 (1977)

1977
[27]

H. K. Lee, R. A. M. J. Wijers, and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rept. 325, 83 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9906213

2000
[28]

J. C. McKinney, Astrophys. J. Lett. 630, L5 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506367

2005 arXiv
[29]

M. T. P. Liska, A. Tchekhovskoy, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 3656 (2020), arXiv:1809.04608 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[30]

F. Yuan, Z. Gan, R. Narayan, A. Sadowski, D. Bu, and X.-N. Bai, Astrophys. J. 804, 101 (2015), arXiv:1501.01197 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[31]

Weltman et al

A. Weltman et al. , Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37, e002 (2020), arXiv:1810.02680 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Narayan, A

R. Narayan, A. Chael, K. Chatterjee, A. Ricarte, and B. Curd, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 3795 (2022), arXiv:2108.12380 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Pathak and B

M. Pathak and B. Mukhopadhyay, Astrophys. J. 981, 162 (2025), arXiv:2502.03538 [astro- ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[34]

N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

1982
[35]

S. A. Fulling, Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-time , Vol. 17 (1989)

1989
[36]

Mukhanov and S

V. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki, Introduction to quantum effects in gravity (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007)

2007
[37]

L. E. Parker and D. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2009). 20

2009
[38]

B.-L. B. Hu and E. Verdaguer, Semiclassical and Stochastic Gravity: Quantum Field Effects on Curved Spacetime, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)

2020
[39]

J. F. Hawley, C. Fendt, M. Hardcastle, E. Nokhrina, and A. Tchekhovskoy, Space Sci. Rev. 191, 441 (2015), arXiv:1508.02546 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[40]

Shankaranarayanan and J

S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 54, 44 (2022), arXiv:2204.06533 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[41]

G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (Wiley, New York, NY, 1985)

1985
[42]

Merloni, S

A. Merloni, S. Heinz, and T. Di Matteo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 345, 1057 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305261

2003 arXiv
[43]

P. E. Dewdney, P. J. Hall, R. T. Schilizzi, and T. J. L. W. Lazio, IEEE Proceedings 97, 1482 (2009)

2009
[44]

Di Francesco and Others, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

J. Di Francesco and Others, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020 (2019) p. 32, arXiv:1911.01517 [astro-ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Hallinan and Others, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society , Vol

G. Hallinan and Others, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society , Vol. 51 (2019) p. 255, arXiv:1907.07648 [astro-ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[46]

M. P. van Haarlem and Others, Astro & Astrophys. 556, A2 (2013), arXiv:1305.3550 [astro- ph.IM]

2013 arXiv
[47]

Chen, H.-Y

R.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Zhang, C.-J. Jin, Z.-S. Gao, Y. Zhu, K. Zhu, P. Jiang, Y.-L. Yue, J.-G. Lu, B. Zhang, W. Jiang, R.-J. Zhu, S.-G. Guo, B. Xia, R.-B. Zhao, and FAST Collaboration, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 20, 074 (2020)

2020
[48]

Akiyama et al

K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Letters 875, L1 (2019)

2019
[49]

J. C. Kemp, Astrophys. J. 235, 595 (1980)

1980
[50]

Akiyama et al

K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Letters 875, L4 (2019)

2019
[51]

Narayan, R

R. Narayan, R. Mahadevan, J. E. Grindlay, R. G. Popham, and C. Gammie, Astrophys. J. 492, 554 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9706112

1998 arXiv
[52]

E. M. Murchikova, E. S. Phinney, A. Pancoast, and R. D. Blandford, Nature 570, 83–86 (2019)

2019
[53]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). 21

1973
[54]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019)

2019
[55]

Greiner, B

W. Greiner, B. M¨ uller, and J. Rafelski, Quantum Electrodynamics of Strong Fields. With an Introduction into Modern Relativistic Quantum Mechanics , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1985)

1985
[56]

Del Santo, J

M. Del Santo, J. Malzac, R. Belmont, L. Bouchet, and G. De Cesare, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430, 209 (2013), arXiv:1212.2040 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[57]

Dabrowski and G

R. Dabrowski and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065005 (2016), arXiv:1606.00902 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[58]

Wilczek and A

F. Wilczek and A. Shapere, Geometric Phases in Physics (World Scientific, 1989)

1989
[59]

C. F. Dunkl and Y. Xu, Orthogonal polynomials of several variables , 155 (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2014)

2014
[60]

A. E. Broderick, V. L. Fish, S. S. Doeleman, and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 697, 45 (2009), arXiv:0809.4490 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[61]

Chauvin et al., (2018), 10.1038/s41550-018-0489-x, arXiv:1812.09907 [astro-ph.HE]

M. Chauvin et al., (2018), 10.1038/s41550-018-0489-x, arXiv:1812.09907 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[62]

Padmanabhan, Theoretical Astrophysics - Volume 1, Astrophysical Processes, Vol

T. Padmanabhan, Theoretical Astrophysics - Volume 1, Astrophysical Processes, Vol. 1 (2000)

2000
[63]

On the other hand,N (t) =N (t) is an even function (by our choice of B(t) and A∥(t)); hence, N (E) =N (−E)

N (t) is real, therefore,N∗(E) =N (−E). On the other hand,N (t) =N (t) is an even function (by our choice of B(t) and A∥(t)); hence, N (E) =N (−E). Combining these two things, we obtain,N (E) =N∗(E) and hence,N (E) is real
[64]

Corsi et al., (2025), arXiv:2501.06333 [astro-ph.IM]

A. Corsi et al., (2025), arXiv:2501.06333 [astro-ph.IM]

2025 arXiv
[65]

Afonso, B

J. Afonso, B. Mobasher, A. Hopkins, and L. Cram, Astrophys. & Space Science 276, 941 (2001)

2001
[66]

D. J. Whalen, M. A. Latif, and M. Mezcua, Astrophys. J, 956, 133 (2023), arXiv:2308.03837 [astro-ph.GA]

2023 arXiv
[67]

S. P. Willner and Others, Astrophys. J. 958, 176 (2023), arXiv:2309.13008 [astro-ph.GA]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Galluzzi, M

V. Galluzzi, M. Behiri, M. Giulietti, and A. Lapi, (2025), arXiv:2504.00192 [astro-ph.GA]. 22

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Fender, in Compact stellar X-ray sources , Vol

R. Fender, in Compact stellar X-ray sources , Vol. 39, edited by W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis (2006) pp. 381–419

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Multifrequency Behavior of Microquasars in the GeV--TeV era: A review

V. Bosch-Ramon, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. 83, 194 (2012), arXiv:1106.2059 [astro-ph.HE]. 18

work page Pith review arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 1 (2013), arXiv:1104.5499 [astro- ph.HE]

arXiv 2013

[4] [4]

M. A. Abramowicz and O. Straub, Scholarpedia 9, 2408 (2014), revision #145813

work page 2014

[5] [5]

N. I. Shakura and Others, Physics Uspekhi 62, 1126 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

C. F. Gammie, J. C. McKinney, and G. T´ oth, Astrophys. J. 589, 444 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0301509 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2003

[7] [7]

S. W. Davis and A. Tchekhovskoy, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58, 407 (2020), arXiv:2101.08839 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020

[8] [8]

Vigan` o, R

D. Vigan` o, R. Aguilera-Miret, F. Carrasco, B. Mi˜ nano, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D101, 123019 (2020), arXiv:2004.00870 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020