Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 91 references

Jetted TDEs likely draw their magnetic fuel from a pre-existing inner accretion disk, not from the star or from large radii.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:50 UTC pith:WCQ6EFJS

load-bearing objection A candid, well-hedged order-of-magnitude comparison that makes a credible case for the disturbed pre-existing disk as the main flux source; the ranking rests on one deferred MHD verification and on parameter sensitivity, but the framework is solid. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20615 v1 pith:WCQ6EFJS submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.HE

The Origin of the Magnetic Flux Driving TDE Jets

Nimrod Tripto , Julian Krolik , Tsvi Piran This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.54.Aj98.62.Mw97.10.Ld
keywords tidal disruption eventsrelativistic jetsBlandford-Znajek mechanismmagnetic flux transportaccretion disksLasso mechanismblack hole horizon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks where the strong magnetic flux that powers relativistic jets in tidal disruption events (TDEs) comes from. It compares three candidate reservoirs: the disrupted star's own magnetic field, flux collected from large radii by the falling debris stream (the Lasso mechanism), and flux already stored near the black hole in a pre-existing accretion disk. The authors find that stellar flux is generally far too weak, the Lasso mechanism works only under special and finely tuned conditions, and the most plausible source is the disturbance of a pre-existing inner accretion disk, which can naturally deliver enough coherent flux to the horizon to power the observed ~10^(44-45) erg/s jets. If correct, the jetted TDE phenomenon is not primarily about the disrupted star but about the state of the black hole's immediate environment before the event.

Core claim

The paper establishes a unified parametric framework — an enhancement factor E relating pre-existing horizon flux to the flux delivered by the TDE — and applies it to the Lasso and disturbed-disk channels. For the disturbed-disk channel, the disruption of a star near a black hole with a pre-existing thin α-disk (with magnetic pressure a fixed fraction of thermal pressure, B^2/8π = β^{-1}P_th, β~2) produces a jet luminosity L_dist ~ 10^46 erg/s, comfortably within the observed range, with a transient-to-steady luminosity contrast E^2 ~ 50-100 even without invoking flux from beyond the impact radius. The only significant assumption is that the vertical magnetic field constitutes a significant

What carries the argument

The dimensionless enhancement factor E ≡ Φ_TDE/Φ_s^H = (B_TDE^H)/(B_s^H), which measures how much the horizon magnetic flux grows when the TDE sweeps a collecting area S at radius r_c and deposits the flux on the horizon. The paper shows E ~ (1/4) f_cov (r_c/r_H)^{2-q} r_H, making clear that enhancement is possible only when the collecting area grows faster than the field declines (q < 2). This single ratio ties together the pre-existing jet luminosity, the transient jet luminosity (L_TDE/L_s = E^2), and the observational requirement that the transient outshine any pre-existing jet by ~100 (E ≳ 10).

Load-bearing premise

That in the disturbed-disk channel, the vertical component of the disk magnetic field — assumed to hold a significant fraction of the field energy (B²/8π = β⁻¹P_th) — is actually carried inward with the rapidly draining inner disk and deposited coherently on the horizon; the paper states this as 'the principal one' and the demonstration is deferred to an unpublished MHD paper.

What would settle it

A magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a TDE stream striking an inner α-disk (resolving the disk vertically and radially near the black hole) that tracks the advection of magnetic flux to the horizon. If the simulation shows that the vertical flux is left behind, reconnects, or becomes mostly toroidal before reaching the horizon, the L_dist ~ 10^46 erg/s estimate collapses and the ranking among the three channels changes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the disturbed-disk channel is correct, jetted TDEs should be accompanied by strong signatures of stream–disk interaction in the prompt emission — distinct from the 'vanilla' thermal flare expected in the Lasso or no-disk case.
  • The hosts of jetted TDEs should be weakly accreting (pre-existing disk luminosity ≲ 10^43 erg/s), but with inner disks magnetized near equipartition (β ~ few), a state that recent radiation-MHD simulations suggest is common.
  • The jet luminosity in the disturbed-disk model scales with the pre-TDE accretion rate (L_jet ∝ Ṁ), so measurements of jet power can be translated into constraints on the quiescent accretion state of the nucleus.
  • The framework predicts a MAD-like saturation of the horizon flux, giving an upper bound on jetted TDE luminosity of order 10^49 erg/s for typical parameters, which can be tested against future extreme events.
  • The near-coincidence of the Lasso and disturbed-disk enhancement factors shows that a comparison of the two mechanisms cannot rest on geometry alone; it must be settled by the stream-width uncertainty and by whether the collected flux actually reaches the horizon.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper's framework reduces both the Lasso and disturbed-disk channels to the same enhancement-factor formalism, a natural extension is to use the observed distribution of jetted TDE luminosities (rather than just the brightest events) to statistically constrain the pre-TDE accretion-rate distribution in galactic nuclei.
  • The paper's emphasis on the inner-disk flux reservoir suggests that jetted TDEs could be strongly correlated with recent or ongoing AGN-like activity in the host, even if the pre-event luminosity is faint — a testable prediction for multi-epoch surveys that catch the nucleus both before and after the flare.
  • If the vertical-field assumption is the weakest point, then the mechanism could be distinguished observationally by polarization measurements of the prompt or jet emission: a toroidally dominated pre-existing field would produce a different jet magnetic structure than the coherent poloidal field assumed here.
  • The Bondi accretion alternative sketched in Sec. 5.2 implies that jetted TDEs could also occur in low-luminosity nuclei with quasi-spherical accretion, provided returning debris injects enough angular momentum to reorganize the field — a scenario that could be probed by looking for jetted TDEs in elliptical galaxies with very low star-formation rates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates three mechanisms for supplying the poloidal magnetic flux required by the Blandford–Znajek mechanism in jetted TDEs: the disrupted star's own magnetic field, the Lasso mechanism in which the debris stream collects ambient flux from large radii, and a newly emphasized channel in which the returning debris disturbs a pre-existing inner accretion disk, whose magnetic flux is swept inward and deposited near the horizon. The authors develop a common-enhancement-factor formalism (Eq. 9), estimate the jet luminosity in each channel, and conclude that stellar flux is generally insufficient, that Lasso requires special conditions, and that the disturbed-disk channel is the most promising. The disk-channel luminosity is derived from standard Shakura–Sunyaev scalings and is not fitted to observed jet powers. The conclusion, however, rests on the assumption that the vertical component of the disk field is advected coherently to the horizon, a step whose supporting evidence is deferred to an unpublished companion MHD paper.

Significance. If correct, this paper reframes the origin of jet-driving magnetic flux in TDEs: instead of rare highly magnetized stars or apocenter-scale field collection, the flux would be inherited from the inner region of a pre-existing accretion flow. The analytic framework is a genuine strength: Eq. (23) fixes the transient-to-steady contrast from geometry, Eqs. (26)–(27) provide a transparent luminosity estimate using literature-based parameters, and Sec. 6.1 gives a clean comparison of the two large-scale-flux mechanisms. The paper also makes a falsifiable observational distinction through prompt-emission signatures. The main weakness is that the decisive support for the winning channel's key step — vertical-flux advection — is not in the manuscript, so the headline ranking is conditional on an unavailable simulation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (27)] The central claim that the disturbed-disk channel supplies Ldist ~ 1e46 erg/s depends on the assumption that the vertical field component constitutes a significant fraction of the disk magnetic energy and that this flux is advected coherently to the horizon. Equation (26) fixes only the total magnetic energy density B^2/8π = β^{-1}P_th; Eq. (27) then treats this field as horizon-threading poloidal flux. If the coherent vertical fraction is small, or if reconnection/toroidalization removes flux during the inner-disk drain, Ldist drops by a large factor and the ranking against rare stellar and Lasso channels can change. The authors are honest that this is the principal assumption (Sec. 5.3), but the demonstration is deferred to 'Tripto et al., in preparation' and is not available to the reader. A quantitative summary of those MHD results — e.g., the measured vertical-to-total field ratio a
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (20); §6.1, Eq. (32)] The Lasso evaluation and the Lasso-versus-disk comparison depend on the ansatz σ0 = 5R⋆ for the stream width. The authors themselves state that this choice is uncertain and possibly an overestimate of the swept width. Because L_Lasso ∝ σ0^2 and the ratio (E_Lasso/E_dist)^2 in Eq. (32) also scales as σ0^2, a factor-of-2 uncertainty in the stream width changes the relative ranking by a factor of 4. Given that the comparison in Sec. 6.1 is used to argue for the superiority of the disk channel, please show the simulation data from Ryu et al. (2023a) that motivate 5R⋆ and quantify the sensitivity of the Lasso constraints to this assumption.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (26)] The alpha-disk field normalization assumes B^2/8π = β^{-1}P_th with β = 2, but the BZ mechanism requires a coherent poloidal component. The simulations cited for β ~ 1–2 are not necessarily simulations of a disk being swept by a TDE stream. Please state explicitly what fraction of the field energy is in a vertical, ordered component in those simulations, and how that fraction is assumed to survive the rapid inward drain. Without this, Eq. (26) is at best an upper bound on the usable flux rather than a prediction of the BZ luminosity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1] The model is named 'Shakura–Sunayev' here but 'Shakura & Sunyaev' in the reference list; use the standard transliteration 'Shakura–Sunyaev'.
  2. [§6.1] 'Another significant difference difference between the two mechanisms' contains a duplicated word.
  3. [Eq. (28)] The bracketed prefactor is typeset ambiguously; please expand it or define the notation so the reader can verify the scaling.
  4. [§2.4] The footnote about 'physical magnetic flux, which includes the field’s sign' is confusing: physical flux through a surface is normally unsigned, while the sign is a matter of orientation. Clarify the intended distinction.
  5. [References] Several entries are future-dated or in preparation (e.g., Takata et al. 2026, Zhang et al. 2026, Tripto et al., in prep.). Please mark their status explicitly (in press, preprint, or in prep.) and provide arXiv numbers where available.
  6. [§6.2] Typo: 'derbis' should be 'debris'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Disk-channel ranking rests on a self-cited in-prep MHD simulation for the decisive flux-advection step; otherwise the derivation is self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 5.3 (Accretion summary); also Sec. 5 after Eq. (24)]
    "Hydrodynamic simulations (Chan et al. 2019) have shown that the inner disk is swept rapidly to the black hole as a result of TDE debris impact; that it carries its associated magnetic flux along is demonstrated by new MHD simulations (Tripto et al., in preparation)."

    The paper's central claim that a disturbed pre-existing disk is the most promising flux source (Sec. 7, Table 2) depends on the inner disk's vertical magnetic field being advected coherently to the horizon. The only stated demonstration of this decisive transport step is 'Tripto et al., in preparation' — an unpublished, non-independent result by the same authors. If the field is left behind, reconnects, or is mostly toroidal, Ldist (Eq. 27) collapses and the ranking inverts. The luminosity estimate itself is not fitted to the observed jets, but the load-bearing support for the model's physical premise is a self-citation that is not yet independently verifiable.

full rationale

The quantitative derivation is otherwise self-contained: Ldist follows from the Shakura & Sunyaev α-disk relation B^2/8π = β^{-1}P_th (Eq. 26) and the BZ scaling (Eq. 1) using literature values (α=0.05, β=2, ˙M=10^{-3}˙M_Edd, ξ_BZ=0.1), with no parameter fitted to the observed jet luminosity. The contrast E^2 is set by geometry (Eq. 23). Stellar-flux and Lasso estimates are independent calculations against external data (star surveys, EHT/Galactic-center field limits). The only circularity-adjacent feature is the reliance on an in-prep same-author MHD paper for the flux-advection step that the final ranking hinges on, alongside a candid statement that the vertical-field fraction is the 'principal' assumption. Because the central derivation has independent content and the self-citation is not a constructed mathematical equivalence, I assign a moderate score of 4 rather than a higher one.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central ranking depends on a standard BZ framework plus several literature-fiducial parameter choices (ξ_BZ=0.1, α=0.05, β=2, Ē=0.1, η=0.1, ˙M=1e-3˙MEdd) and one crucial unverified transport premise (vertical-field advection in the disk). The line between model input and derived output is stated clearly; the target jet luminosity is never used to set these inputs.

free parameters (9)
  • ξ_BZ (BZ spin efficiency) = 0.1
    Adopted order-unity factor for high spin; literature-spread, used in all L_BZ estimates (Eqs. 3, 14, 21, 25, 27). The paper notes the exact form is unsettled.
  • q (radial magnetic-field profile index) = 5/4 for α-disk; q<1 needed for Lasso
    In the disk model q=5/4 follows from the α-disk pressure scaling (Sec. 5.1); in the Lasso model q is a free parameter whose viability threshold is q≲1 (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 2).
  • B0 (pre-existing field normalization) = ≈1.4e5 G required for Lasso; ≈6.2e5 G for α-disk fiducial
    Lasso: derived as the field required to reach 1e44 erg/s, then compared to Sgr A* EHT values (Eq. 21); disk: set by ˙M, α, β, Ē, η (Eq. 26). Not fitted to the target result.
  • σ0 (Lasso stream full-width scale) = 5 R⋆
    Ansatz calibrated by a measurement of stream width near R_p in Ryu et al. (2023a) simulations; E^2∝σ0^2 and the paper calls it 'possibly overestimated' (Sec. 4.2).
  • α (disk viscosity) = 0.05
    Fiducial within the 0.01–1 literature range; enters B0 and Ldist as α^{−1/2} and α^{−1} (Eqs. 26–27).
  • β (plasma beta) = 2
    Chosen from recent radiation-MHD simulations showing strong inner-disk magnetization; older simulations give β~10, reducing Ldist to ~1e45 erg/s (Sec. 5.1).
  • η (radiative efficiency) = 0.1
    Standard adopted value; enters Mdot_Edd definition and B0, Ldist.
  • Ē = h/R (disk aspect ratio) = 0.1
    Thin-disk fiducial; enters B0 and Ldist as Ē^{−1/2}, Ē^{−1} (Eqs. 26–27).
  • ˙M_pre (pre-TDE accretion rate) = 1e-3 ˙MEdd,6
    Fiducial, chosen below the 0.1 ˙MEdd limit set by the L_s_acc<1e43 erg/s observational constraint (Sec. 5).
axioms (7)
  • standard math Blandford–Znajek scaling L_BZ = c ξ Φ²/(2π² R_g²) with Φ the horizon flux (Eqs. 1–2).
    Input assumption that jetted TDEs are BZ-powered; efficiency ξ adopted as 0.1.
  • domain assumption Observed jetted TDEs have intrinsic Poynting luminosity ≥ 1e44 erg/s (after beaming from 1e47–48 isotropic).
    Used to set the flux/field thresholds in Eqs. (3)–(4); Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Only ≲1% of returning TDE debris is promptly accreted (recent simulations, Sec. 2.2).
    Used to argue stellar-flux and Lasso flux cannot be delivered promptly; a load-bearing premise for the ranking.
  • ad hoc to paper Collected flux is added coherently and reaches the horizon without reconnection.
    Stated in Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 4.4 as an assumption 'likely holds only in rare cases'.
  • ad hoc to paper In the disk scenario, the vertical component of the magnetic field holds a significant fraction of the field energy (B²/8π = β⁻¹P_th) and is advected inward with the inflow.
    Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 5.3: 'the principal one is that the vertical component... accounts for a significant fraction of the total field energy.'
  • domain assumption The MAD limit caps horizon flux at φ_MAD ≈ 30.
    Used in Sec. 6.2 to bound the transient luminosity (Eqs. 33–36).
  • ad hoc to paper 'Favorable' parameter choices for stellar and Lasso channels (toroidal amplification, field-line stretching, coherent advection).
    Secs. 3.2 and 4.4 explicitly list these as deliberately favorable; they bias the comparison against the final conclusion.
invented entities (1)
  • None no independent evidence
    purpose: The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities.
    The 'disk disturbance mechanism' is a scenario (pre-existing disk flux advected inward), not an invented entity; it is quantified with standard disk models and has observational handle via prompt-emission signatures.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27025 in / 24268 out tokens · 177454 ms · 2026-08-01T09:50:00.379612+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Tidal Disruption Events (TDEs) occur when a star approaches a black hole closely enough to be torn apart by tidal forces, after which the stellar debris begins to orbit the black hole. Over the past decade, hundreds of TDEs have been identified, with many more expected from upcoming surveys. A small subset of these events launch transient, highly luminous relativistic jets (10^47-10^48 erg/s isotropic-equivalent). These are generally interpreted in terms of the Blandford--Znajek mechanism, implying the presence of substantial magnetic flux near the black hole horizon. The question arises: What is the origin of this flux? In this paper, we investigate three candidate sources: stellar magnetic fields, magnetic flux from large radii around the black hole (the Lasso mechanism), and magnetic flux stored in the inner portion of a pre-existing accretion disk. We find that: observed stellar magnetic fields are insufficient to power these jets; the Lasso mechanism requires shallow radial magnetic field profiles and a mechanism to trap the magnetic flux brought by the debris in the vicinity of the black hole; pre-existing magnetic flux near the black hole in an accretion disk is the most plausible source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20615 by Julian Krolik, Nimrod Tripto, Tsvi Piran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ˆfcov, given in Eq. (19), for the range q ∈ [0.1, 1.4]. The fiducial value is ˆfcov(5/4) ≃ 0.675. Using the additional assumptions that σ(θ, ε) ≪ R(θ) and ε ∼ 1, we can linearize fcov in terms of σ, obtaining fcov ≃ σ0 πRp Z 2π 0 (1 + ε cos θ) q−2 dθ (18) ≡ ˆfcov(q)  σ0 5R⋆   Ξ 1.47q− 3 2  Ψ 0.5 q− 5 2 ×  MBH 106 M⊙ 1−2q 6  M⋆ M⊙ 2q−1 6 . Here ˆfcov represents the purely geometrical part, while t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23894, 10.48550/arXiv.2509.23894

    Abolmasov , P., Bromberg , O., Levinson , A., & Nakar , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23894, 10.48550/arXiv.2509.23894

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23894 2025

  2. [2]

    D., van Velzen , S., Horesh , A., & Zauderer , B

    Alexander , K. D., van Velzen , S., Horesh , A., & Zauderer , B. A. 2020, , 216, 81, 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Wieringa , M

    Alexander , K. D., Wieringa , M. H., Berger , E., Saxton , R. D., & Komossa , S. 2017, , 837, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 2017

  4. [4]

    W., Perley , D

    Andreoni , I., Coughlin , M. W., Perley , D. A., et al. 2022, , 612, 430, 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  5. [5]

    Babcock , H. W. 1960, , 132, 521, 10.1086/146960

    doi:10.1086/146960 1960

  6. [6]

    A., & Hawley , J

    Balbus , S. A., & Hawley , J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  7. [7]

    2013, , 770, 146, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/146

    Barniol Duran , R., & Piran , T. 2013, , 770, 146, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/146

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/146 2013

  8. [8]

    F., & Krolik , J

    Beckwith , K., Hawley , J. F., & Krolik , J. H. 2008, , 678, 1180, 10.1086/533492

    doi:10.1086/533492 2008

  9. [9]

    2009, , 707, 428, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/428

    ---. 2009, , 707, 428, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/428

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/428 2009

  10. [10]

    C., Armitage , P

    Begelman , M. C., Armitage , P. J., & Reynolds , C. S. 2015, , 809, 118, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/118 2015

  11. [11]

    G., et al

    Berger , E., Zauderer , A., Pooley , G. G., et al. 2012, , 748, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  12. [12]

    D., & Znajek , R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  13. [13]

    S., Giannios , D., Metzger , B

    Bloom , J. S., Giannios , D., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, 10.1126/science.1207150

    doi:10.1126/science.1207150 2011

  14. [14]

    2017, , 469, 2042, 10.1093/mnras/stx1007

    Bradnick , B., Mandel , I., & Levin , Y. 2017, , 469, 2042, 10.1093/mnras/stx1007

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1007 2017

  15. [16]

    2006, , 450, 1077, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041980

    Braithwaite , J., & Nordlund , A . 2006, , 450, 1077, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041980

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041980 2006

  16. [17]

    Braithwaite , J., & Spruit , H. C. 2004, , 431, 819, 10.1038/nature02934

    doi:10.1038/nature02934 2004

  17. [18]

    C., Levan , A

    Brown , G. C., Levan , A. J., Stanway , E. R., et al. 2015, , 452, 4297, 10.1093/mnras/stv1520

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1520 2015

  18. [19]

    K., & Basri , G

    Browning , M. K., & Basri , G. 2006, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 209, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 89.08

    2006

  19. [20]

    N., Kennea , J

    Burrows , D. N., Kennea , J. A., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2011, , 476, 421, 10.1038/nature10374

    doi:10.1038/nature10374 2011

  20. [21]

    B., Fuller , J., et al

    Caiazzo , I., Burdge , K. B., Fuller , J., et al. 2021, , 596, E15, 10.1038/s41586-021-03799-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03799-3 2021

  21. [22]

    D., et al

    Cendes , Y., Berger , E., Alexander , K. D., et al. 2022, , 938, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 2022

  22. [23]

    B., Krimm , H

    Cenko , S. B., Krimm , H. A., Horesh , A., et al. 2012, , 753, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/77 2012

  23. [24]

    Chan , C.-H., Piran , T., & Krolik , J. H. 2020, , 903, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb776

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb776 2020

  24. [25]

    2021, , 914, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a7

    ---. 2021, , 914, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a7 2021

  25. [26]

    H., & Saban , D

    Chan , C.-H., Piran , T., Krolik , J. H., & Saban , D. 2019, , 881, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b40

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b40 2019

  26. [27]

    2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 3, 10.12942/lrsp-2010-3

    Charbonneau , P. 2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 3, 10.12942/lrsp-2010-3

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2010-3 2010

  27. [28]

    S., Narayan , R., et al

    Cho , H., Prather , B. S., Narayan , R., et al. 2023, , 959, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048 2023

  28. [29]

    2006, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Cuadra , J., & Nayakshin , S. 2006, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 54, Journal of Physics Conference Series, ed. R. Sch \"o del , G. C. Bower , M. P. Muno , S. Nayakshin , & T. Ott (IOP), 436--442, 10.1088/1742-6596/54/1/068

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/54/1/068 2006

  29. [30]

    2008, , 383, 458, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12573.x

    Cuadra , J., Nayakshin , S., & Martins , F. 2008, , 383, 458, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12573.x

    arXiv 2008

  30. [31]

    2019, , 483, 565, 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

    Curd , B., & Narayan , R. 2019, , 483, 565, 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3134 2019

  31. [32]

    C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M

    Dai , L., McKinney , J. C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M. C. 2018, , 859, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 2018

  32. [33]

    E., et al

    David-Uraz , A., Petit , V., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2021, , 501, 2677, 10.1093/mnras/staa3768

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3768 2021

  33. [34]

    2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Davies , R., Burtscher , L., Dodds-Eden , K., & Orban de Xivry , G. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012046, 10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012046

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012046 2012

  34. [35]

    E., Sana , H., Langer , N., Izzard , R

    de Mink , S. E., Sana , H., Langer , N., Izzard , R. G., & Schneider , F. R. N. 2014, , 782, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/7 2014

  35. [36]

    F., & Krolik , J

    De Villiers , J.-P., Hawley , J. F., & Krolik , J. H. 2003, , 599, 1238, 10.1086/379509

    doi:10.1086/379509 2003

  36. [37]

    Donati , J.-F., & Landstreet , J. D. 2009, , 47, 333, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 2009

  37. [39]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration . 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de 2021

  38. [40]

    2019, , 875, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019, , 875, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 2019

  39. [41]

    2024, , 964, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    ---. 2024, , 964, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1 2024

  40. [42]

    Ferrario , L., de Martino , D., & G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2015, , 191, 111, 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  41. [43]

    2025, , 978, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., Quataert , E., Chatterjee , K., & Liska , M. 2025, , 978, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926 2025

  42. [44]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  43. [45]

    N., & Cumming , A

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., & Cumming , A. 2014, , 438, 1618, 10.1093/mnras/stt2300

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2300 2014

  44. [46]

    2017, , 834, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L19

    Guillochon , J., & McCourt , M. 2017, , 834, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L19

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l19 2017

  45. [47]

    2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo , M., Gezari , S., Yao , Y., et al. 2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  46. [48]

    F., & Krolik , J

    Hawley , J. F., & Krolik , J. H. 2001, , 548, 348, 10.1086/318678

    doi:10.1086/318678 2001

  47. [49]

    2006, , 641, 103, 10.1086/500385

    ---. 2006, , 641, 103, 10.1086/500385

    doi:10.1086/500385 2006

  48. [50]

    P., Efstathiou , G., Lasenby , A

    Hobson , M. P., Efstathiou , G., Lasenby , A. N., & Ford , L. H. 2007, Physics Today, 60, 62, 10.1063/1.2718760

    doi:10.1063/1.2718760 2007

  49. [51]

    2023, , 945, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6fc

    Huang , J., Jiang , Y.-F., Feng , H., et al. 2023, , 945, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6fc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb6fc 2023

  50. [52]

    M., & Davis , S

    Jiang , Y.-F., Blaes , O., Stone , J. M., & Davis , S. W. 2019, , 885, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 2019

  51. [53]

    Johns-Krull , C. M. 2007, , 664, 975, 10.1086/519017

    doi:10.1086/519017 2007

  52. [54]

    Z., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Narayan , R

    Kelley , L. Z., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Narayan , R. 2014, , 445, 3919, 10.1093/mnras/stu2041

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2041 2014

  53. [55]

    2025, , 988, 220, 10.3847/1538-4357/ade797

    Krolik , J., Piran , T., & Ryu , T. 2025, , 988, 220, 10.3847/1538-4357/ade797

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade797 2025

  54. [56]

    H., & Piran , T

    Krolik , J. H., & Piran , T. 2012, , 749, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/92

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/92 2012

  55. [57]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  56. [58]

    M., Dai , L., & Tchekhovskoy , A

    Kwan , T. M., Dai , L., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2023, , 946, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc334

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc334 2023

  57. [59]

    2024, , 964, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    Lalakos , A., Tchekhovskoy , A., Bromberg , O., et al. 2024, , 964, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974 2024

  58. [60]

    A., & B \"o hm , T

    Ligni \`e res , F., Petit , P., Auri \`e re , M., Wade , G. A., & B \"o hm , T. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 302, Magnetic Fields throughout Stellar Evolution, ed. P. Petit , M. Jardine , & H. C. Spruit , 338--347, 10.1017/S1743921314002440

    doi:10.1017/s1743921314002440 2014

  59. [61]

    2015, , 805, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L4

    Mandel , I., & Levin , Y. 2015, , 805, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L4

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l4 2015

  60. [62]

    McKinney , J. C. 2005, , 630, L5, 10.1086/468184

    doi:10.1086/468184 2005

  61. [63]

    C., & Gammie , C

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

    doi:10.1086/422244 2004

  62. [64]

    Parker , E. N. 1955, , 122, 293, 10.1086/146087

    doi:10.1086/146087 1955

  63. [65]

    R., Lucchini , M., Laskar , T., et al

    Pasham , D. R., Lucchini , M., Laskar , T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 88, 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x 2023

  64. [66]

    K., et al

    Petit , P., Dintrans , B., Solanki , S. K., et al. 2008, , 388, 80, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13411.x

    arXiv 2008

  65. [67]

    2015 a , , 453, 157, 10.1093/mnras/stv1547

    Piran , T., S a dowski , A., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2015 a , , 453, 157, 10.1093/mnras/stv1547

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1547 2015

  66. [68]

    M., & Shiokawa , H

    Piran , T., Svirski , G., Krolik , J., Cheng , R. M., & Shiokawa , H. 2015 b , , 806, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/164 2015

  67. [69]

    J., Liptai , D., Mandel , I., et al

    Price , D. J., Liptai , D., Mandel , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09381, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09381

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.09381 2024

  68. [70]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  69. [71]

    M., Quataert , E., White , C

    Ressler , S. M., Quataert , E., White , C. J., & Blaes , O. 2021, , 504, 6076, 10.1093/mnras/stab311

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab311 2021

  70. [72]

    I., & Moiseeva , A

    Romanyuk , I. I., & Moiseeva , A. V. 2025, Astrophysical Bulletin, 80, 468, 10.1134/S199034132560036X

    doi:10.1134/s199034132560036x 2025

  71. [73]

    2023 a , , 946, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc390

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., & Piran , T. 2023 a , , 946, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc390

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc390 2023

  72. [74]

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., Piran , T., & Noble , S. C. 2020 a , , 904, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd 2020

  73. [75]

    2020 b , , 904, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf

    ---. 2020 b , , 904, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf 2020

  74. [76]

    C., & Avara , M

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., Piran , T., Noble , S. C., & Avara , M. 2023 b , , 957, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de 2023

  75. [77]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Ohlmann , S. T., Podsiadlowski , P., et al. 2019, , 574, 211, 10.1038/s41586-019-1621-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1621-5 2019

  76. [78]

    2025, , 112, 083047, 10.1103/v8mp-hks1

    Sen , G., Maity , D., & Das , S. 2025, , 112, 083047, 10.1103/v8mp-hks1

    doi:10.1103/v8mp-hks1 2025

  77. [79]

    2024, , 527, 7672, 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi , I., Beniamini , P., Horesh , A., et al. 2024, , 527, 7672, 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3717 2024

  78. [80]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 337. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A\

    1973

  79. [81]

    A., Marchant , P., et al

    Shenar , T., Wade , G. A., Marchant , P., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 761, 10.1126/science.ade3293

    doi:10.1126/science.ade3293 2023

  80. [82]

    A., Power , J., & Neiner , C

    Sikora , J., Wade , G. A., Power , J., & Neiner , C. 2019, , 483, 2300, 10.1093/mnras/sty3105

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3105 2019

Showing first 80 references.