4.7 Article

General relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of Blandford-Znajek jets and the membrane paradigm

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 436, Issue 4, Pages 3741-3758

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1860

Keywords

accretion; accretion discs; black hole physics; gravitation; MHD

Funding

  1. Pappalardo Fellowship in Physics at MIT
  2. NASA [NNX11AE16G]
  3. NASA [NNX11AE16G, 148122] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently it has been observed that the scaling of jet power with black hole spin in Galactic X-ray binaries is consistent with the predictions of the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) jet model. These observations motivate us to revisit the BZ model using general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetized jets from accreting (h/r similar to 0.3), spinning (0 < a(*) < 0.98) black holes. We have three main results. First, we quantify the discrepancies between the BZ jet power and our simulations: assuming maximum efficiency and uniform fields on the horizon leads to an similar to 10 per cent overestimate of jet power, while ignoring the accretion disc leads to a further similar to 50 per cent overestimate. Simply reducing the standard BZ jet power prediction by 60 per cent gives a good fit to our simulation data. Our second result is to show that the membrane formulation of the BZ model correctly describes the physics underlying simulated jets: torques, dissipation and electromagnetic fields on the horizon. This provides intuitive yet rigorous pictures for the black hole energy extraction process. Third, we compute the effective resistance of the load region and show that the load and the black hole achieve near perfect impedance matching. Taken together, these results increase our confidence in the BZ model as the correct description of jets observed from astrophysical black holes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available