Toward a Full MHD Jet Model of Spinning Black Holes. I. Framework and a Split Monopole Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we construct a framework for investigating the magnetohydrodynamical jet structure of spinning black holes (BHs), where electromagnetic fields and fluid motion are governed by the Grad–Shafranov equation and the Bernoulli equation, respectively. Assuming steady and axisymmetric jet structure, we can self-consistently obtain electromagnetic fields, fluid energy density, and velocity within the jet, given proper plasma loading and boundary conditions. Specifically, we structure the two coupled governing equations as two eigenvalue problems, and develop full numerical techniques for solving them. As an example, we explicitly solve the governing equations for the split monopole magnetic field configuration and simplified plasma loading on the stagnation surface where the poloidal fluid velocity vanishes. As expected, we find the rotation of magnetic field lines is dragged down by fluid inertia, and the fluid as a whole does not contribute to energy extraction from the central BH, i.e., the magnetic Penrose process is not working. However, if we decompose the charged fluid as two oppositely charged components, we find the magnetic Penrose process does work for one of the two components when the plasma loading is low enough.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".