The Dependence of Gamma-Ray Burst Jet Collimation on Black Hole Spin
Extracted source text · arXiv 2309.07999
%% Beginning of file 'sample631.tex'
%%
%% Modified 2022 May
%%
%% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
%% AASTeX v6.31 LaTeX 2e macros.
%%
%% AASTeX is now based on Alexey Vikhlinin's emulateapj.cls
%% (Copyright 2000-2015). See the classfile for details.
%% AASTeX requires revtex4-1.cls and other external packages such as
%% latexsym, graphicx, amssymb, longtable, and epsf. Note that as of
%% Oct 2020, APS now uses revtex4.2e for its journals but remember that
%% AASTeX v6+ still uses v4.1. All of these external packages should
%% already be present in the modern TeX distributions but not always.
%% For example, revtex4.1 seems to be missing in the linux version of
%% TexLive 2020. One should be able to get all packages from www.ctan.org.
%% In particular, revtex v4.1 can be found at
%% https://www.ctan.org/pkg/revtex4-1.
%% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v6.x document is the \documentclass
%% command. LaTeX will ignore any data that comes before this command. The
%% documentclass can take an optional argument to modify the output style.
%% The command below calls the preprint style which will produce a tightly
%% typeset, one-column, single-spaced document. It is the default and thus
%% does not need to be explicitly stated.
%%
%% using aastex version 6.3
\documentclass[twocolumn]{aastex631}
%% The default is a single spaced, 10 point font, single spaced article.
%% There are 5 other style options available via an optional argument. They
%% can be invoked like this:
%%
%% \documentclass[arguments]{aastex631}
%%
%% where the layout options are:
%%
%% twocolumn : two text columns, 10 point font, single spaced article.
%% This is the most compact and represent the final published
%% derived PDF copy of the accepted manuscript from the publisher
%% manuscript : one text column, 12 point font, double spaced article.
%% preprint : one text column, 12 point font, single spaced article.
%% preprint2 : two text columns, 12 point font, single spaced article.
%% modern : a stylish, single text column, 12 point font, article with
%% wider left and right margins. This uses the Daniel
%% Foreman-Mackey and David Hogg design.
%% RNAAS : Supresses an abstract. Originally for RNAAS manuscripts
%% but now that abstracts are required this is obsolete for
%% AAS Journals. Authors might need it for other reasons. DO NOT
%% use \begin{abstract} and \end{abstract} with this style.
%%
%% Note that you can submit to the AAS Journals in any of these 6 styles.
%%
%% There are other optional arguments one can invoke to allow other stylistic
%% actions. The available options are:
%%
%% astrosymb : Loads Astrosymb font and define \astrocommands.
%% tighten : Makes baselineskip slightly smaller, only works with
%% the twocolumn substyle.
%% times : uses times font instead of the default
%% linenumbers : turn on lineno package.
%% trackchanges : required to see the revision mark up and print its output
%% longauthor : Do not use the more compressed footnote style (default) for
%% the author/collaboration/affiliations. Instead print all
%% affiliation information after each name. Creates a much
%% longer author list but may be desirable for short
%% author papers.
%% twocolappendix : make 2 column appendix.
%% anonymous : Do not show the authors, affiliations and acknowledgments
%% for dual anonymous review.
%%
%% these can be used in any combination, e.g.
%%
%% \documentclass[twocolumn,linenumbers,trackchanges]{aastex631}
%%
%% AASTeX v6.* now includes \hyperref support. While we have built in specific
%% defaults into the classfile you can manually override them with the
%% \hypersetup command. For example,
%%
%% \hypersetup{linkcolor=red,citecolor=green,filecolor=cyan,urlcolor=magenta}
%%
%% will change the color of the internal links to red, the links to the
%% bibliography to green, the file links to cyan, and the external links to
%% magenta. Additional information on \hyperref options can be found here:
%% https://www.tug.org/applications/hyperref/manual.html#x1-40003
%%
%% Note that in v6.3 "bookmarks" has been changed to "true" in hyperref
%% to improve the accessibility of the compiled pdf file.
%%
%% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
%% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
%% the \begin{document} command.
%%
\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
\newcommand\aastex{AAS\TeX}
\newcommand\latex{La\TeX}
\newcommand{\nubhlight}{$\nu$\texttt{bhlight}~}
\newcommand{\HARM}{\texttt{HARM}~}
\newcommand{\bhlight}{\texttt{bhlight}~}
%% Reintroduced the \received and \accepted commands from AASTeX v5.2
%\received{March 1, 2021}
%\revised{April 1, 2021}
%\accepted{\today}
%% Command to document which AAS Journal the manuscript was submitted to.
%% Adds "Submitted to " the argument.
%\submitjournal{PSJ}
%% For manuscript that include authors in collaborations, AASTeX v6.31
%% builds on the \collaboration command to allow greater freedom to
%% keep the traditional author+affiliation information but only show
%% subsets. The \collaboration command now must appear AFTER the group
%% of authors in the collaboration and it takes TWO arguments. The last
%% is still the collaboration identifier. The text given in this
%% argument is what will be shown in the manuscript. The first argument
%% is the number of author above the \collaboration command to show with
%% the collaboration text. If there are authors that are not part of any
%% collaboration the \nocollaboration command is used. This command takes
%% one argument which is also the number of authors above to show. A
%% dashed line is shown to indicate no collaboration. This example manuscript
%% shows how these commands work to display specific set of authors
%% on the front page.
%%
%% For manuscript without any need to use \collaboration the
%% \AuthorCollaborationLimit command from v6.2 can still be used to
%% show a subset of authors.
%
%\AuthorCollaborationLimit=2
%
%% will only show Schwarz & Muench on the front page of the manuscript
%% (assuming the \collaboration and \nocollaboration commands are
%% commented out).
%%
%% Note that all of the author will be shown in the published article.
%% This feature is meant to be used prior to acceptance to make the
%% front end of a long author article more manageable. Please do not use
%% this functionality for manuscripts with less than 20 authors. Conversely,
%% please do use this when the number of authors exceeds 40.
%%
%% Use \allauthors at the manuscript end to show the full author list.
%% This command should only be used with \AuthorCollaborationLimit is used.
%% The following command can be used to set the latex table counters. It
%% is needed in this document because it uses a mix of latex tabular and
%% AASTeX deluxetables. In general it should not be needed.
%\setcounter{table}{1}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
%% The following section outlines numerous optional output that
%% can be displayed in the front matter or as running meta-data.
%%
%% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
%% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
%\shorttitle{AASTeX v6.3.1 Sample article}
%\shortauthors{Schwarz et al.}
%%
%% You can add a light gray and diagonal water-mark to the first page
%% with this command:
%% \watermark{text}
%% where "text", e.g. DRAFT, is the text to appear. If the text is
%% long you can control the water-mark size with:
%% \setwatermarkfontsize{dimension}
%% where dimension is any recognized LaTeX dimension, e.g. pt, in, etc.
%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\graphicspath{{./}{figures/}}
%% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
%% manuscript itself with \begin{document}.
% \usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{array}
\begin{document}
\title{The Dependence of Gamma-Ray Burst Jet Collimation on Black Hole Spin}
%% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
%% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
%% you desire. In v6.31 you can include a footnote in the title.
%% A significant change from earlier AASTEX versions is in the structure for
%% calling author and affiliations. The change was necessary to implement
%% auto-indexing of affiliations which prior was a manual process that could
%% easily be tedious in large author manuscripts.
%%
%% The \author command is the same as before except it now takes an optional
%% argument which is the 16 digit ORCID. The syntax is:
%% \author[xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx]{Author Name}
%%
%% This will hyperlink the author name to the author's ORCID page. Note that
%% during compilation, LaTeX will do some limited checking of the format of
%% the ID to make sure it is valid. If the "orcid-ID.png" image file is
%% present or in the LaTeX pathway, the OrcID icon will appear next to
%% the authors name.
%%
%% Use \affiliation for affiliation information. The old \affil is now aliased
%% to \affiliation. AASTeX v6.31 will automatically index these in the header.
%% When a duplicate is found its index will be the same as its previous entry.
%%
%% Note that \altaffilmark and \altaffiltext have been removed and thus
%% can not be used to document secondary affiliations. If they are used latex
%% will issue a specific error message and quit. Please use multiple
%% \affiliation calls for to document more than one affiliation.
%%
%% The new \altaffiliation can be used to indicate some secondary information
%% such as fellowships. This command produces a non-numeric footnote that is
%% set away from the numeric \affiliation footnotes. NOTE that if an
%% \altaffiliation command is used it must come BEFORE the \affiliation call,
%% right after the \author command, in order to place the footnotes in
%% the proper location.
%%
%% Use \email to set provide email addresses. Each \email will appear on its
%% own line so you can put multiple email address in one \email call. A new
%% \correspondingauthor command is available in V6.31 to identify the
%% corresponding author of the manuscript. It is the author's responsibility
%% to make sure this name is also in the author list.
%%
%% While authors can be grouped inside the same \author and \affiliation
%% commands it is better to have a single author for each. This allows for
%% one to exploit all the new benefits and should make book-keeping easier.
%%
%% If done correctly the peer review system will be able to
%% automatically put the author and affiliation information from the manuscript
%% and save the corresponding author the trouble of entering it by hand.
%\correspondingauthor{August Muench}
%\email{greg.schwarz@aas.org, gus.muench@aas.org}
\author[0000-0002-3221-9395]{Valeria U. Hurtado}
\affiliation{University of Washington. 3910 15th Ave NE. Seattle, WA 98195. USA.}
\affiliation{Fisk University. 1000 17th Ave N. Nashville, TN 37208. USA.}
%\affiliation{CCS-2, Los Alamos National Laboratory. \\
%Los Alamos, NM 87544. USA.}
\affiliation{Computational Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
\author[0000-0003-1707-7998]{Nicole M. Lloyd-Ronning}
\affiliation{Computational Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
\affiliation{Dept of Math, Science and Engineering, University of New Mexico, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
\affiliation{Center for Theoretical Astrophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
\author[0000-0001-6432-7860]{Jonah M.\ Miller}
\affiliation{Computational Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
\affiliation{Center for Theoretical Astrophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}
%% Note that the \and command from previous versions of AASTeX is now
%% depreciated in this version as it is no longer necessary. AASTeX
%% automatically takes care of all commas and "and"s between authors names.
%% AASTeX 6.31 has the new \collaboration and \nocollaboration commands to
%% provide the collaboration status of a group of authors. These commands
%% can be used either before or after the list of corresponding authors. The
%% argument for \collaboration is the collaboration identifier. Authors are
%% encouraged to surround collaboration identifiers with ()s. The
%% \nocollaboration command takes no argument and exists to indicate that
%% the nearby authors are not part of surrounding collaborations.
%% Mark off the abstract in the ``abstract'' environment.
\begin{abstract}
Gamma-Ray Bursts are the most luminous events in the Universe, and are excellent laboratories to study extreme physical phenomena in the cosmos. Despite a long trajectory of progress in understanding these highly energetic events, there are still many observed features that are yet to be fully explained. Observations of the jet opening angle of long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) suggest that LGRB jets are narrower for those GRBs at higher redshift. This phenomenon has been explained in the context of collimation by the stellar envelope, with denser (lower metallicity) stars at higher redshifts able to collimate the jet more effectively. However, until now, the dependence of jet opening angle on the properties of the central engine has not been explored. We investigate the effect of black hole spin on the jet collimation angle for a magnetically launched jet, using the General Relativistic Radiation Magnetohydrodynamical (GRRMHD) code \nubhlight. We present 3D results for a range of spin values. The simulations show that higher spinning black holes tend to create narrower jets. If indeed LGRB progenitors in the early universe are able to produce black hole central engines with higher spin, this could account for at least some of the observed jet opening angle-redshift correlation.
% We will then connect results from our simulations to the observations of jet opening angle and redshift.
\end{abstract}
%% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command.
%% The AAS Journals now uses Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts:
%% https://astrothesaurus.org
%% You will be asked to selected these concepts during the submission process
%% but this old "keyword" functionality is maintained in case authors want
%% to include these concepts in their preprints.
\keywords{Gamma-Ray Bursts --- Black Holes --- Cosmology}
%% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
%% Sections are demarcated by \section and \subsection, respectively.
%% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
%% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
%% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
%% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
%% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
%% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
%% automatically renumber them.
%%
%% We recommend that authors also use the natbib \citep
%% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
%% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
%% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are the most powerful events in the Universe, releasing energies in the order of $10^{52}$ erg in a typical event \cite[for reviews see, e.g.][]{2004RvMP...76.1143P,ZM04, Mesz06, 2009ARA&A..47..567G, DAvanz15,Lev16}. They are bursts of gamma-rays that can last from less than a second to several thousands of seconds depending on the progenitor. For GRBs lasting 2 seconds or less, they are thought to come from the merger of two neutron stars; see, e.g. \cite{2007NJPh....9...17L,2014ARA&A..52...43B}. If the gamma-ray emission lasts from a few seconds up to hundreds of seconds, they are thought to come from a hydrogen deficient star that collapses into a black hole (BH)\footnote{There also exist viable GRB models with a magnetar central engine \citep{Usov92,DT92,Thomp94,ZM01} but here we consider only a black hole central engine.}, often termed a collapsar \citep{2006ARA&A..44..507W,2012ApJ...752...32W}. Our motivation for this work comes from observational results of the latter, so-called long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs). However, our results apply to any GRB black hole-accretion disk central engine.
A LGRB begins with a star whose core collapses into a BH. This, along with the remaining gas available from the collapse of the star that is gravitationally bound to the newly formed BH and able to form an accretion disk, are necessary elements to give rise to the LGRB central engine. \citep{2001ApJ...550..410M,2006ApJ...637..914W}. As general relativistic frame-dragging causes more rapid rotation near the black hole, magnetic fields present in the disk will be wound up along the spin axis of the black hole. As a result, a powerful Poynting flux is generated along this axis and a highly relativistic jet is launched through the so-called Blandford-Zjanek (BZ mechanism) \citep{1977MNRAS.179..433B, MT82}. This is an efficient way to form and power a jet, assuming there exists enough angular momentum and magnetic flux in the system.
% As the material in the accretion disk orbits around the BH, some of the charged particles within it will be accelerated towards spin axis of the BH to form a `jet' of material traveling at relativistic speeds \citep{1977MNRAS.179..433B}. This material is able to form a jet due to magnetic field and general relativistic effects *cite?*.
The BZ mechanism does not depend on the mass accretion rate (at least not until the disk reaches a MAD state), but instead, again, on the rotation of the BH and the presence of magnetic flux. For additional detailed discussion of BZ jets in the context of GRBs, see \cite{LWB00,LRR02,tm12,Lei17, LR19b}.
% As the BH rotates in an external magnetic field, the magnetic field lines closer to the BH rotates faster than those further away from the horizon. This results in a strong Poynting flux along the spin axis of the BH \citep{LR19b, MT82, 1977MNRAS.179..433B}.
Gamma-Ray Bursts still pose many mysteries - from the nature of their progenitors to the details of the particle acceleration and radiation mechanisms in their relativistic jets - and multiple studies continue to uncover novel behaviors in these energetic events. In one such example, \cite{LR19} found a statistically significant anti-correlation between jet opening angle and redshift (with narrower jets at higher redshifts) in a large sample of LGRBs \cite[we note the presence of this potential correlation first emerged in the analysis of \cite{Frail01}, and has also been suggested, although not to the same statistical significance, in][]{LRFRR02, Yon05, Lu12, Las14, Las18}. Conservatively accounting for the presence of any potential selection effects or observational biases that may produce the correlation (using the well-tested and vetted non-parametric Lynden-Bell \citep{LB71} and Efron-Petrosian \citep{EP92} methods), they found that jet beaming angle goes to $\theta_{j} \propto (1+z)^{-0.75 \pm 0.25}$.
%From a table of redshift measurements and estimated isotropic energies of thousands of GRBs by \cite{Wang_2018}, \cite{LR19} looked into the relationship between LGRBs' physical properties along with their redshift. In the same paper, \cite{LR19} used non-parametric techniques, as well as Kendell's $\tau$ and Spearman's rank to take into account detector flux limits and any artificial correlations between the isotropic energy and redshift, as well as any underlying correlations between the variables being analyzed. Given that the isotropic energy contains information on the jet opening angle, a correlation with redshift could mean an evolution of the isotropic energy or the jet's opening angle. However, \cite{LR19} did not find a significant correlation between redshift and isotropic energy. Instead, they found an anti-correlation between redshift and jet opening angle. T
%his would suggest that the evolution of isotropic energies in LGRBs changes due to the jet beaming angle evolution in redshift, and that LGRBs in high redshifts are more collimated than at lower redshift \citep{LR19}.
In a following study, \cite{Lloyd_Ronning_2020} provided potential reasons as to why we may see a difference in jet beaming angle over cosmic redshift. They specifically looked into how some of the properties of the progenitor star might affect the jet opening angle. While looking at the luminosity requirements to launch a successful jet, \cite{Lloyd_Ronning_2020}
%built relationships between the jet opening angle and luminosity, as well as redshift. Through these relationships, they
found that the anti-correlation between jet opening angle and redshift can be explained by an evolution of the progenitor envelope over cosmic time. At highter redshifts, lower metallicity, denser progenitors can more effectively collimate the jet as it traverses the stellar envelope and cocoon region. This is quantitatively consistent with evolving IMF models reported in the literature \cite[e.g.][]{Dave08}.
%Additionally, higher metallicity, could mean that a star could more easily lose its outer layers through stellar winds. A higher angular momentum can also lead to more highly spinning BHs once this star collapses \citep{Lloyd_Ronning_2020}.
However, the role of the central engine in producing this correlation has yet to be explored. In particular, the BH-accretion disk dynamics are not yet well understood in relation to the jet geometry. There have been many works, beginning with \citet{McKinney2004}, exploring the relationship between jet power (with an eye to AGN luminosity) and black hole and disk conditions \citep{tm12,tmn12}. However, less attention has been paid to opening angle. How this property depends on redshift is an additional aspect necessary to understanding the opening angle-redshift anti-correlation, and LGRBs in general. For instance, a progenitor at higher redshift may potentially lose less angular momentum over the lifetime of the star, due to its lower metallicity compared to progenitors at lower redshifts (assuming angular momentum loss comes from radiation-driven stellar winds, which are stronger at higher metallicity). This could eventually lead to a remnant with higher angular momentum as well. Therefore, a progenitor that collapses at higher redshift with higher angular momentum (compared to one at a lower redshift) may produce a more highly spinning BH with a narrower jet.
We study this possibility using a General Relativistic Radiation Magnetohydrodynamical (GRRMHD) code, \nubhlight. With \nubhlight we simulate a BH with an accretion disk and a jet in 3 dimensions and let it evolve in time. Our goal is to consider the degree of collimation of a Blandford-Znajek jet \citep{BZ77,MT82} as a function of the spin of the black hole. Recently \citet{2022MNRAS.511.3795N} performed a detailed examination of jet power and geometry for magnetically arrested disks; this differs from our work here - we study non-arrested (SANE) disks.
%Several modellings of the jet, accretion disk and BH system have been done, as well as several GRBs observed since the late 1990's \citep{2000ApJS..126...19P}.
% Nonetheless, more recent observations and studies of the jet beaming angle with respect to redshift also suggest that GRB progenitor may possess lower metallicity. Lower metallicity would mean less mass and angular momentum loss in the progenitor, which could lead to a more highly spinning black hole. Higher metallicity, could mean that a star could more easily lose its outer layers through stellar winds. Additionally, a higher angular momentum can lead to more highly spinning BHs once this star collapses \citep{Lloyd_Ronning_2020}.
% The work in this letter is highly motivated by these results. We explore these findings in
% a star whose core collapses into a BH, and with enough material remaining around the newly formed BH to form an accretion disk. \citep{2001ApJ...550..410M,2006ApJ...637..914W}. As the material in the accretion disk orbits around the BH, some of the charged particles within it will be accelerated towards spin axis of the BH to form a `jet' of material traveling at relativistic speeds \citep{1977MNRAS.179..433B}. This material is able to form a jet due to magnetic field and general relativistic effects *cite?*. The BZ mechanism does not depend on the mass accretion rate (at least not until the disk reaches a MAD state), but instead from the rotation of the BH. As the BH rotates in an external magnetic field, the magnetic field lines closer to the BH rotates faster than those further away from the horizon. This results in a strong Poynting flux along the spin axis of the BH \citep{LR19b, MT82, 1977MNRAS.179..433B}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{3dsimplot_rho.png}
}
\caption{{\label{fig:3d_0p50p99}} 3D simulations showing a plot of density for 3 simulation runs, all at time 5500 $\rm M_{\rm BH}$ out of 10000 $\rm M_{\text{BH}}$. On the top is the simulation corresponding to a BH of spin 0.5, in the middle is a BH of spin 0.7, and on the bottom a BH of spin 0.99. All simulations show a frontal view of the black hole - accretion disk - jet (bhadj) system. The blue and purple hues correspond to the least dense material (jet) in the system, while green and yellow hues to the densest (accretion disk).}
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p5dump1100rho.png}}
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p7dump1100rho.png}}
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p99dump1100rho.png}
% }
% \caption{{\label{fig:3d_0p50p99}} 3D simulations showing a plot of density for 3 simulation runs, all at time XXX [These are dump 1100/2000]. On the top is the simulation corresponding to a BH of spin 0.5, in the middle is a BH of spin 0.7, and on the bottom a BH of spin 0.99. Both the left and right side denote the same simulation. On the left is a frontal view of the BHadj system and on the right is an `aerial' view of the system. The blue and purple hues correspond to the least dense material (jet) in the system, while green and yellow hues to the densest (accretion disk).}
% \end{figure}
% The BH-accretion disk dynamics are not yet well understood and therefore neither are the jet properties. Several modellings of the jet, accretion disk and BH system have been done, as well as several GRBs observed since the late 1990's \citep{2000ApJS..126...19P}. Nonetheless, more recent observations and studies of the jet beaming angle with respect to redshift also suggest that GRB progenitor may possess lower metallicity. Lower metallicity would mean less mass and angular momentum loss in the progenitor, which could lead to a more highly spinning black hole. Higher metallicity, could mean that a star could more easily lose its outer layers through stellar winds. Additionally, a higher angular momentum can lead to more highly spinning BHs once this star collapses \citep{Lloyd_Ronning_2020}.
% In particular, the jet could in principle be more tightly collimated for higher spinning black holes and some numerical studies seem to support this \cite{McK05}.
This letter is organized as follows: In \S 2, we describe the GRMHD code \nubhlight, and the set up we used in our simulations. In \S 3, we present the results of our 3D simulations for different spin values of of the black hole. We show that, using various ways to quantify the jet opening angle, {\em more highly spinning black holes tend to produce narrower jets}. In \S 4, we summarize our findings and discuss both the caveats and the implications of our results in the context of our current understanding of long gamma-ray bursts.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{3dsimplot_beta.png}}
\caption{{\label{fig:3d_beta}} 3D simulations of the BH - accretion disk - jet system, all at time 5500 $\rm M_{\rm BH}$ out of 10000 $\rm M_{\rm BH}$. On the top is a BH with spin 0.5 (lower spin fraction), in the middle is a BH of spin 0.7, and on the bottom a BH of spin 0.99 (highest spin fraction). $\beta >$ 1 indicates material dominated by gas pressure (accretion disk - in yellow/orange) and $\beta <$ 1 indicated material dominated by magnetic field energy (jet - pink/purple). }
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p5dump1100beta.png}}
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p7dump1100beta.png}}
% \centerline{
% \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{0p99dump1100beta.png}
% }
% \caption{{\label{fig:3d_beta}} 3D simulations of BH 3D simulations, all at time 1100 $\rm M_{\rm BH}$ out of 2000 $\rm M_{\rm BH}$. On the top is a BH with spin 0.5, in the middle is a BH of spin 0.7, and on the bottom a BH of spin 0.99. Both left and right panels show $\beta_{\rm plasma}$, but in different perspectives. $\beta >$ 1 indicates material dominated by gas pressure (accretion disk - in yellow/orange) and $\beta <$ 1 indicated material dominated by magnetic field energy (jet - pink/purple). }
% \end{figure}
\section{Numerical Tools} \label{sec:style}
For our simulations we use \nubhlight (read as ``nublight"). \nubhlight is a General Relativistic Radiation Magnetohydrodynamics (GRRMHD) code, built on top of the \bhlight \citep{ryan2015bhlight}, \texttt{grmonty} \citep{Dolence_2009}, and \HARM \citep{Gammie_2003} codes. In this work, we disable the radiation transport and solve only the equations of general relativistic ideal magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD). These include conservation of Baryon number:
%based of \bhlight \citep{ryan2015bhlight}. \textit{$\nu$bhlight} additionally solves the relativistic ideal MHD equations coupled to neutrinos like \cite{Gammie_2003} with \textit{HARM}, and employs Monte Carlo methods based off of \textit{grmonty} \citep{Dolence_2009} to accurately model neutrino transportation. While we do not include neutrinos in our solutions, the equations remain mostly the same with the exception of the rate at which lepton density is transferred between the fluid and the radiation field $G_{Ye} = 0$. The equations include the conservation of baryon number [\ref{barnum}], conservation of energy momentum [\ref{enmomcons}], evolution of magnetic fields [\ref{evomagfield}], conservation of the lepton number [\ref{lepnumcons}] and the stress energy tensor, assumed to be as shown in [\ref{energytens}]
% \textcolor{violet}{-add equations and summarize -initial conditions: fishborn-moncrief accretion torus + paper, initial disk mass, r in Gm/c2, rmax pressure 12gm/c2, cite 2019 gw17 mri factor that we also follow found there, quality factor is roughly 10, resolution and time/duration of simulations}
% Neutrino transport is essential to include since it will serve for a more accurate representation of the BH-disk system by including the effects of the accretion disk wind. $\nu$bhlight solves the ideal MHD equations coupled to neutrinos like \cite{Gammie_2003} with HARM, and \cite{ryan2015bhlight} with bhlight. The conserved lepton number density in $\nu$bhlight is evolved, which would require a realistic and tabulated equation of state.
% Additionally, radiation in $\nu$bhlight consists of neutrinos, not photons. Neutrinos carry angular momentum, energy, and a conserved lepton number. They also come in three different flavors: heavies, anti-electrons, and electrons. Neutrino flavors are grouped differently in $\nu$bhlight compared to the real designations of them in the field of particle physics. $\nu$bhlight groups tau and muon neutrinos (as well as their anti-particles) into `heavies.' This would leave electron neutrinos and anti-electron neutrinos as their own groups.
% Fundamental equations in $\nu$bhlight include the conservation of baryon number (Equation [\ref{barnum}]), conservation of energy momentum (Equation [\ref{enmomcons}]), evolution of magnetic fields (Equation [\ref{evomagfield}]), conservation of the lepton number (Equation [\ref{lepnumcons}]), and the stress energy tensor (Equation [\ref{energytens}]). In contrast to HARM, the conservation of energy momentum, the conservation of lepton number, and the stress energy tensor contain extra terms accounting for neutrinos and their different flavors.
\begin{equation}\label{barnum}
\partial_t (\sqrt{-g}\rho_o u^t) \; + \; \partial_i (\sqrt{-g}\rho_o u^i) \; = \; 0,
\end{equation}
conservation of energy and momentum,
\begin{equation}\label{enmomcons}
\begin{split}
\partial_t [\sqrt{-g} & \, ( \, T_\nu^t + \rho_o u^t \delta_\nu^t \, ) \, ] \; + \; \partial_i [\sqrt{-g} \, ( \, T_\nu^t + \rho_o u^i \delta_\nu^i \, ) \, ] = \\
& \sqrt{-g} \, T_\lambda^\kappa \, \Gamma_{\nu \kappa}^\lambda \; \; \forall \; \; \nu = 0,1...3,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and conservation of magnetic flux,
\begin{equation}\label{evomagfield}
\partial_t \, (\sqrt{-g} \, B^i \,) \, - \, \partial_j \, [\sqrt{-g} \, (b^j u^i - b^i u^j \, ) \, ] \, = \, 0 ,
\end{equation}
given the energy-momentum tensor defined as
\begin{equation}\label{energytens}
\begin{split}
T_\nu^\mu \, = \, (\rho_o + P + b^2 \, ) \, u^\mu u_\nu \, + \, \partial_\nu^\mu \, ( \, P \, + 1/2 \, b^2 \, ) \, - \, b^\mu \, b_\nu,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, rest energy $\rho$, fluid four velocity $u^{\mu}$, internal energy density $u$, pressure $P$, and Christoffel symbol $\Gamma^\alpha _{\beta \gamma}$. In the equations above, we also make use of the magnetic field components $B^i = \mbox{*} F^{it}$ of the Maxwell tensor $\mbox{*} F_{\mu \nu} = b^\mu u^\nu \, - \, b^\nu v^\mu$, and the magnetic field four-vector $b^\mu$. Here and throughout the text we use units of $G=c=1$ and standard Einstein index notation, where Greek indices range from 0 to 3 for spacetime indices and roman indices range from 1 to 3 for spatial indexes only. We also subtract off Equation \eqref{barnum} from the zeroth component of Equation \eqref{enmomcons} to remove the rest energy from the energy conservation law.
The fluid equations \eqref{enmomcons} and \eqref{energytens} must be closed by an \textit{equation of state}. In this work we use the standard ideal gas equation of state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ideal:gas}
P = (\Gamma - 1) u
\end{equation}
with $\Gamma=5/3$ corresponding to an ionized gas. All simulations performed assume a stationary Kerr black hole background \citep{1963PhRvL..11..237K}. The \nubhlight GRMHD treatment includes the industry standard treatments for codes of the \HARM family, including the radially logarithmic quasi-spherical grid in horizon penetrating coordinates, as first described in \citet{McKinney2004}, the WENO reconstruction first described in \citet{Tchekhovskoy2007}, the primitive variable recovery scheme described in \citet{MignoneMckinney2007}, and the drift-frame artificial atmosphere treatment described in \citet{Ressler2015ebhlight}. There is a long history of GRMHD simulations in the community. For a recent discussion of issues and methods, see \citet{EHTComparison2019}.
We run six identical simulations where the only difference between them lies on the black hole spin $\rm a_{\rm BH}$ values used $\rm a_{\rm BH}$ = 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 0.85, 0.95, 0.99 (the maximum corresponds to $\rm a_{\rm BH}$ = 1). We begin each simulation with a torus in hydrostatic equilibrium \citep{1976ApJ...207..962F} with an inner radius of $\rm r_{\rm in} = 6 G M_{\rm BH}/c^2$ and a radius of maximum pressure of $\rm r_{\rm max,P} = 12 G M_{\rm BH}/c^2$.
Because the ideal gas equation of state (EOS) has no fundamental energy scale, the disk-accretion problem becomes scale free, and our problem setup is valid for a large range of black hole masses and for accretion rates roughly corresponding to a maximum rate of a $\sim 1$ in dimensionless units (one $\rm M_{\rm BH}/(GM_{\rm BH}/c^3)$). We thread our inital torus with a single poloidal magnetic field loop such that the ratio of gas to magnetic pressure
\begin{equation}\label{betap}
\beta = \frac{P_{\rm gas}}{P_B}
\end{equation}
is 100 at the radius of maximum pressure.
Where here
\begin{equation}
P_B = \frac{B^2}{2}.
\end{equation}
We choose this $\beta$ so that the initial value is sufficiently weak that the magnetic pressure does not contribute to the support of the equilibrium torus. This weak value also allows the magnetic field to grow self-consistently from turbulence and minimize artifacts of the initial data.
We use a resolution of $\rm N_r$ x $\rm N_\theta$ x $\rm N_\phi$ = 256 x 192 x 128.
Molecular viscosity in the disk is negligible. As the disk evolves, the magnetorotational instability (MRI) \citep{VelikovMRI,BalbusHawley91} enhances the magnetic field strength and drives turbulences, which in turn provides turbulent viscosity, enabling angular momentum transport and accretion \citep{ShakuraSunyaev1973}. This same magnetic field drives a jet through the BZ mechanism \citep{1977MNRAS.179..433B}. We run our simulations for a duration of $\rm t =10^4 G M_{\rm BH}/c^3$, long enough for the accretion flow to achieve a quasi-stationary flow.
For this flow structure to be trustworthy, the fastest growing mode of the MRI must be captured. We use the MRI quality factor defined in \citet{Miller_2019} and find similar structure to the quality factor reported there, with $Q^{(\theta)}_{\texttt{MRI}}$ decaying over time. In these models, we use the equation of state of an ideal gas. \citet{Miller_2019} uses a nuclear equation of state, which has a high enthalpy, making the wavelength of the MRI shorter. This increases the quality factor so that $Q^{(\theta)}_{\texttt{MRI}} > 10$ for all times. The community has performed a battery of convergence tests over the years \citep{Sano2004,Shiokawa2011}, culminating in a large code-comparison effort for the Event Horizon collaboration \citep{EHTComparison2019}, and the industry standard for a ``resolved'' simulation is a $Q^{(\theta)}_{\texttt{MRI}} > 10$. It is known that the effective resolution in \HARM \citep{Gammie_2003} codes is enhanced by the focusing of the curvilinear grid. Moreover a WENO \cite{Tchekhovskoy2007} reconstruction (which we apply) adds an additional factor of approximately 5 in effective resolution, thanks to reduced numerical viscosity.
% The only difference between runs lies on the different values used for the spin fraction of the BH $a_{bh}$ = 0.5, 0.7, 0.99 where the maximum corresponds to $a_{bh}$ = 1.
% The mass of the accretion wind depends on the dynamics of the disk, and the dynamics of the disk depend on neutrino transport. On the other hand, disk dynamics also depend on neutrino transport as well as general relativity effects, and the magneto-rotational instability. \citep{Miller_2019}.
% The probability of scattering and absorption of radiation (in our case, neutrinos) will depend on type of neutrino and their distinct values of emissivity and opacity (the values come from the tabulated data in \cite{Burrows_2006}). As a result, we use a probability distribution that depends on the type of neutrino and its weight.
% The setup of our simulations in $\nu$bhlight consists of a black hole-accretion disk-jet system with a magnetic field just like previous GRRMHD numerical solvers. With $\nu$bhlight, we can perform 2D and 3D simulations with and without neutrinos of our LGRB setup and change initial conditions, run analysis on each result, and compare between each run.
% For the ease of solving complicated general relativistic and fluid dynamics equations, $\nu$bhlight sets some fundamental equations equal to 1, such as the speed of light. Additionally, depending on whether the simulation includes neutrinos or not, the simulation setup will need to include certain equations of state. In this case, we did not run our 3D simulations with neutrinos, so the conditions of the EOS allow for the cancellation of BH mass in the calculations. Therefore, a BH mass does not need to be specified in our runs.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{nusigconlvl1_500.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{nusigconlvl1_800.jpg}}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{nusigconlvl1_1000.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{nusigconlvl1_1200.jpg}}
\caption{{\label{fig:3dsigma}} Plots of 3D simulation sigma ($\sigma$) analysis in different times of the simulation. Each plot is a snapshot in time of $\sigma$ for the case of 5 different BH spins. The navy curve corresponds to the BH of spin 0.4, the teal to a BH of spin 0.5, the yellow curve to the BH of spin 0.7, the brown to a BH of spin 0.85, and the purple line to the BH of spin 0.99. The top left plot is at the earliest time, and the bottom right is at a later time in the simulation. This plot indicates the trend that a more highly spinning BH leads to a narrower jet opening angle and vice versa.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results} \label{sec:floats}
Figure \ref{fig:3d_0p50p99} shows the density profiles of the black hole--accretion disk--jet system for three different 3D simulation runs. On the top panel is the simulation corresponding to a BH of spin 0.5, the middle to a BH of spin 0.7, and on the bottom a BH of spin 0.99. The left column shows poloidal slices, while the right shows equatorial. We see significant magnetically dominated outflows at the poles which we discern as the jet (defined in more detail below).
While jet structure is more challenging to discern on plots of density, the accretion disk on both of these simulations appears to differ. For the BH with 0.99 spin (bottom of Figure \ref{fig:3d_0p50p99}), the accretion disk appears to be much larger in size (about twice the size) than the simulation with 0.5 spin, for instance. The structure of the accretion disk can highly affect jet opening angle, as previously mentioned. A larger, puffier accretion disk may provide further collimation of the jet, since the jet will have to spend more time traveling through the accretion disk material. This could lead to a narrower jet opening angle. We note that, importantly, the initial conditions of the disk depend on the black hole spin \citep{1976ApJ...207..962F}. For example, for a Keplerian velocity profile in the disk, higher initial black hole spins will force a slightly thicker accretion disk in the Fishbone-Moncreif setup we employ (see, e.g., their Figure 2). We discuss this further in \S 4.
To obtain a better view of the jet structure, we calculated $\beta$ for all simulations in Figure \ref{fig:3d_beta}, where $\beta >$ 1 indicates material dominated by gas pressure (shown in yellow/orange colors representing the gas in the accretion disk) and $\beta <$ 1 indicates material dominated by magnetic field energy (shown in pink/purple hues representing the jet). Thus, the accretion disk would be the area dominated by gas pressure, and the jet would be the material dominated by magnetic field pressure. The top of figure \ref{fig:3d_beta} shows the BH of 0.5 spin, the middle a BH of spin fraction of 0.7, and the bottom panel shows the BH of spin 0.99. From a first glance, one can see that the jet for the BH of spin 0.99 seems to be much narrower than for the BH of spin 0.5. Qualitatively, the higher-spin run shows a more collimated jet than the lower spin runs.
%This seems to fit the hypothesis that a BH with higher spin would lead to a more collimated jet. However, we are still left with the task of defining more accurately what the jet's edge is, in order to get a more quantitative confirmation on whether this is truly the case in our results.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Table of the average sigma weighted angle ($\overline{\theta}_\sigma$) values as a function of spin. The angle $\theta$ is measured from the equator to the `edge' of the jet. Therefore, a greater value of $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ signifies a narrower jet opening angle The averages and their standard deviations have been computed across ten different times in the simulation ranging from 4000 $\rm M_{BH}$ to 6000 $\rm M_{BH}$. The values indicate, on average, a wider jet opening angle for more slowly spinning BHs, and a narrower jet opening angle for the more rapidly spinning BHs, corroborating what is seen by eye in Figure 3.}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
% {|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.15\linewidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.15\linewidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.15\linewidth}|}
\hline
% \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\overline{\theta}_\sigma ( a_{bh}$ ) at t = 6000 $M_{bh}$ }\\ [1.5ex] \hline
\hline
\hline
$\rm a_{BH}$& $\rm \overline{\theta}_\sigma$ [deg]\\ [1ex] \hline
0.4& 73.4 $\pm$ 0.1\\ %\hline
0.5& 72.8 $\pm$ 0.2\\ %\hline
0.7& 74.9 $\pm$ 0.3\\ %\hline
0.85& 76.5 $\pm$ 0.7\\ %\hline
0.95& 76.6 $\pm$ 0.6\\ %\hline
0.99& 75.9 $\pm$ 0.4 \\ %\hline
% 0.4& 1.281 $\pm$ 0.00198 & 73.415 $\pm$ 0.114\\ %\hline
% 0.5& 1.271 $\pm$ 0.00386& 72.837 $\pm$ 0.221\\ %\hline
% 0.7& 1.307 $\pm$ 0.00565& 74.916 $\pm$ 0.324\\ %\hline
% 0.85& 1.350 $\pm$ 0.0122& 76.479 $\pm$ 0.699\\ %\hline
% 0.95& 1.336 $\pm$ 0.00993& 76.569 $\pm$ 0.569\\ %\hline
% 0.99& 1.325 $\pm$ 0.00731& 75.946 $\pm$ 0.419 \\ %\hline
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:angles}
\end{table}
%0.4& 1.255& 71.951\\ %\hline
% 0.5& 1.249& 71.574\\ %\hline
% 0.7& 1.279& 73.294\\ %\hline
% 0.85& 1.335& 76.541\\ %\hline
% 0.99& 1.312& 75.191\\
We also examine the magnetization parameter sigma
\begin{equation}
\sigma = B^2 / (2 \rho c^{2}),
\end{equation}
which is the ratio of the magnetic energy density to rest mass energy density. We make this choice for a number of reasons: not only does $\sigma$ provide a good estimate of where magnetic energy dominates in our (magnetically-launched) outflows, but it is better defined in the jet region than $\beta$. The quantity $\beta$ requires a temperature estimate of the gas, but the outflow is expected to be collisionless in the region around the spin axis of the black hole and consequently temperature is not well defined. Therefore we suggest $\sigma$ is a better measure and representation of the jet structure and edge.
%In other words, because we are looking at the bhadj system from large distances, gas from the accretion disk isn't as abundant and thus particle collision physics (such as temperature) are not as influential (see equations \ref{betap}, \ref{pgas}).
%This was the case for $\beta_{\rm plasma}$ which relies on the gas having a meaningful definition of temperature, which is not the case for these collisionless plasmas. Therefore the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ is a more useful variable to define the extent of the jet.
We plot isocontours of $\sigma = 1$ in a poloidal slice for our runs at four different times in Figure \ref{fig:3dsigma}, at $\rm t=2500 \, M_{BH}$, $\rm 4000 \, M_{BH}$, $\rm 5000 \, M_{BH}$ and $\rm 6000 \, M_{BH}$. Each plot is a snapshot in time of $\sigma$ for all 3 of the BH spins, plus an additional two runs of BH spin $\rm a_{BH} = 0.4, 0.85$. The navy curve corresponds to a BH spin of 0.4, the light blue curve to the BH of spin 0.5, the yellow curve corresponds to the BH of spin 0.7, the brown curve to a spin of 0.85, and the purple line to the BH of spin 0.99. The snapshots correspond to sequential times in the simulation. In other words, the top-right plot is at an earlier time in the simulation, top-left at a slightly later time, and so on.
%These plots show a frontal cross-section of the bhadj system. The x-axis indicates distance from the BH. The zero point in the y-axis indicates the BH, and the positive and negative ranges indicate the distance from the BH vertically.
As with Figure \ref{fig:3d_beta}, more highly spinning black holes have more collimated jets.
To fully quantify this trend, we calculate the average disk angle $\theta$ weighted by $\sigma$,
\begin{equation}
\overline{\theta}^2_\sigma = \frac{\int_\Omega\sqrt{-g} \; \theta^2 \, \sigma \; dx^1 \, dx^2 \, dx^3}{\int_\Omega \sqrt{-g} \; \sigma \; dx^1 \, dx^2 \, dx^3},
\label{thtsig}
\end{equation}
Where $\sqrt{-g}$ is the square root of the determinant of the metric, $\theta$ is the angle measured from the equator of the simulation, and $dx^1$, $dx^2$, $dx^3$ the measure. This integral is performed over the whole simulation domain. This acts as a proxy for jet opening angle: a larger $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ means a narrower jet beaming angle. The result of this calculation is shown in Table \ref{tab:angles}. In this table we have also included additional simulation runs of $\rm a_{BH} =$ 0.4, 0.85, and 0.95 for completeness.
% This plot shows the values of $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ as a function of spin. For the BH of spin 0.5 we obtained a value of $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ = 1.23, for the BH of spin 0.7: $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ = 1.28, and for the BH of spin 0.9: $\overline{\theta}_\sigma$ = 1.35.
While the difference between jets may seem small, it follows the general trend that has been seen throughout all 3D simulations alike: there is a difference in jet collimation as a function of spin. More specifically, there seems to be a trend where more highly spinning BHs lead to narrower jet opening angles.
% To get a clearer picture of the behavior of the jet over the entire time of the simulation, we also plotted the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ averaged across the full time of the simulation. This is shown on the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:theta_sigma}. The average $\sigma$ is plotted in the y-axis against the angle $\theta$ divided by the angle of the disk ($\theta_d$ on the x-axis). $\theta$ is the distance from the equator. $\theta_d$ is the characteristic opening angle of the disk. $\theta / \theta_d$ represents how many disk opening angles are being traversed. This assumes that at a given distance from the BH, the average structure of the disk is the same. The plots of the time averaged magnetization parameter $\sigma$ seems to reproduce the same results seen in our analysis above, where the more highly spinning black hole has on average a jet with a narrower beaming angle.
\section{Discussion \& Conclusions}
Using the GRMHD code \nubhlight we have investigated the dependence of the jet opening angle on the black hole spin. We find that, on average, more rapidly spinning black holes lead to narrower jets. We can see this by eye from the snapshots of our 3D numerical solutions (Figures 1 and 2), where the effect appears fairly pronounced. It is also borne out by our more detailed analysis of the contours of both plasma $\beta$ and $\sigma$ (Figure 3 and Table \ref{tab:angles}), although in the latter case of the $\sigma$-weighted average angle, the change in angle with spin is less pronounced and appears to saturate at high values of the spin. We see this pattern track across simulations and spins. We emphasize again the scale-free nature of our simulations; as such, these results should apply to a wide range of black hole-disk systems including those relevant to short GRBs and even supermassive black hole-disk systems.
As noted in \S 3, it is important to consider that our initial disk set up based on \cite{1976ApJ...207..962F} depends on black hole spin in a nuanced way, with slightly thicker initial disks for more highly spinning black holes. This may contribute to the ``narrowness'' of the jet at later times in our simulation. Indeed other studies have shown how the initial conditions may influence the jet over the simulation time, including how the torus size (which is spin dependent) can influence the jet opening angle \citep{Lisk18, Chris19, Roh23}. That said, the set-up - a torus in hydrostatic equilibrium - is a solution to the relativistic Euler equations and therefore provides a physical framework for this result in some sense. That is, an initially thicker disk may lead to a narrower jet, but this is physically motivated and a reflection of the balance between magnetic, gravitational and gas pressures (not only initially but as the system evolves). Additionally, consider that a more rapidly rotating black hole will have a horizon radius (and innermost stable circular orbit) that is closer to the black hole. This allows magnetic flux to be brought into a narrower region near the black hole (i.e. a smaller polar angle) and may also contribute to the qualitative physical explanation for more rapidly spinning black holes producing narrower jets.
%While testing with the different BH spins, we saw that a BH of spin fraction of 0.5 would lead to a wider jet opening angle, a BH of spin 0.7 would lead to a slightly narrower jet, and a BH of spin 0.99 to the narrowest of the three.
Nonetheless, these results are broadly consistent with the analysis for magnetically arrested disks in \citet{2022MNRAS.511.3795N}, which help further connect the GRB central engine and jet properties, and may help us better understand the underlying progenitor(s) of GRBs. Ultimately, the collimation will depend on the equilibrium between the external thermal pressure and the magnetic pressure of the Poynting flux of the jet as shown in \cite[][see also \cite{Lyub09,Kom09}]{Pais2023}.
Another confounding factor is the uncertainty in the initial magnetic field strength. Our simulations are constructed so that the magnetic pressure at initial times is not a significant contributor to the pressure support of the disk. As the disk evolves, the MRI drives growth in the field strength until it is roughly in equipartition. A stronger initial magnetic field will both contribute to the initial disk pressure and shrink the amount of time required for the MRI to ``spin up'' and drive accretion \cite[for a more detailed analysis of the impact of magnetic field strength, see][]{Lund2023Beta}. Note also that the magnetic field topology also plays a role. More complex field loop structures are required to construct a MAD state and the MRI for a toroidal field loop is much slower than for poloidal.
The original motivation for this study was an attempt to understand the observation that GRB jet opening angles are narrower at higher redshifts. If the {\em observed} jet opening angle was correlated with (or determined by) the size of the initial jet opening angle, the result would suggest, then, that GRB central engines are more rapidly rotating in the early universe relative to low-redshift GRBs. This is consistent with our current view of stellar evolution: massive stars in the early universe are expected to have lower metallicity and therefore less radiation-driven winds. As a result, they experience less angular momentum loss, which may lead to a more rapidly rotating central engine upon collapse, and therefore a more collimated jet. This explanation, of course, ignores the many intricacies of angular momentum transport/loss as the star collapses - it is still unclear to what extent we can connect the angular momentum of the progenitor at the end of its life with that of the black hole-disk system.
This argument, however, does not account for the collimation by the stellar envelope and cocoon, which occurs at a distance much farther from the central engine than our work considers here. For example, \cite{Brom11, Brom14, Glob16} derive collimation conditions from the jet, cocoon and stellar envelope equilibrium pressures and \cite{Lloyd_Ronning_2020} showed, using these previous works, that this can explain the jet opening angle redshift correlation seen in the data, under certain conditions (i.e. an evolving initial mass function). In other words, for jets that interact with a dense envelope (as expected in the case of a massive star collapse, but not necessarily in a neutron star merger), the observed jet opening angle is more likely a reflection of the interaction with this envelope rather than the initial jet opening angle set by the central engine. Nonetheless, these results provide a promising avenue to further explore the imprint of the central engine on the jet physics.
\\
%Therefore, finding connections between different components in the system would help us not only further uncover unknown answers about GRBs, but of the nature of jets at different scales.
%Connecting both cosmology and gamma-ray burst astrophysics brings the added benefit of pulling knowledge from either side and `fill in the blanks.' In other words, exploring GRB properties through the lense of other astrophysical studies can lead to exciting new questions and answers that could benefit both subfields in the long run.
% \subsection{Tables} \label{subsec:tables}
% hey
% \subsubsection{Splitting a table into multiple horizontal components}
% owowow
% \subsection{Figures\label{subsec:figures}}
%% The "ht!" tells LaTeX to put the figure "here" first, at the "top" next
%% and to override the normal way of calculating a float position
% \begin{figure}[ht!]
% \plotone{samplefig.png}
% \caption{ploop.
% \label{fig:general}}
% \end{figure}
% OW
% \subsection{Enhanced graphics}
% pspspsps
%% IMPORTANT! The old "\acknowledgment" command has be depreciated. It was
%% not robust enough to handle our new dual anonymous review requirements and
%% thus been replaced with the acknowledgment environment. If you try to
%% compile with \acknowledgment you will get an error print to the screen
%% and in the compiled pdf.
%%
%% Also note that the akcnowlodgment environment does not support long amounts of text. If you have a lot of people and institutions to acknowledge, do not use this command. Instead, create a new \section{Acknowledgments}.
\section{acknowledgments}
We thank the referee for valuable comments and suggestions that led to an improvement in this manuscript. J.M.M. would like to thank J. Dolence, B. Ryan, P. Mullen for many helpful discussions, and the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its kind hospitality and stimulating research environment. N.M.L-R. would like to thank Roseanne Cheng, Gibwa Musoke, and Sera Markoff for elucidating conversations. V.U.H would like to thank Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, Dina Stroud, Lauren Campbell, and the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's to PhD Bridge Program for their mentorship over the years.
This work was supported through the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program under project number 20220564ECR at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
LANL is operated by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of U.S. Department of Energy (Contract No. 89233218CNA000001).
This research used resources provided by the Los Alamos National Laboratory Institutional Computing Program.
This research was supported in part by the INT's U.S. Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG02- 00ER41132, and by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) under the Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships Program (SULI).
This work is approved for unlimited release with LA-UR-23-30405.
%\end{acknowledgments}
%% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
%% telescopes the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
%% facilities.
%
%% Following the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
%% \facility{} or \facilities{} macros to list the keywords of facilities used
%% in the research for the paper. Each keyword is check against the master
%% list during copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in
%% parentheses, after the keyword, but they are not verified.
% \vspace{5mm}
% \facilities{HST(STIS), Swift(XRT and UVOT), AAVSO, CTIO:1.3m,
% CTIO:1.5m,CXO}
%% Similar to \facility{}, there is the optional \software command to allow
%% authors a place to specify which programs were used during the creation of
%% the manuscript. Authors should list each code and include either a
%% citation or url to the code inside ()s when available.
% \software{astropy \citep{2013A&A...558A..33A,2018AJ....156..123A},
% Cloudy \citep{2013RMxAA..49..137F},
% Source Extractor \citep{1996A&AS..117..393B}
% }
%% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
%% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
%% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
%% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
%% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
%% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc. The
%% Figure and Table counter will not reset.
% \appendix
% \section{Appendix information}
% Appendices can be broken into separate sections just like in the main text.
% The only difference is that each appendix section is indexed by a letter
% (A, B, C, etc.) instead of a number. Likewise numbered equations have
% the section letter appended. Here is an equation as an example.
% \begin{equation}
% I = \frac{1}{1 + d_{1}^{P (1 + d_{2} )}}
% \end{equation}
% Appendix tables and figures should not be numbered like equations. Instead
% they should continue the sequence from the main article body.
%% For this sample we use BibTeX plus aasjournals.bst to generate the
%% the bibliography. The sample631.bib file was populated from ADS. To
%% get the citations to show in the compiled file do the following:
%%
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
%% bibtext sample631
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
%% pdflatex sample631.tex
\bibliography{refs}{}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
%% This command is needed to show the entire author+affiliation list when
%% the collaboration and author truncation commands are used. It has to
%% go at the end of the manuscript.
%\allauthors
%% Include this line if you are using the \added, \replaced, \deleted
%% commands to see a summary list of all changes at the end of the article.
%\listofchanges
\end{document}
% End of file `sample631.tex'.
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\href{#1}{#1}}
\providecommand{\dodoi}[1]{doi:~\href{http://doi.org/#1}{\nolinkurl{#1}}}
\providecommand{\doeprint}[1]{\href{http://ascl.net/#1}{\nolinkurl{http://ascl.net/#1}}}
\providecommand{\doarXiv}[1]{\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{\nolinkurl{https://arxiv.org/abs/#1}}}
\bibitem[{{Balbus} \& {Hawley}(1991)}]{BalbusHawley91}
{Balbus}, S.~A., \& {Hawley}, J.~F. 1991, \apj, 376, 214, \dodoi{10.1086/170270}
\bibitem[{{Berger}(2014)}]{2014ARA&A..52...43B}
{Berger}, E. 2014, \araa, 52, 43, \dodoi{10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926}
\bibitem[{{Blandford} \& {Znajek}(1977{\natexlab{a}})}]{1977MNRAS.179..433B}
{Blandford}, R.~D., \& {Znajek}, R.~L. 1977{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 179, 433, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/179.3.433}
\bibitem[{{Blandford} \& {Znajek}(1977{\natexlab{b}})}]{BZ77}
---. 1977{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 179, 433, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/179.3.433}
\bibitem[{{Bromberg} {et~al.}(2014){Bromberg}, {Granot}, {Lyubarsky}, \& {Piran}}]{Brom14}
{Bromberg}, O., {Granot}, J., {Lyubarsky}, Y., \& {Piran}, T. 2014, \mnras, 443, 1532, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stu995}
\bibitem[{{Bromberg} {et~al.}(2011){Bromberg}, {Nakar}, {Piran}, \& {Sari}}]{Brom11}
{Bromberg}, O., {Nakar}, E., {Piran}, T., \& {Sari}, R. 2011, \apj, 740, 100, \dodoi{10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100}
\bibitem[{{Christie} {et~al.}(2019){Christie}, {Lalakos}, {Tchekhovskoy}, {Fern{\'a}ndez}, {Foucart}, {Quataert}, \& {Kasen}}]{Chris19}
{Christie}, I.~M., {Lalakos}, A., {Tchekhovskoy}, A., {et~al.} 2019, \mnras, 490, 4811, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stz2552}
\bibitem[{{D'Avanzo}(2015)}]{DAvanz15}
{D'Avanzo}, P. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 73, \dodoi{10.1016/j.jheap.2015.07.002}
\bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}}(2008)}]{Dave08}
{Dav{\'e}}, R. 2008, \mnras, 385, 147, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12866.x}
\bibitem[{Dolence {et~al.}(2009)Dolence, Gammie, Mo{\'{s} }cibrodzka, \& Leung}]{Dolence_2009}
Dolence, J.~C., Gammie, C.~F., Mo{\'{s} }cibrodzka, M., \& Leung, P.~K. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 184, 387, \dodoi{10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/387}
\bibitem[{{Duncan} \& {Thompson}(1992)}]{DT92}
{Duncan}, R.~C., \& {Thompson}, C. 1992, \apjl, 392, L9, \dodoi{10.1086/186413}
\bibitem[{{Efron} \& {Petrosian}(1992)}]{EP92}
{Efron}, B., \& {Petrosian}, V. 1992, \apj, 399, 345, \dodoi{10.1086/171931}
\bibitem[{{Fishbone} \& {Moncrief}(1976)}]{1976ApJ...207..962F}
{Fishbone}, L.~G., \& {Moncrief}, V. 1976, \apj, 207, 962, \dodoi{10.1086/154565}
\bibitem[{{Frail} {et~al.}(2001){Frail}, {Kulkarni}, {Sari}, {Djorgovski}, {Bloom}, {Galama}, {Reichart}, {Berger}, {Harrison}, {Price}, {Yost}, {Diercks}, {Goodrich}, \& {Chaffee}}]{Frail01}
{Frail}, D.~A., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Sari}, R., {et~al.} 2001, \apjl, 562, L55, \dodoi{10.1086/338119}
\bibitem[{Gammie {et~al.}(2003)Gammie, McKinney, \& Toth}]{Gammie_2003}
Gammie, C.~F., McKinney, J.~C., \& Toth, G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 444–457, \dodoi{10.1086/374594}
\bibitem[{{Gehrels} {et~al.}(2009){Gehrels}, {Ramirez-Ruiz}, \& {Fox}}]{2009ARA&A..47..567G}
{Gehrels}, N., {Ramirez-Ruiz}, E., \& {Fox}, D.~B. 2009, \araa, 47, 567, \dodoi{10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145147}
\bibitem[{{Globus} \& {Levinson}(2016)}]{Glob16}
{Globus}, N., \& {Levinson}, A. 2016, \mnras, 461, 2605, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stw1474}
\bibitem[{{Kerr}(1963)}]{1963PhRvL..11..237K}
{Kerr}, R.~P. 1963, \prl, 11, 237, \dodoi{10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.237}
\bibitem[{{Komissarov} {et~al.}(2009){Komissarov}, {Vlahakis}, {K{\"o}nigl}, \& {Barkov}}]{Kom09}
{Komissarov}, S.~S., {Vlahakis}, N., {K{\"o}nigl}, A., \& {Barkov}, M.~V. 2009, \mnras, 394, 1182, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14410.x}
\bibitem[{{Laskar} {et~al.}(2018){Laskar}, {Berger}, {Chornock}, {Margutti}, {Fong}, \& {Zauderer}}]{Las18}
{Laskar}, T., {Berger}, E., {Chornock}, R., {et~al.} 2018, \apj, 858, 65, \dodoi{10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f5}
\bibitem[{{Laskar} {et~al.}(2014){Laskar}, {Berger}, {Tanvir}, {Zauderer}, {Margutti}, {Levan}, {Perley}, {Fong}, {Wiersema}, \& {Menten}}]{Las14}
{Laskar}, T., {Berger}, E., {Tanvir}, N., {et~al.} 2014, \apj, 781, 1, \dodoi{10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/1}
\bibitem[{{Lee} {et~al.}(2000){Lee}, {Brown}, \& {Wijers}}]{LWB00}
{Lee}, H.~K., {Brown}, G.~E., \& {Wijers}, R.~A.~M.~J. 2000, \apj, 536, 416, \dodoi{10.1086/308937}
\bibitem[{{Lee} \& {Ramirez-Ruiz}(2002)}]{LRR02}
{Lee}, W.~H., \& {Ramirez-Ruiz}, E. 2002, \apj, 577, 893, \dodoi{10.1086/342112}
\bibitem[{{Lee} \& {Ramirez-Ruiz}(2007)}]{2007NJPh....9...17L}
---. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 17, \dodoi{10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/017}
\bibitem[{{Lei} {et~al.}(2017){Lei}, {Zhang}, {Wu}, \& {Liang}}]{Lei17}
{Lei}, W.-H., {Zhang}, B., {Wu}, X.-F., \& {Liang}, E.-W. 2017, \apj, 849, 47, \dodoi{10.3847/1538-4357/aa9074}
\bibitem[{{Levan} {et~al.}(2016){Levan}, {Crowther}, {de Grijs}, {Langer}, {Xu}, \& {Yoon}}]{Lev16}
{Levan}, A., {Crowther}, P., {de Grijs}, R., {et~al.} 2016, \ssr, 202, 33, \dodoi{10.1007/s11214-016-0312-x}
\bibitem[{{Liska} {et~al.}(2018){Liska}, {Hesp}, {Tchekhovskoy}, {Ingram}, {van der Klis}, \& {Markoff}}]{Lisk18}
{Liska}, M., {Hesp}, C., {Tchekhovskoy}, A., {et~al.} 2018, \mnras, 474, L81, \dodoi{10.1093/mnrasl/slx174}
\bibitem[{Lloyd-Ronning {et~al.}(2020)Lloyd-Ronning, Hurtado, Aykutalp, Johnson, \& Ceccobello}]{Lloyd_Ronning_2020}
Lloyd-Ronning, N., Hurtado, V.~U., Aykutalp, A., Johnson, J., \& Ceccobello, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 4371–4381, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/staa1057}
\bibitem[{{Lloyd-Ronning} {et~al.}(2019{\natexlab{a}}){Lloyd-Ronning}, {Aykutalp}, \& {Johnson}}]{LR19}
{Lloyd-Ronning}, N.~M., {Aykutalp}, A., \& {Johnson}, J.~L. 2019{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 488, 5823, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stz2155}
\bibitem[{{Lloyd-Ronning} {et~al.}(2019{\natexlab{b}}){Lloyd-Ronning}, {Fryer}, {Miller}, {Prasad}, {Torres}, \& {Martin}}]{LR19b}
{Lloyd-Ronning}, N.~M., {Fryer}, C., {Miller}, J.~M., {et~al.} 2019{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 485, 203, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stz390}
\bibitem[{{Lloyd-Ronning} {et~al.}(2002){Lloyd-Ronning}, {Fryer}, \& {Ramirez-Ruiz}}]{LRFRR02}
{Lloyd-Ronning}, N.~M., {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Ramirez-Ruiz}, E. 2002, \apj, 574, 554, \dodoi{10.1086/341059}
\bibitem[{L{\"u} {et~al.}(2012)L{\"u}, Zou, Lei, Zhang, Wu, Wang, Liang, \& L{\"u}}]{Lu12}
L{\"u}, J., Zou, Y.-C., Lei, W.-H., {et~al.} 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 49
\bibitem[{{Lund} {et~al.}(2023){Lund}, {McLaughlin}, {Miller}, \& {Mumpower}}]{Lund2023Beta}
{Lund}, K.~A., {McLaughlin}, G., {Miller}, J., \& {Mumpower}, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.05796, \dodoi{10.48550/arXiv.2311.05796}
\bibitem[{{Lynden-Bell}(1971)}]{LB71}
{Lynden-Bell}, D. 1971, \mnras, 155, 95, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/155.1.95}
\bibitem[{{Lyubarsky}(2009)}]{Lyub09}
{Lyubarsky}, Y. 2009, \apj, 698, 1570, \dodoi{10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1570}
\bibitem[{{MacDonald} \& {Thorne}(1982)}]{MT82}
{MacDonald}, D., \& {Thorne}, K.~S. 1982, \mnras, 198, 345, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/198.2.345}
\bibitem[{{MacFadyen} {et~al.}(2001){MacFadyen}, {Woosley}, \& {Heger}}]{2001ApJ...550..410M}
{MacFadyen}, A.~I., {Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Heger}, A. 2001, \apj, 550, 410, \dodoi{10.1086/319698}
\bibitem[{{McKinney} \& {Gammie}(2004)}]{McKinney2004}
{McKinney}, J.~C., \& {Gammie}, C.~F. 2004, \apj, 611, 977, \dodoi{10.1086/422244}
\bibitem[{{M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}(2006)}]{Mesz06}
{M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, \dodoi{10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01}
\bibitem[{{Mignone} \& {McKinney}(2007)}]{MignoneMckinney2007}
{Mignone}, A., \& {McKinney}, J.~C. 2007, \mnras, 378, 1118, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11849.x}
\bibitem[{Miller {et~al.}(2019)Miller, Ryan, Dolence, Burrows, Fontes, Fryer, Korobkin, Lippuner, Mumpower, \& Wollaeger}]{Miller_2019}
Miller, J.~M., Ryan, B.~R., Dolence, J.~C., {et~al.} 2019, Physical Review D, 100, \dodoi{10.1103/physrevd.100.023008}
\bibitem[{{Narayan} {et~al.}(2022){Narayan}, {Chael}, {Chatterjee}, {Ricarte}, \& {Curd}}]{2022MNRAS.511.3795N}
{Narayan}, R., {Chael}, A., {Chatterjee}, K., {Ricarte}, A., \& {Curd}, B. 2022, \mnras, 511, 3795, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stac285}
\bibitem[{{Pais} {et~al.}(2023){Pais}, {Piran}, {Lyubarsky}, {Kiuchi}, \& {Shibata}}]{Pais2023}
{Pais}, M., {Piran}, T., {Lyubarsky}, Y., {Kiuchi}, K., \& {Shibata}, M. 2023, \apjl, 946, L9, \dodoi{10.3847/2041-8213/acc2c5}
\bibitem[{{Piran}(2004)}]{2004RvMP...76.1143P}
{Piran}, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, \dodoi{10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143}
\bibitem[{{Porth} {et~al.}(2019){Porth}, {Chatterjee}, {Narayan}, {Gammie}, {Mizuno}, {Anninos}, {Baker}, {Bugli}, {Chan}, {Davelaar}, {Del Zanna}, {Etienne}, {Fragile}, {Kelly}, {Liska}, {Markoff}, {McKinney}, {Mishra}, {Noble}, {Olivares}, {Prather}, {Rezzolla}, {Ryan}, {Stone}, {Tomei}, {White}, {Younsi}, {Akiyama}, {Alberdi}, {Alef}, {Asada}, {Azulay}, {Baczko}, {Ball}, {Balokovi{\'c}}, {Barrett}, {Bintley}, {Blackburn}, {Boland}, {Bouman}, {Bower}, {Bremer}, {Brinkerink}, {Brissenden}, {Britzen}, {Broderick}, {Broguiere}, {Bronzwaer}, {Byun}, {Carlstrom}, {Chael}, {Chatterjee}, {Chen}, {Chen}, {Cho}, {Christian}, {Conway}, {Cordes}, {Geoffrey}, {Crew}, {Cui}, {De Laurentis}, {Deane}, {Dempsey}, {Desvignes}, {Doeleman}, {Eatough}, {Falcke}, {Fish}, {Fomalont}, {Fraga-Encinas}, {Freeman}, {Friberg}, {Fromm}, {G{\'o}mez}, {Galison}, {Garc{\'\i}a}, {Gentaz}, {Georgiev}, {Goddi}, {Gold}, {Gu}, {Gurwell}, {Hada}, {Hecht}, {Hesper}, {Ho}, {Ho}, {Honma}, {Huang}, {Huang}, {Hughes}, {Ikeda}, {Inoue}, {Issaoun},
{James}, {Jannuzi}, {Janssen}, {Jeter}, {Jiang}, {Johnson}, {Jorstad}, {Jung}, {Karami}, {Karuppusamy}, {Kawashima}, {Keating}, {Kettenis}, {Kim}, {Kim}, {Kim}, {Kino}, {Koay}, {Patrick}, {Koch}, {Koyama}, {Kramer}, {Kramer}, {Krichbaum}, {Kuo}, {Lauer}, {Lee}, {Li}, {Li}, {Lindqvist}, {Liu}, {Liuzzo}, {Lo}, {Lobanov}, {Loinard}, {Lonsdale}, {Lu}, {MacDonald}, {Mao}, {Marrone}, {Marscher}, {Mart{\'\i}-Vidal}, {Matsushita}, {Matthews}, {Medeiros}, {Menten}, {Mizuno}, {Moran}, {Moriyama}, {Moscibrodzka}, {M{\"u}ller}, {Nagai}, {Nagar}, {Nakamura}, {Narayanan}, {Natarajan}, {Neri}, {Ni}, {Noutsos}, {Okino}, {Oyama}, {{\"O}zel}, {Palumbo}, {Patel}, {Pen}, {Pesce}, {Pi{\'e}tu}, {Plambeck}, {PopStefanija}, {Preciado-L{\'o}pez}, {Psaltis}, {Pu}, {Ramakrishnan}, {Rao}, {Rawlings}, {Raymond}, {Ripperda}, {Roelofs}, {Rogers}, {Ros}, {Rose}, {Roshanineshat}, {Rottmann}, {Roy}, {Ruszczyk}, {Rygl}, {S{\'a}nchez}, {S{\'a}nchez-Arguelles}, {Sasada}, {Savolainen}, {Schloerb}, {Schuster}, {Shao}, {Shen}, {Small}, {Sohn},
{SooHoo}, {Tazaki}, {Tiede}, {Tilanus}, {Titus}, {Toma}, {Torne}, {Trent}, {Trippe}, {Tsuda}, {van Bemmel}, {van Langevelde}, {van Rossum}, {Wagner}, {Wardle}, {Weintroub}, {Wex}, {Wharton}, {Wielgus}, {Wong}, {Wu}, {Young}, {Young}, {Yuan}, {Yuan}, {Zensus}, {Zhao}, {Zhao}, {Zhu}, \& {Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration}}]{EHTComparison2019}
{Porth}, O., {Chatterjee}, K., {Narayan}, R., {et~al.} 2019, \apjs, 243, 26, \dodoi{10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd}
\bibitem[{{Ressler} {et~al.}(2015){Ressler}, {Tchekhovskoy}, {Quataert}, {Chandra}, \& {Gammie}}]{Ressler2015ebhlight}
{Ressler}, S.~M., {Tchekhovskoy}, A., {Quataert}, E., {Chandra}, M., \& {Gammie}, C.~F. 2015, \mnras, 454, 1848, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/stv2084}
\bibitem[{{Rohoza} {et~al.}(2023){Rohoza}, {Lalakos}, {Paik}, {Chatterjee}, {Liska}, {Tchekhovskoy}, \& {Gottlieb}}]{Roh23}
{Rohoza}, V., {Lalakos}, A., {Paik}, M., {et~al.} 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00018, \dodoi{10.48550/arXiv.2311.00018}
\bibitem[{Ryan {et~al.}(2015)Ryan, Dolence, \& Gammie}]{ryan2015bhlight}
Ryan, B.~R., Dolence, J.~C., \& Gammie, C.~F. 2015, bhlight: General Relativistic Radiation Magnetohydrodynamics with Monte Carlo Transport.
\newblock \doarXiv{1505.05119}
\bibitem[{{Sano} {et~al.}(2004){Sano}, {Inutsuka}, {Turner}, \& {Stone}}]{Sano2004}
{Sano}, T., {Inutsuka}, S.-i., {Turner}, N.~J., \& {Stone}, J.~M. 2004, \apj, 605, 321, \dodoi{10.1086/382184}
\bibitem[{{Shakura} \& {Sunyaev}(1973)}]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}
{Shakura}, N.~I., \& {Sunyaev}, R.~A. 1973, \aap, 24, 337
\bibitem[{{Shiokawa} {et~al.}(2012){Shiokawa}, {Dolence}, {Gammie}, \& {Noble}}]{Shiokawa2011}
{Shiokawa}, H., {Dolence}, J.~C., {Gammie}, C.~F., \& {Noble}, S.~C. 2012, \apj, 744, 187, \dodoi{10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/187}
\bibitem[{{Tchekhovskoy} \& {McKinney}(2012)}]{tm12}
{Tchekhovskoy}, A., \& {McKinney}, J.~C. 2012, \mnras, 423, L55, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01256.x}
\bibitem[{{Tchekhovskoy} {et~al.}(2007){Tchekhovskoy}, {McKinney}, \& {Narayan}}]{Tchekhovskoy2007}
{Tchekhovskoy}, A., {McKinney}, J.~C., \& {Narayan}, R. 2007, \mnras, 379, 469, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11876.x}
\bibitem[{{Tchekhovskoy} {et~al.}(2012){Tchekhovskoy}, {McKinney}, \& {Narayan}}]{tmn12}
{Tchekhovskoy}, A., {McKinney}, J.~C., \& {Narayan}, R. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012040, \dodoi{10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040}
\bibitem[{{Thompson}(1994)}]{Thomp94}
{Thompson}, C. 1994, \mnras, 270, 480, \dodoi{10.1093/mnras/270.3.480}
\bibitem[{{Usov}(1992)}]{Usov92}
{Usov}, V.~V. 1992, \nat, 357, 472, \dodoi{10.1038/357472a0}
\bibitem[{Velikhov(1959)}]{VelikovMRI}
Velikhov, E. 1959, Zhur. Eksptl'. i Teoret. Fiz., 36
\bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Bloom}(2006)}]{2006ARA&A..44..507W}
{Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Bloom}, J.~S. 2006, \araa, 44, 507, \dodoi{10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558}
\bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Heger}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...637..914W}
{Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Heger}, A. 2006, \apj, 637, 914, \dodoi{10.1086/498500}
\bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Heger}(2012)}]{2012ApJ...752...32W}
---. 2012, \apj, 752, 32, \dodoi{10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/32}
\bibitem[{{Yonetoku} {et~al.}(2005){Yonetoku}, {Yamazaki}, {Nakamura}, \& {Murakami}}]{Yon05}
{Yonetoku}, D., {Yamazaki}, R., {Nakamura}, T., \& {Murakami}, T. 2005, \mnras, 362, 1114, \dodoi{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09398.x}
\bibitem[{{Zhang} \& {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}(2001)}]{ZM01}
{Zhang}, B., \& {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, P. 2001, \apjl, 552, L35, \dodoi{10.1086/320255}
\bibitem[{{Zhang} \& {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}(2004)}]{ZM04}
---. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385, \dodoi{10.1142/S0217751X0401746X}
\end{thebibliography}