search

fjebaker / gradus-paper

MIT License
1 stars 0 forks source link

Comments on paper #4

Open phajy opened 1 week ago

phajy commented 1 week ago

I thought I'd start an "issue" for discussion regarding the paper for things I have not edited directly. Some of these are very minor comments and may result in no changes!

https://github.com/fjebaker/gradus-paper/blob/b529d7573bce6fc21171238e8775beff062ca593/latex/gradus.tex#L115-L117

Perhaps replace "in turn" with "with a model of the accretion flow geometry and dynamics"? Just want to say that the photon ray tracing needs to intersect some physical model. Or does "radiative processes" suffice?

phajy commented 1 week ago

Make sure we're not missing any key references (some of the "obvious" ones are referenced later in the introduction so perhaps not worth listing twice here).

https://github.com/fjebaker/gradus-paper/blob/b529d7573bce6fc21171238e8775beff062ca593/latex/gradus.tex#L111-L113

phajy commented 1 week ago

Still not sure about the "winds" reference. The paper I've cited by Juráňová does include timing in an outflowing wind but not relativistic effects so we probably shouldn't cite it here even though it is very interesting!

Update: noted papers such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15669 and references therein.

phajy commented 1 week ago

I think Abdikamalov et al. (2020) used the Johannsen (2013) spacetime which is embedded in RELXILL_NK. I've updated this in the paper.

phajy commented 1 week ago

I've tried to tweak the introduction a bit not to be too focused on super-high resolution (eV) resolution spectroscopy because iron lines are typically very broad. But models with small scale variations (e.g., hot spots, warps) and high signal-to-noise data sets with better than CCD resolution spectra (e.g., a few 10s of eV resolution) still require improvements in models.

phajy commented 1 week ago

Should we mention more about timing in the introduction even though that is not the focus of the paper?

phajy commented 1 week ago

"...studying solutions to the Einstein field equations that deviate from a Kerr black holes..." Some of the spacetimes referenced aren't solutions to the Einstein field equations. Not sure if we need to rephrase anything or is that being a bit too pedantic?