Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

# A very luminous jet from the disruption of a star by a massive black hole

### Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 09 January 2023

## Abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) are bursts of electromagnetic energy that are released when supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies violently disrupt a star that passes too close1. TDEs provide a window through which to study accretion onto supermassive black holes; in some rare cases, this accretion leads to launching of a relativistic jet2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, but the necessary conditions are not fully understood. The best-studied jetted TDE so far is Swift J1644+57, which was discovered in γ-rays, but was too obscured by dust to be seen at optical wavelengths. Here we report the optical detection of AT2022cmc, a rapidly fading source at cosmological distance (redshift z = 1.19325) the unique light curve of which transitioned into a luminous plateau within days. Observations of a bright counterpart at other wavelengths, including X-ray, submillimetre and radio, supports the interpretation of AT2022cmc as a jetted TDE containing a synchrotron ‘afterglow’, probably launched by a supermassive black hole with spin greater than approximately 0.3. Using four years of Zwicky Transient Facility10 survey data, we calculate a rate of $$0.0{2}_{-0.01}^{+0.04}$$ Gpc−3 yr−1 for on-axis jetted TDEs on the basis of the luminous, fast-fading red component, thus providing a measurement complementary to the rates derived from X-ray and radio observations11. Correcting for the beaming angle effects, this rate confirms that approximately 1 per cent of TDEs have relativistic jets. Optical surveys can use AT2022cmc as a prototype to unveil a population of jetted TDEs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

## Access options

\$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

## Data availability

Photometry and spectroscopy of AT2022cmc will be made available via the WISeREP public database at https://www.wiserep.org/object/21988. Facilities that make all their data available in public archives, either promptly or after a proprietary period, include: Very Large Telescope, Very Large Array, Liverpool Telescope, Blanco Telescope, W. M. Keck Observatory, Gemini Observatory, Palomar 48-inch/ZTF, the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer, and the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory. Data from the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System were obtained from a public source.

## Code availability

The ZTFReST12,37 code is publicly available. Upon request, the corresponding author will provide the code (primarily in Python) used to produce the figures.

## References

1. Rees, M. J. Tidal disruption of stars by black holes of 106–108 solar masses in nearby galaxies. Nature 333, 523–528 (1988).

2. Bloom, J. S. et al. A possible relativistic jetted outburst from a massive black hole fed by a tidally disrupted star. Science 333, 203–206 (2011).

3. Burrows, D. N. et al. Relativistic jet activity from the tidal disruption of a star by a massive black hole. Nature 476, 421–424 (2011).

4. Levan, A. J. et al. An extremely luminous panchromatic outburst from the nucleus of a distant galaxy. Science 333, 199–202 (2011).

5. Zauderer, B. A. et al. Birth of a relativistic outflow in the unusual γ-ray transient Swift J164449.3+573451. Nature 476, 425–428 (2011).

6. Cenko, S. B. et al. Swift J2058.4+0516: discovery of a possible second relativistic tidal disruption flare? Astrophys. J. 753, 77 (2012).

7. Brown, G. C. et al. Swift J1112.2-8238: a candidate relativistic tidal disruption flare. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452, 4297–4306 (2015).

8. Pasham, D. R. et al. A multiwavelength study of the relativistic tidal disruption candidate Swift J2058.4+0516 at late times. Astrophys. J. 805, 68 (2015).

9. Yuan, Q., Wang, Q. D., Lei, W.-H., Gao, H. & Zhang, B. Catching jetted tidal disruption events early in millimetre. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 3375–3384 (2016).

10. Graham, M. J. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: science objectives. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 078001 (2019).

11. Sun, H., Zhang, B. & Li, Z. Extragalactic high-energy transients: event rate densities and luminosity functions. Astrophys. J. 812, 33 (2015).

12. Andreoni, I. et al. Fast-transient searches in real time with ZTFReST: identification of three optically discovered gamma-ray burst afterglows and new constraints on the kilonova rate. Astrophys. J. 918, 63 (2021).

13. Pasham, D., Gendreau, K., Arzoumanian, Z. & Cenko, B. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: NICER X-ray detection. GCN Circ. 31601, 1 (2022).

14. Perley, D. A. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: VLA radio detection. GCN Circ. 31592, 1 (2022).

15. Perley, D. A., Ho, A. Y. Q., Petitpas, G. & Keating, G. ZTF22aaajecb/AT2022cmc: submillimeter array detection. GCN Circ. 31627, 1 (2022).

16. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); erratum 652, C4 (2021).

17. Tanvir, N. R. et al. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: VLT/X-shooter redshift. GCN Circ. 31602, 1 (2022).

18. Gal-Yam, A. Observational and physical classification of supernovae. In Handbook of Supernovae (eds. Alsabti, A. W. & Murdin, P.) 195–237 (Springer, 2017).

19. Lu, W. & Bonnerot, C. Self-intersection of the fallback stream in tidal disruption events. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492, 686–707 (2020).

20. Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 179, 433–456 (1977).

21. Pasham, D. et al. High-cadence NICER X-ray observations of AT2022cmc/ZTF22aaajecpc: flux variability and spectral evolution suggest it could be a relativistic tidal disruption event. Astron. Telegr. 15232, 1 (2022).

22. Yao, Y., Pasham, D. R. & Gendreau, K. C. NuSTAR observation of AT2022cmc, and joint spectral fitting with NICER. Astron. Telegr. 15230, 1 (2022).

23. Tchekhovskoy, A., Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D. & Kelley, L. Z. Swift J1644+57 gone MAD: the case for dynamically important magnetic flux threading the black hole in a jetted tidal disruption event. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, 2744–2760 (2014).

24. Kumar, P. & Zhang, B. The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets. Phys. Reports 561, 1–109 (2015).

25. Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & Miller, M. C. A unified model for tidal disruption events. Astrophys. J. Lett. 859, L20 (2018).

26. Bonnerot, C., Lu, W. & Hopkins, P. F. First light from tidal disruption events. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 4885–4905 (2021).

27. Mattila, S. et al. A dust-enshrouded tidal disruption event with a resolved radio jet in a galaxy merger. Science 361, 482–485 (2018).

28. Stone, N. C. et al. Rates of stellar tidal disruption. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 35 (2020).

29. De Colle, F. & Lu, W. Jets from tidal disruption events. New Astron. Rev. 89, 101538 (2020).

30. Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A. & Zauderer, B. A. Radio properties of tidal disruption events. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 81 (2020).

31. Hammerstein, E. et al. The final season reimagined: 30 tidal disruption events from the ZTF-I Survey. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01461 (2022).

32. Aasi, J. et al. Advanced LIGO. Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 074001 (2015).

33. Acernese, F. et al. Advanced Virgo. Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 024001 (2015).

34. Aartsen, M. et al. The IceCube neutrino observatory: instrumentation and online systems. J. Instrum. 12, P03012–P03012 (2017).

35. Bellm, E. C. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: system overview, performance, and first results. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 018002 (2019).

36. Ivezić, Ž. et al. LSST: from science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products. Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019).

37. Andreoni, I. & Coughlin, M. growth-astro/ztfrest: ztfrest. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6827348 (2022).

38. Yao, Y. et al. ZTF early observations of type Ia supernovae. I. Properties of the 2018 sample. Astrophys. J. 886, 152 (2019).

39. Andreoni, I. ZTF Transient Discovery Report for 2022-02-14. Report No. 2022-397 (Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022); https://wis-tns.org/object/2022cmc/discovery-cert

40. Metzger, B. D. Kilonovae. Living Rev. Relativ. 23, 1 (2019).

41. Coulter, D. A. et al. Swope Supernova Survey 2017a (SSS17a), the optical counterpart to a gravitational wave source. Science 358, 1556–1558 (2017).

42. Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).

43. Prentice, S. J. et al. The Cow: discovery of a luminous, hot, and rapidly evolving transient. Astrophys. J. Lett. 865, L3 (2018).

44. Perley, D. A. et al. The fast, luminous ultraviolet transient AT2018cow: extreme supernova, or disruption of a star by an intermediate-mass black hole? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 1031–1049 (2019).

45. Margutti, R. et al. An embedded X-ray source shines through the aspherical AT2018cow: revealing the inner workings of the most luminous fast-evolving optical transients. Astrophys. J. 872, 18 (2019).

46. Coppejans, D. L. et al. A mildly relativistic outflow from the energetic, fast-rising blue optical transient CSS161010 in a dwarf galaxy. Astrophys. J. Lett. 895, L23 (2020).

47. Ho, A. Y. Q. et al. The Koala: a fast blue optical transient with luminous radio emission from a starburst dwarf galaxy at z = 0.27. Astrophys. J. 895, 49 (2020).

48. Perley, D. A. et al. Real-time discovery of AT2020xnd: a fast, luminous ultraviolet transient with minimal radioactive ejecta. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 5138–5147 (2021).

49. Yao, Y. et al. The X-ray and radio loud fast blue optical transient AT2020mrf: implications for an emerging class of engine-driven massive star explosions. Astrophys. J. 934, 104 (2022).

50. Ho, A. Y. Q. et al. AT2018cow: a luminous millimeter transient. Astrophys. J. 871, 73 (2019).

51. Ho, A. Y. Q. et al. Luminous millimeter, radio, and X-ray emission from ZTF 20acigmel (AT 2020xnd). Astrophys. J. 932, 116 (2022).

52. Quataert, E. & Kasen, D. Swift 1644+57: the longest gamma-ray burst? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 419, L1–L5 (2012).

53. Sheth, K. et al. Millimeter observations of GRB 030329: continued evidence for a two-component jet. Astrophys. J. 595, L33–L36 (2003).

54. Laskar, T. et al. First ALMA light curve constrains refreshed reverse shocks and jet magnetization in GRB 161219B. Astrophys. J. 862, 94 (2018).

55. Laskar, T. et al. A reverse shock in GRB 181201A. Astrophys. J. 884, 121 (2019).

56. Perley, D. A. et al. The afterglow of GRB 130427A from 1 to 1016 GHz. Astrophys. J. 781, 37 (2014).

57. de Ugarte Postigo, A. et al. Pre-ALMA observations of GRBs in the mm/submm range. Astron. Astrophys. 538, A44 (2012).

58. Kulkarni, S. R. et al. Radio emission from the unusual supernova 1998bw and its association with the γ-ray burst of 25 April 1998. Nature 395, 663–669 (1998).

59. Perley, D. A., Schulze, S. & de Ugarte Postigo, A. GRB 171205A: ALMA observations. GCN Circ. 22252, 1 (2017).

60. Weiler, K. W. et al. Long-term radio monitoring of SN 1993J. Astrophys. J. 671, 1959–1980 (2007).

61. Maeda, K. et al. The final months of massive star evolution from the circumstellar environment around SN Ic 2020oi. Astrophys. J. 918, 34 (2021).

62. Horesh, A. et al. An early and comprehensive millimetre and centimetre wave and X-ray study of SN 2011dh: a non-equipartition blast wave expanding into a massive stellar wind. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 436, 1258–1267 (2013).

63. Corsi, A. et al. A multi-wavelength investigation of the radio-loud supernova PTF11qcj and its circumstellar environment. Astrophys. J. 782, 42 (2014).

64. Soderberg, A. M. et al. A relativistic type Ibc supernova without a detected γ-ray burst. Nature 463, 513–515 (2010).

65. Kann, D. A., Klose, S. & Zeh, A. Signatures of extragalactic dust in pre-Swift GRB afterglows. Astrophys. J. 641, 993–1009 (2006).

66. Kann, D. A. et al. The afterglows of Swift-era gamma-ray bursts. I. Comparing pre-Swift and Swift-era long/soft (type II) GRB optical afterglows. Astrophys. J. 720, 1513–1558 (2010).

67. Kann, D. A. et al. The afterglows of Swift-era gamma-ray bursts. II. Type I GRB versus type II GRB optical afterglows. Astrophys. J. 734, 96 (2011).

68. Strubbe, L. E. & Quataert, E. Optical flares from the tidal disruption of stars by massive black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 400, 2070–2084 (2009).

69. Shiokawa, H., Krolik, J. H., Cheng, R. M., Piran, T. & Noble, S. C. General relativistic hydrodynamic simulation of accretion flow from a stellar tidal disruption. Astrophys. J. 804, 85 (2015).

70. Hayasaki, K., Stone, N. & Loeb, A. Circularization of tidally disrupted stars around spinning supermassive black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 3760–3780 (2016).

71. Bonnerot, C., Rossi, E. M., Lodato, G. & Price, D. J. Disc formation from tidal disruptions of stars on eccentric orbits by Schwarzschild black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 2253–2266 (2016).

72. Metzger, B. D. & Stone, N. C. A bright year for tidal disruptions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 948–966 (2016).

73. Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D. & Mimica, P. Afterglow model for the radio emission from the jetted tidal disruption candidate Swift J1644+57. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 420, 3528–3537 (2012).

74. Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R. & McKinney, J. C. Black hole spin and the radio loud/quiet dichotomy of active galactic nuclei. Astrophys. J. 711, 50–63 (2010).

75. Law-Smith, J. A. P., Coulter, D. A., Guillochon, J., Mockler, B. & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. Stellar tidal disruption events with abundances and realistic structures (STARS): library of fallback rates. Astrophys. J. 905, 141 (2020).

76. Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M. & Davis, S. W. Super-Eddington accretion disks around supermassive black holes. Astrophys. J. 880, 67 (2019).

77. de Ugarte Postigo, A. et al. The distribution of equivalent widths in long GRB afterglow spectra. Astron. Astrophys. 548, A11 (2012).

78. Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R. & Djorgovski, S. G. The observed offset distribution of gamma-ray bursts from their host galaxies: a robust clue to the nature of the Progenitors. Astron. J. 123, 1111–1148 (2002).

79. Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E. & Fong, W.-F. The offset and host light distributions of long gamma-ray bursts: a new view from HST observations of Swift bursts. Astrophys. J. 817, 144 (2016).

80. Burrows, D. N. et al. The Swift X-Ray Telescope. Space Sci. Rev. 120, 165–195 (2005).

81. Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C. & Speagle, J. S. Stellar population inference with Prospector. Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser. 254, 22 (2021).

82. Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E. & White, M. The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling. I. The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the initial mass function to the derived physical properties of galaxies. Astrophys. J. 699, 486–506 (2009).

83. Foreman-Mackey, D., Sick, J. & Johnson, B. python-fsps: Python bindings to FSPS (v0.1.1). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12157 (2014).

84. Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C. & Johnson, B. D. Nebular continuum and line emission in stellar population synthesis models. Astrophys. J. 840, 44 (2017).

85. Chabrier, G. Galactic stellar and substellar initial mass function. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 115, 763–795 (2003).

86. Calzetti, D. et al. The dust content and opacity of actively star-forming galaxies. Astrophys. J. 533, 682–695 (2000).

87. Schulze, S. et al. The Palomar Transient Factory Core-collapse Supernova Host-galaxy Sample. I. Host-galaxy distribution functions and environment dependence of core-collapse supernovae. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 255, 29 (2021).

88. McConnell, N. J. & Ma, C.-P. Revisiting the scaling relations of black hole masses and host galaxy properties. Astrophys. J. 764, 184 (2013).

89. Kesden, M. Tidal-disruption rate of stars by spinning supermassive black holes. Phys. Rev. D 85, 024037 (2012).

90. Cummings, J. R. et al. GRB 110328A: Swift detection of a burst. GCN Circ. 11823, 1 (2011).

91. Benson, B. A. et al. SPT-3G: a next-generation cosmic microwave background polarization experiment on the South Pole telescope. In Proc. SPIE 9153: Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII (eds Holland, W. S. & Zmuidzinas, J.) 91531P (SPIE, 2014).

92. Abazajian, K. et al. CMB-S4 science case, reference design, and project plan. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04473 (2019).

93. Guns, S. et al. Detection of galactic and extragalactic millimeter-wavelength transient sources with SPT-3G. Astrophys. J. 916, 98 (2021).

94. Eftekhari, T. et al. Extragalactic millimeter transients in the era of next-generation CMB surveys. Astrophys. J. 935, 16 (2022).

95. Feindt, U. et al. simsurvey: estimating transient discovery rates for the Zwicky Transient Facility. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2019, 005 (2019).

96. Andreoni, I. et al. Constraining the kilonova rate with Zwicky Transient Facility searches independent of gravitational wave and short gamma-ray burst triggers. Astrophys. J. 904, 155 (2020).

97. Buchner, J. et al. X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue. Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014).

98. Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P. & Bridges, M. Multinest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 1601–1614 (2009).

99. Feroz, F. & Hobson, M. P. Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to MCMC methods for astronomical data analysis. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 384, 449 (2008).

100. Bellm, E. C. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: surveys and scheduler. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 068003 (2019).

101. Dekany, R. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: observing system. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 132, 038001 (2020).

102. Masci, F. J. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: data processing, products, and archive. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 018003 (2019).

103. Steele, I. A. et al. The Liverpool Telescope: performance and first results. In Proc. SPIE 5489: Ground-based Telescopes (ed. Oschmann, J. M. Jr.) 679-692 (SPIE, 2004).

104. Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J. & Wrobel, J. M. The Expanded Very Large Array: a new telescope for new science. Astrophys. J. Lett. 739, L1 (2011).

105. Holland, W. S. et al. SCUBA-2: the 10 000 pixel bolometer camera on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 430, 2513–2533 (2013).

106. Currie, M. J. et al. Starlink Software in 2013. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII (eds Manset, N. & Forshay, P.) 391–394 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2014).

107. Chapin, E. L. et al. SCUBA-2: iterative map-making with the Sub-Millimetre User Reduction Facility. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 430, 2545–2573 (2013).

108. Mairs, S. et al. A decade of SCUBA-2: a comprehensive guide to calibrating 450 μm and 850 μm continuum data at the JCMT. Astron. J. 162, 191 (2021).

109. Smith, I. A., Perley, D. A. & Tanvir, N. R. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: JCMT SCUBA-2 sub-mm observations. GCN Circ. 31654 (2022).

110. McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W. & Golap, K. CASA architecture and applications. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI (eds Shaw, R. A. et al.) 127 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2007).

111. Maity, B. & Chandra, P. 1000 days of the lowest-frequency emission from the low-luminosity GRB 171205A. Astrophys. J. 907, 60 (2021).

112. McCully, C. & Tewes, M. Astro-SCRAPPY: Speedy Cosmic Ray Annihilation Package in Python. Github https://github.com/astropy/astroscrappy (2019).

113. Bertin, E. SWarp: resampling and co-adding FITS images together. Astrophys. Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1010.068 (2010).

114. Chambers, K. C. et al. The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560 (2016).

115. Flaugher, B. et al. The Dark Energy Camera. Astron. J. 150, 150 (2015).

116. Valdes, F., Gruendl, R. & DES Project. The DECam Community Pipeline. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII (eds Manset, N. & Forshay, P.) 379–382 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2014).

117. Rest, A. et al. Cosmological constraints from measurements of type Ia supernovae discovered during the first 1.5 yr of the Pan-STARRS1 Survey. Astrophys. J. 795, 44 (2014).

118. Xavier Prochaska, J. et al. pypeit/Pypeit: release 1.0.0. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/3743493 (2020).

119. Cenko, S. B. et al. The Automated Palomar 60 Inch Telescope. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 118, 1396–1406 (2006).

120. Blagorodnova, N. et al. The SED Machine: a robotic spectrograph for fast transient classification. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 035003 (2018).

121. Rigault, M. et al. Fully automated integral field spectrograph pipeline for the SEDMachine: pysedm. Astron. Astrophys. 627, A115 (2019).

122. Fremling, C. et al. PTF12os and iPTF13bvn. Astron. Astrophys. 593, A68 (2016).

123. Ahn, C. P. et al. The Tenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: first spectroscopic data from the SDSS-III Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 211, 17 (2014).

124. Tonry, J. L. et al. ATLAS: a high-cadence all-sky survey system. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 064505 (2018).

125. Smith, K. W. et al. Design and operation of the ATLAS transient science server. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 132, 085002 (2020).

126. Vernet, J. et al. X-shooter, the new wide band intermediate resolution spectrograph at the ESO Very Large Telescope. Astron. Astrophys. 536, A105 (2011).

127. Modigliani, A. et al. The X-shooter pipeline. In Proc. SPIE 7737: Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III (eds Silva, D. R. et al.) 773728 (SPIE, 2010).

128. Selsing, J. et al. The X-shooter GRB afterglow legacy sample (XS-GRB). Astron. Astrophys. 623, A92 (2019).

129. Garzón, F. et al. EMIR: the GTC NIR multi-object imager-spectrograph. In Proc. SPIE 6269: Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy (eds McLean, I. S. & Iye, M.) 626918 (SPIE, 2006).

130. Kann, D. A. et al. ZTF22aaajecp/AT 2022cmc: CAHA 2.2m/CAFOS detection, luminous transient. GCN Circ. 31626, 1 (2022).

131. Prochaska, J. et al. PypeIt: the Python spectroscopic data reduction pipeline. J. Open Source Softw. 5, 2308 (2020).

132. Lundquist, M. J., Alvarez, C. A. & O’Meara, J. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: Keck DEIMOS redshift. GCN Circ. 31612, 1 (2022).

133. Perley, D. A. Fully automated reduction of longslit spectroscopy with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer at the Keck Observatory. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 084503 (2019).

134. Labrie, K., Cardenes, R., Anderson, K., Simpson, C. & Turner, J. E. H. DRAGONS: one pipeline to rule them all. In Proc. SPIE 522: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII (eds Ballester, P. et al.) 583–586 (SPIE, 2020).

135. Ahumada, T. et al. ZTF22aaajecp/AT2022cmc: GMOS-N spectroscopy. GCN Circ. 31595, 1 (2022).

136. Roming, P. W. A. et al. The Swift Ultra-Violet/Optical Telescope. Space Sci. Rev. 120, 95–142 (2005).

137. Cash, W. Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio. Astrophys. J. 228, 939–947 (1979).

138. Gendreau, K. C. et al. The Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER): design and development. In Proc. SPIE 9905: Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray (eds den Herder, J.-W. A. et al.) 99051H (SPIE, 2016).

139. Pasham, D. R. et al. The birth of a relativistic jet following the disruption of a star by a cosmological black hole. Nat. Astron. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x (2022).

140. Remillard, R. A. et al. An empirical background model for the NICER X-Ray Timing Instrument. Astron. J. 163, 130 (2022).

141. HI4PI Collaboration. HI4PI: a full-sky H i survey based on EBHIS and GASS. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A116 (2016).

142. Wiersema, K. et al. Polarimetry of the transient relativistic jet of GRB 110328/Swift J164449.3+573451. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 421, 1942–1948 (2012).

143. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2013 results. XI. All-sky model of thermal dust emission. Astron. Astrophys. 571, A11 (2014).

144. Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., Margutti, R. & Alexander, K. D. Radio monitoring of the tidal disruption event Swift J164449.3+573451. III. Late-time jet energetics and a deviation from equipartition. Astrophys. J. 854, 86 (2018).

145. Fremling, C. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility Bright Transient Survey. I. Spectroscopic classification and the redshift completeness of local galaxy catalogs. Astrophys. J. 895, 32 (2020).

146. Perley, D. A. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility Bright Transient Survey. II. A public statistical sample for exploring supernova demographics. Astrophys. J. 904, 35 (2020).

147. Ho, A. Y. Q. et al. The photometric and spectroscopic evolution of rapidly evolving extragalactic transients in ZTF. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08811 (2021).

148. Ho, A. Y. Q. et al. Cosmological fast optical transients with the Zwicky Transient Facility: a search for dirty fireballs. Astrophys. J. 938, 85 (2022).

149. Cenko, S. B. et al. iPTF14yb: the first discovery of a gamma-ray burst afterglow independent of a high-energy trigger. Astrophys. J. Lett. 803, L24 (2015).

150. Cowperthwaite, P. S. et al. The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. II. UV, optical, and near-infrared light curves and comparison to kilonova models. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L17 (2017).

151. Kasliwal, M. M. et al. Illuminating gravitational waves: a concordant picture of photons from a neutron star merger. Science 358, 1559–1565 (2017).

152. Drout, M. R. et al. Light curves of the neutron star merger GW170817/SSS17a: implications for r-process nucleosynthesis. Science 358, 1570–1574 (2017).

153. Villar, V. A., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D. & Guillochon, J. Theoretical models of optical transients. I. A broad exploration of the duration–luminosity phase space. Astrophys. J. 849, 70 (2017).

## Author information

Authors

### Contributions

All the authors contributed to the scientific interpretation of the source and reviewed the manuscript. I.A. and M.W.C. discovered the source, led the follow-up observations and were the primary writers of the manuscript. D.A.P. conducted radio and submillimetre data acquisition and analysis, LT data acquisition and analysis, and contributed significantly to the source analysis. Y.Y. conducted the X-ray and ultraviolet data analysis. W.L. led the theoretical modelling of the source. A.Y.Q.H., R.A.P., K.P.M., G.C.A., S.B., P. Chandra, N.T., I.A.S., M. Bremer, M.K., A.J.N. and G.P. conducted radio and submillimetre data acquisition and analysis. M.M.K. is a ZTF science group leader, contributed to the source follow-up and interpretation. S.R.K. contributed to the paper writing. S.B.C. was PI for the HST observations and conducted photometric data analysis. S.A., T.A., C.F., V.R.K., K.K.D., J.v.R., M.J.G., A.C.R. and M.J.L. conducted optical and near infrared follow-up observations and data analysis with Keck and P200 telescopes. A.R., C.D.K., J.F. and F.V. conducted DECam observations, data processing and analysis. J.Z., J.C., D.D., A.M., S. Goode, K.A. and R.R.-H. conducted DECam observations. Q.W. conducted the ATLAS data analysis. E.H., S. Gezari, M. Bulla, M.C.M. and J.S.B. contributed to the source interpretation. J.S. conducted follow-up observations with NOT and P60. P. Charalampopoulos, G.L., M.P. and E.P. conducted follow-up observations with NOT. S.S. conducted follow-up observations with multiple telescopes and led analysis on the host limits. A.S.-C. worked on optical rate calculations. J.J.S. and V.R. worked on radio rate calculations. L.I., V.D., S.D.V., A.L. and N.T. conducted VLT spectroscopic observations and data analysis. S.C. conducted Swift XRT data analysis. A.d.U.P. conducted near-infrared observations, photometry and spectroscopic line strength analysis. C.T. and J.F.A.F. conducted near-infrared observations with GTC. D.A.K. provided GRB light curves and significantly contributed to the data analysis. H.K. and V.B. conducted GIT observations and data analysis. E.B. conducted searches for γ-ray counterparts to the transient. R.D.S. contributed to the multi-messenger interpretation of the transient. P.T.H.P. conducted the Bayesian optical light curve analysis. D.L.K. contributed to the source interpretation and thoroughly reviewed the paper. R.R., B.R., R.R.L., A.A.M., M.S.M., E.C.B., G.N., Y.S., M.R. and E.C.K. are ZTF and Fritz marshal builders. A.T. simulated the Swift GRB detection analysis.

### Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Igor Andreoni or Michael W. Coughlin.

## Ethics declarations

### Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

## Peer review

### Peer review information

Nature thanks Kimitake Hayasaki and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Extended data figures and tables

### Extended Data Fig. 1 Time-dependent long-wavelength spectral evolution of AT2022cmc from observations with the VLA, NOEMA, SMA, JCMT, and ATCA.

a, Co-eval energy distributions for AT2022cmc. Measurements are shown as circles with error bars (a 10% systematic component has been included) colour-coded by observation epoch. A synchrotron broken power-law model has been fit to the data assuming a spectral index (Fννα) of α = +2 at low frequencies (ν < νa), α = 1/3 at mid-frequencies (νa < ν < νm), and α = −1 at high frequencies (νm < ν). For the SEDs at 7.0, 11.6, 20.4 and 45.3 days (observer-frame) the model is fit with all parameters free to vary; for the remaining epoch the break frequencies are fixed based on a plausible extrapolation/interpolation of the other epochs and only the flux scale is fit. b, Evolution of the spectral break frequencies. Larger circles with error bars show measured break frequencies; the remaining points are interpolated. c, Light curves at 9.5, 102 and 235 GHz with predictions of the interpolated SED model overplotted. (Unfilled circles show additional measurements not used in the co-eval SEDs.) The general evolution of the SED and light curve are very similar to what was seen in Swift J1644144, with a low-frequency SED that remains self-absorbed out to late times.

### Extended Data Fig. 2 Duration and luminosity of optical transients compared to AT2022cmc.

Optical transients include superluminous supernovae (SNe) (SLSN), Type Ia SNe (SN Ia), core-collapse SNe145,146,147, luminous fast blue optical transients (LFBOTs)43,44,47,48,49,147,148, GRB afterglows 148,149 and the kilonova AT2017gfo41,150,151,152,153.

### Extended Data Fig. 3 Line strength diagram.

The diagram compares the equivalent widths (EWs) of the absorption features measured in the X-shooter spectrum of AT2022cmc (in red) with a sample of GRB afterglow spectra. The thick black line marks the average strength of the sample and the dotted lines the standard deviation in log-normal space. The shaded features are those for which we cannot provide reliable measurements because they fall outside the spectral range of our data, or because they are in a region of the spectrum affected by a very low signal to noise ratio or by telluric features. The features seen in the line of sight of AT2022cmc have very similar strength as those of a typical GRB. LSP, line strength parameter.

### Extended Data Fig. 4 Marginalized histograms for the optical light curve modelling.

The modelling is discussed in Methods section ‘Optical light curve modelling’. The parameter estimates given correspond to median and 90% Bayesian credible intervals, as marked by the blue dashed vertical and horizontal lines. The best-fit (maximum likelihood) parameters are marked with the orange lines. The 68% (95%) credible regions are coloured in dark (light) blue.

### Extended Data Fig. 5 Distribution of the peak absolute magnitudes (r-band) for a population of TDEs31.

Featureless TDEs are consistently brighter than TDEs that show broad features in their optical spectra. The absolute magnitude of AT2022cmc when the slow/blue component dominates falls in the ballpark of featureless TDE peak luminosities, which supports a possible connection between TDEs with relativistic jets and the class of featureless TDEs.

### Extended Data Fig. 6 Evolution of the power-law photon index ΓX in the first seven XRT observations.

All measurements are consistent with the best-fit ΓX in the first NICER observation (Methods section ‘Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer’), as marked by the horizontal dotted line.

## Supplementary information

### Supplementary Table 1

Infrared/optical/ultraviolet photometry. The values are not corrected for the Galactic extinction. The second column reports the rest frame time from the first ZTF detection.

### Supplementary Table 2

Radio observations. Δt is observer-frame days since the first ZTF detection epoch, calculated at the observation midpoint. ν indicates the central frequency.

## Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M.W., Perley, D.A. et al. A very luminous jet from the disruption of a star by a massive black hole. Nature 612, 430–434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

• Accepted:

• Published:

• Issue Date:

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.