On what timescale does gravitational wave emission circularise an orbit?












6












$begingroup$


Gravitational waves remove both energy and angular momentum from a binary orbit. Both rates are enhanced in non-circular (eccentric) orbits and I presume that (like tidal friction) the net effect will be to circularise the orbits over time.



But is there a handy formula for the circularisation timescale and is it always (or never?) shorter than the timescale for merger?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Gravitational waves remove both energy and angular momentum from a binary orbit. Both rates are enhanced in non-circular (eccentric) orbits and I presume that (like tidal friction) the net effect will be to circularise the orbits over time.



    But is there a handy formula for the circularisation timescale and is it always (or never?) shorter than the timescale for merger?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Gravitational waves remove both energy and angular momentum from a binary orbit. Both rates are enhanced in non-circular (eccentric) orbits and I presume that (like tidal friction) the net effect will be to circularise the orbits over time.



      But is there a handy formula for the circularisation timescale and is it always (or never?) shorter than the timescale for merger?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Gravitational waves remove both energy and angular momentum from a binary orbit. Both rates are enhanced in non-circular (eccentric) orbits and I presume that (like tidal friction) the net effect will be to circularise the orbits over time.



      But is there a handy formula for the circularisation timescale and is it always (or never?) shorter than the timescale for merger?







      general-relativity orbital-motion gravitational-waves binary-stars






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Feb 2 at 14:06









      Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries

      68.6k7138233




      68.6k7138233






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          I have not seen any nice formula in the literature yet. There are some with baroque rational powers, though. At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough.



          Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. (1963). Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1), 435. gives a formula for the average power loss over one period of a Keplerian orbit as $$langle P rangle = frac{32}{5}frac{G^4}{c^5}frac{m_1^2m_2^2(m_1+m_2)}{a^5(1-e^2)^{7/2}}left(1+frac{73}{24}e^2+frac{37}{96}e^4right ),$$ noting that it is equivalent to the standard circular orbit formula multiplied by an enhancement factor of $$f(e)=frac{1+(73/24)e^2+(37/96)e^4}{(1-e^2)^{7/2}}.$$ where $f(0.6)sim 10, f(0.8)sim 100, f(0.9)sim 1000$. So we should expect circularisation to happen on a timescale less than $1/f(e)$ of the normal energy loss timescale.



          Peters then went on analysing the decay rate of eccentricity over time in Peters, P. C. (1964). Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Physical Review, 136(4B), B1224 as $$leftlangle frac{de}{dt}rightrangle = -frac{304}{15}frac{G^2}{c^5}frac{m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)}{a^4(1-c^2)^{5/2}}eleft(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right)$$ which can be combined with his expression for $langle da/dtrangle$ to get an equation for $langle da/derangle$ and $$a(e)=frac{c_0 e^{12/19}}{1-e^2}left (1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{870/2299}$$ where $c_0$ is determined by the initial condition.



          enter image description here



          An eccentric system loses a lot of angular momentum until the eccentricity is $<0.5$ and then things level out - but to get rid of the last few percent eccentricity the semi-major axis has to shrink a lot more.



          Peters then calculates the lifetime for a system starting at $a_0,e_0$ as $$T(a_0,e_0)=frac{12}{19}frac{c_0^4}{beta}int_0^{e_0}frac{e^{29/19}left(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{1181/2299}}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}} de$$ where $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.



          enter image description here



          The result, compared to a circular system, is that initially eccentric systems have lifetimes that actually are shorter roughly like the $f(e)$ factor: they radiate away so much energy by being in eccentric orbits that the reduction in eccentricity doesn't have the time to "take" before final infall.



          However, this is all for point masses. Tidal effects will also allow spin-up and dissipation in actual objects, like in this paper on white dwarfs near black holes. This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with $eleq 0.8$ circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 16:49










          • $begingroup$
            No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 17:13










          • $begingroup$
            I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            Feb 2 at 17:19










          • $begingroup$
            @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 18:38












          • $begingroup$
            @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 19:43











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458444%2fon-what-timescale-does-gravitational-wave-emission-circularise-an-orbit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          I have not seen any nice formula in the literature yet. There are some with baroque rational powers, though. At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough.



          Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. (1963). Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1), 435. gives a formula for the average power loss over one period of a Keplerian orbit as $$langle P rangle = frac{32}{5}frac{G^4}{c^5}frac{m_1^2m_2^2(m_1+m_2)}{a^5(1-e^2)^{7/2}}left(1+frac{73}{24}e^2+frac{37}{96}e^4right ),$$ noting that it is equivalent to the standard circular orbit formula multiplied by an enhancement factor of $$f(e)=frac{1+(73/24)e^2+(37/96)e^4}{(1-e^2)^{7/2}}.$$ where $f(0.6)sim 10, f(0.8)sim 100, f(0.9)sim 1000$. So we should expect circularisation to happen on a timescale less than $1/f(e)$ of the normal energy loss timescale.



          Peters then went on analysing the decay rate of eccentricity over time in Peters, P. C. (1964). Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Physical Review, 136(4B), B1224 as $$leftlangle frac{de}{dt}rightrangle = -frac{304}{15}frac{G^2}{c^5}frac{m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)}{a^4(1-c^2)^{5/2}}eleft(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right)$$ which can be combined with his expression for $langle da/dtrangle$ to get an equation for $langle da/derangle$ and $$a(e)=frac{c_0 e^{12/19}}{1-e^2}left (1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{870/2299}$$ where $c_0$ is determined by the initial condition.



          enter image description here



          An eccentric system loses a lot of angular momentum until the eccentricity is $<0.5$ and then things level out - but to get rid of the last few percent eccentricity the semi-major axis has to shrink a lot more.



          Peters then calculates the lifetime for a system starting at $a_0,e_0$ as $$T(a_0,e_0)=frac{12}{19}frac{c_0^4}{beta}int_0^{e_0}frac{e^{29/19}left(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{1181/2299}}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}} de$$ where $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.



          enter image description here



          The result, compared to a circular system, is that initially eccentric systems have lifetimes that actually are shorter roughly like the $f(e)$ factor: they radiate away so much energy by being in eccentric orbits that the reduction in eccentricity doesn't have the time to "take" before final infall.



          However, this is all for point masses. Tidal effects will also allow spin-up and dissipation in actual objects, like in this paper on white dwarfs near black holes. This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with $eleq 0.8$ circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 16:49










          • $begingroup$
            No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 17:13










          • $begingroup$
            I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            Feb 2 at 17:19










          • $begingroup$
            @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 18:38












          • $begingroup$
            @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 19:43
















          5












          $begingroup$

          I have not seen any nice formula in the literature yet. There are some with baroque rational powers, though. At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough.



          Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. (1963). Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1), 435. gives a formula for the average power loss over one period of a Keplerian orbit as $$langle P rangle = frac{32}{5}frac{G^4}{c^5}frac{m_1^2m_2^2(m_1+m_2)}{a^5(1-e^2)^{7/2}}left(1+frac{73}{24}e^2+frac{37}{96}e^4right ),$$ noting that it is equivalent to the standard circular orbit formula multiplied by an enhancement factor of $$f(e)=frac{1+(73/24)e^2+(37/96)e^4}{(1-e^2)^{7/2}}.$$ where $f(0.6)sim 10, f(0.8)sim 100, f(0.9)sim 1000$. So we should expect circularisation to happen on a timescale less than $1/f(e)$ of the normal energy loss timescale.



          Peters then went on analysing the decay rate of eccentricity over time in Peters, P. C. (1964). Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Physical Review, 136(4B), B1224 as $$leftlangle frac{de}{dt}rightrangle = -frac{304}{15}frac{G^2}{c^5}frac{m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)}{a^4(1-c^2)^{5/2}}eleft(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right)$$ which can be combined with his expression for $langle da/dtrangle$ to get an equation for $langle da/derangle$ and $$a(e)=frac{c_0 e^{12/19}}{1-e^2}left (1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{870/2299}$$ where $c_0$ is determined by the initial condition.



          enter image description here



          An eccentric system loses a lot of angular momentum until the eccentricity is $<0.5$ and then things level out - but to get rid of the last few percent eccentricity the semi-major axis has to shrink a lot more.



          Peters then calculates the lifetime for a system starting at $a_0,e_0$ as $$T(a_0,e_0)=frac{12}{19}frac{c_0^4}{beta}int_0^{e_0}frac{e^{29/19}left(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{1181/2299}}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}} de$$ where $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.



          enter image description here



          The result, compared to a circular system, is that initially eccentric systems have lifetimes that actually are shorter roughly like the $f(e)$ factor: they radiate away so much energy by being in eccentric orbits that the reduction in eccentricity doesn't have the time to "take" before final infall.



          However, this is all for point masses. Tidal effects will also allow spin-up and dissipation in actual objects, like in this paper on white dwarfs near black holes. This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with $eleq 0.8$ circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 16:49










          • $begingroup$
            No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 17:13










          • $begingroup$
            I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            Feb 2 at 17:19










          • $begingroup$
            @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 18:38












          • $begingroup$
            @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 19:43














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          I have not seen any nice formula in the literature yet. There are some with baroque rational powers, though. At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough.



          Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. (1963). Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1), 435. gives a formula for the average power loss over one period of a Keplerian orbit as $$langle P rangle = frac{32}{5}frac{G^4}{c^5}frac{m_1^2m_2^2(m_1+m_2)}{a^5(1-e^2)^{7/2}}left(1+frac{73}{24}e^2+frac{37}{96}e^4right ),$$ noting that it is equivalent to the standard circular orbit formula multiplied by an enhancement factor of $$f(e)=frac{1+(73/24)e^2+(37/96)e^4}{(1-e^2)^{7/2}}.$$ where $f(0.6)sim 10, f(0.8)sim 100, f(0.9)sim 1000$. So we should expect circularisation to happen on a timescale less than $1/f(e)$ of the normal energy loss timescale.



          Peters then went on analysing the decay rate of eccentricity over time in Peters, P. C. (1964). Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Physical Review, 136(4B), B1224 as $$leftlangle frac{de}{dt}rightrangle = -frac{304}{15}frac{G^2}{c^5}frac{m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)}{a^4(1-c^2)^{5/2}}eleft(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right)$$ which can be combined with his expression for $langle da/dtrangle$ to get an equation for $langle da/derangle$ and $$a(e)=frac{c_0 e^{12/19}}{1-e^2}left (1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{870/2299}$$ where $c_0$ is determined by the initial condition.



          enter image description here



          An eccentric system loses a lot of angular momentum until the eccentricity is $<0.5$ and then things level out - but to get rid of the last few percent eccentricity the semi-major axis has to shrink a lot more.



          Peters then calculates the lifetime for a system starting at $a_0,e_0$ as $$T(a_0,e_0)=frac{12}{19}frac{c_0^4}{beta}int_0^{e_0}frac{e^{29/19}left(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{1181/2299}}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}} de$$ where $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.



          enter image description here



          The result, compared to a circular system, is that initially eccentric systems have lifetimes that actually are shorter roughly like the $f(e)$ factor: they radiate away so much energy by being in eccentric orbits that the reduction in eccentricity doesn't have the time to "take" before final infall.



          However, this is all for point masses. Tidal effects will also allow spin-up and dissipation in actual objects, like in this paper on white dwarfs near black holes. This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with $eleq 0.8$ circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I have not seen any nice formula in the literature yet. There are some with baroque rational powers, though. At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough.



          Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. (1963). Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1), 435. gives a formula for the average power loss over one period of a Keplerian orbit as $$langle P rangle = frac{32}{5}frac{G^4}{c^5}frac{m_1^2m_2^2(m_1+m_2)}{a^5(1-e^2)^{7/2}}left(1+frac{73}{24}e^2+frac{37}{96}e^4right ),$$ noting that it is equivalent to the standard circular orbit formula multiplied by an enhancement factor of $$f(e)=frac{1+(73/24)e^2+(37/96)e^4}{(1-e^2)^{7/2}}.$$ where $f(0.6)sim 10, f(0.8)sim 100, f(0.9)sim 1000$. So we should expect circularisation to happen on a timescale less than $1/f(e)$ of the normal energy loss timescale.



          Peters then went on analysing the decay rate of eccentricity over time in Peters, P. C. (1964). Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Physical Review, 136(4B), B1224 as $$leftlangle frac{de}{dt}rightrangle = -frac{304}{15}frac{G^2}{c^5}frac{m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)}{a^4(1-c^2)^{5/2}}eleft(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right)$$ which can be combined with his expression for $langle da/dtrangle$ to get an equation for $langle da/derangle$ and $$a(e)=frac{c_0 e^{12/19}}{1-e^2}left (1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{870/2299}$$ where $c_0$ is determined by the initial condition.



          enter image description here



          An eccentric system loses a lot of angular momentum until the eccentricity is $<0.5$ and then things level out - but to get rid of the last few percent eccentricity the semi-major axis has to shrink a lot more.



          Peters then calculates the lifetime for a system starting at $a_0,e_0$ as $$T(a_0,e_0)=frac{12}{19}frac{c_0^4}{beta}int_0^{e_0}frac{e^{29/19}left(1+frac{121}{304}e^2right )^{1181/2299}}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}} de$$ where $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.



          enter image description here



          The result, compared to a circular system, is that initially eccentric systems have lifetimes that actually are shorter roughly like the $f(e)$ factor: they radiate away so much energy by being in eccentric orbits that the reduction in eccentricity doesn't have the time to "take" before final infall.



          However, this is all for point masses. Tidal effects will also allow spin-up and dissipation in actual objects, like in this paper on white dwarfs near black holes. This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with $eleq 0.8$ circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Feb 2 at 16:40









          Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

          9,29221428




          9,29221428








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 16:49










          • $begingroup$
            No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 17:13










          • $begingroup$
            I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            Feb 2 at 17:19










          • $begingroup$
            @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 18:38












          • $begingroup$
            @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 19:43














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 16:49










          • $begingroup$
            No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 17:13










          • $begingroup$
            I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            Feb 2 at 17:19










          • $begingroup$
            @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
            $endgroup$
            – Ben Crowell
            Feb 2 at 18:38












          • $begingroup$
            @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Feb 2 at 19:43








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
          $endgroup$
          – Ben Crowell
          Feb 2 at 16:49




          $begingroup$
          This is a great answer. One thing is confusing me, though. At the top, you say, "At least for point masses circularisation may not happen fast enough to matter, surprisingly enough." But at the end, you say, " This numerical paper found that black hole pairs in-spiralling over just 9 orbits with e≤0.8 circularised by merger time, so the process looks very fast in the more extreme cases." Isn't this a contradiction?
          $endgroup$
          – Ben Crowell
          Feb 2 at 16:49












          $begingroup$
          No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Feb 2 at 17:13




          $begingroup$
          No, because black holes are not point masses. Peters analyses systems with no internal structure, but the final paragraph is about systems with internal structure (whether degenerate matter or a black hole) that can pick up angular momentum, deform and do other complex things.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Feb 2 at 17:13












          $begingroup$
          I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
          $endgroup$
          – Rob Jeffries
          Feb 2 at 17:19




          $begingroup$
          I'm struggling to interpret Fig 1. Does this mean that if I start with e~0.6, that e shrinks to ~0.02 by the time a has decreased to 0.1 of its initial value?
          $endgroup$
          – Rob Jeffries
          Feb 2 at 17:19












          $begingroup$
          @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
          $endgroup$
          – Ben Crowell
          Feb 2 at 18:38






          $begingroup$
          @AndersSandberg: I see. But if you're not considering a black hole to be a point particle, then what real-world bodies do you consider to be point particles? If you're just talking about test particles, then test particles don't radiate, so it's just trivial that nothing happens.
          $endgroup$
          – Ben Crowell
          Feb 2 at 18:38














          $begingroup$
          @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Feb 2 at 19:43




          $begingroup$
          @BenCrowell - Point particles with mass do radiate since there is a changing inertia tensor. It is likely that this is not a bad approximation for actual objects as long as they are small and rotate slowly compared to the scale of the orbit. While it would be lovely to have expressions for the full case I suspect they cannot be found in a closed form: tidal dissipation tends to be messy.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Feb 2 at 19:43


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458444%2fon-what-timescale-does-gravitational-wave-emission-circularise-an-orbit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to make a Squid Proxy server?

          Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

          Touch on Surface Book