On what timescale does gravitational wave emission circularise an orbit?
$begingroup$
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?
general-relativity orbital-motion gravitational-waves binary-stars
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
general-relativity orbital-motion gravitational-waves binary-stars
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
general-relativity orbital-motion gravitational-waves binary-stars
$endgroup$
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
general-relativity orbital-motion gravitational-waves binary-stars
asked Feb 2 at 14:06
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
68.6k7138233
68.6k7138233
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
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 $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
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 $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
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 $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
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 $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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 $beta=(64/5)(G^4/c^5)m_1m_2(m_1+m_2)$.
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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