Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Eddington limit — where it appears

The luminosity at which radiation pressure on a body's outer layers balances gravity, above which it cannot shine steadily. It is proportional to mass and independent of radius, which is why it also sets the fastest rate at which an accreting object can grow.

Named by 19 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Luminosity against mass, against a slope of 3.5. Main-sequence luminosity against mass, both in solar units, on logarithmic axes, over the range 0.079 to 63 solar masses. The measured curve comes from the eclipsing binaries and is the same in every drawing of it; what changes here is what it is compared against. The dashed line is a pure power law of exponent 3.5, and the curve crosses it rather than following it — the local slope runs from about 2.3 at the bottom of the range, where the interiors are convective, through nearly 4 near a solar mass where bound-free opacity dominates, to about 3 among the massive stars where electron scattering does. Quoting one exponent across the whole sequence is a convenience and the places it fails are the places the interior physics changes. Because the slope is between three and four across most of the range, a small spread in mass becomes an enormous spread in output: the 63-solar-mass end is 3.0e+9 times brighter than the 0.079-solar-mass end.

Mass decides everything, by a power of three and a half

Two stars of the same mass are almost the same star. Double the mass and the output multiplies by eleven — which is why a modest range of masses produces a colossal range of stars.

stars · The mass–luminosity relation Inside a star that is holding itself up (polytrope n = 3). Temperature, density and pressure through a star, as fractions of their central values, against fractional radius. All three come from one numerical integration of the Lane–Emden equation at index 3, which is the hydrostatic balance written for a gas whose pressure is a power of its density. The inner half of the radius holds 90% of the mass, and the outer half is nearly weightless — which is why the load, and so the temperature, is concentrated where the burning is.

A star is held up by its own weight

A star has a central temperature because it has a central pressure, and it has a central pressure because everything above is pressing down. The nuclear reactions do not set that temperature — they obey it.

stars · Hydrostatic equilibrium The main sequence against its own ceiling. Luminosity against mass, in solar units, with the Eddington limit drawn on the same axes. The limit is exactly linear in mass. The main sequence is not — until it is: above about 55 solar masses the relation flattens to a straight proportionality as well, and the two lines then run parallel at a fixed ratio of 83 per cent. They never cross on this range, which is the more interesting outcome: the most massive stars do not approach their limit gradually, they are built at a fixed fraction of it. The Sun, by contrast, radiates 0.0026 per cent of its own ceiling.

A brightness that would blow the star apart

Light pushes. For a star of a given mass there is a luminosity at which the outward push on its own outer layers equals the inward pull of gravity, and it depends on nothing but the mass and the opacity — not on the star's structure, its composition or its age.

stars · Eddington limit The temperature of a disc around a stellar black hole. Effective temperature against radius, in units of the inner edge, for a stellar black hole of 10 solar masses accreting 10⁻⁸ solar masses a year. Two features are structural. The profile turns over rather than rising all the way in: the factor (1 − √(r_in/r)) is the statement that no torque acts across the inner edge, so nothing is dissipated there and the peak sits at 49/36 of it, measured here at 1.361. And outside a few inner radii the run is exactly r^−3/4, drawn as the dashed line, which is what makes a disc's spectrum broad: every decade of radius contributes at a temperature a factor of 5.6 lower. The peak is 3.46·10⁶ K here, so the disc radiates in X-rays, and integrating the whole profile gives 4.72·10³⁰ W — which is GMṀ/2r_in to a per cent, half the binding energy released and no more, because the other half is still going round.

The disc that has to throw angular momentum away

Matter cannot simply fall onto a compact object. At the energy it arrives with, it has far too much angular momentum, and the only way in is for some of it to be carried outwards — which is what a disc is for.

stars · Accretion A spectrum belonging to no temperature at all. The disc's summed emission, with the individual annuli drawn faintly beneath it. Each ring is a blackbody at its own temperature, and each is drawn at the area it actually has — the outer rings are cool and enormous, the inner ones hot and small. The sum has three parts and only the two ends belong to a temperature: a Rayleigh–Jeans rise of slope 2 from the outermost ring, a Wien cutoff at the hottest, and between them a stretch of slope 0.316, against the 1/3 that comes out of integrating ν²T(r)r dr with T ∝ r^−3/4. That middle section is the observational signature of a disc: no single blackbody produces it, no photosphere produces it, and its width rather than its peak is what says how far in the disc goes. What the figure cannot show is that a real disc's innermost rings are neither thin nor blackbodies, which is where the model's clean edges stop.

A spectrum that is a stack of temperatures

An accretion disc is not hot. Its inner edge is, its outer edge is not, and the temperature runs continuously between them as a power of radius — so what leaves the disc is the sum of a great many blackbodies at different temperatures, which is a spectrum with no temperature in it and a slope no single body can produce.

stars · Accretion Two lengths that cross at 1.1·10⁸ solar masses, above which nothing is seen. The radius at which a star of 1 solar radius and 1 solar mass is pulled apart by a black hole, and the hole's own horizon, both against the hole's mass and both on logarithmic axes. The tidal radius is the star's own radius times the cube root of the mass ratio, so it climbs with a slope of one third; the horizon is proportional to the mass, so it climbs with a slope of one. Two lines of different slope cross once, and this pair crosses at 1.14·10⁸ solar masses. Below that the star is torn apart outside the horizon, half of it is thrown out and half falls back, and the fallback is visible for months. Above it the star crosses the horizon while it is still a star, is swallowed whole, and produces no flare at all. The consequence is the reason these events are worth watching: a flare that is seen is an upper limit on the mass of the hole that made it, obtained without resolving anything, and it is the only such limit available for a hole that is not currently accreting.

A flare that puts a ceiling on a mass

A star torn apart by a black hole lights up for a year. The tidal radius grows as the cube root of the hole's mass and the horizon grows as the mass itself, so above about a hundred million suns the star is swallowed whole and nothing is seen — which makes the existence of a flare a measurement.

galaxies · Tidal disruption A wind that writes its own terminal speed on the blue edge, at 2017 km/s. A P Cygni profile, computed by integrating a spherical wind on a grid rather than drawn. The wind accelerates outward as one minus the inverse radius to the power 0.8, reaching 2000 kilometres a second, and its density falls as the inverse square of the radius over its own speed; the horizontal axis is the Doppler shift in units of that terminal speed, with blue to the left. The column directly in front of the stellar disc is moving toward the observer at every speed from nearly nothing near the surface up to the terminal value far out, so it takes light out of the beam across that whole range and the absorption trough runs from the rest wavelength to the blue edge at -1.01 of the terminal speed. That edge is the measurement: no model of the star, its distance or its mass enters it, only the geometry of a column seen end-on. The emission comes from everywhere else, where the wind moves across the line of sight and can only add photons; it is Infinity times stronger to the red than to the blue, because the part of the shell receding directly away is hidden behind the star and its blueshifted counterpart is not. Two features, one shell, and between them a velocity and a mass-loss rate.

A speed read off an edge

A hot star drives material off itself at thousands of kilometres a second, and the profile that wind prints on the star's own spectrum has a sharp blue edge. That edge is the terminal velocity, measured with no model of the star, no distance, and no calibration — one of the few numbers in stellar astrophysics obtained from geometry alone.

starlight · Stellar winds Accretion from a medium a body is moving through, against how fast it moves. The rate at which a gravitating body captures gas out of a medium it is ploughing through, divided by the rate it would capture at rest, against its Mach number, both axes logarithmic. The accretion radius is set by where the body's escape speed matches the speed of the gas relative to it, and that relative speed combines the sound speed with the motion in quadrature; the rate carries the square of that radius times the speed, which leaves one plus the square of the Mach number to the power minus three halves. Subsonic motion therefore costs almost nothing — the curve is flat below Mach one third — while supersonic motion costs the inverse cube of the speed, drawn here with a measured logarithmic slope of -2.99. The same focusing produces the wake and the drag: the body pulls a denser column behind it, that column pulls back, and the material closest to the axis is captured. Accretion and dynamical friction are not two processes but two accounts of one, which is why a body that grows by this mechanism is also being slowed by it.

The wake and the meal are one calculation

A body moving through gas gathers what passes inside the radius at which its escape speed matches the flow. That single radius sets both the drag it feels and the rate at which it grows, so accretion and friction are not two processes but two readings of one — and the rate falls as the inverse cube of the speed.

stars · Accretion A line nothing spun up by accretion can lie above, and the millisecond pulsars beneath it. The period–period-derivative diagram with the spin-up line drawn on it. An accreting neutron star is torqued by the disc until its magnetosphere turns at the same rate as the material arriving there, which fixes an equilibrium period as a function of the magnetic field and the accretion rate. Eliminating the field between that relation and the dipole formula that every point in this diagram is already read through leaves a straight line of slope 1.33, drawn here for accretion at the Eddington rate — the fastest a star can be pushed. The 7 recycled pulsars all sit below it, which is what the figure is for: none of them was spun up faster than the limit allows, and their positions are a record of how much mass each one received rather than of how old it is. The young pulsars are in the opposite corner, above the line and to the right, spinning down from birth. The two populations are not two stages of one life. A star that reaches the bottom left has been fed by a companion for a hundred million years, which is why almost every millisecond pulsar has one and almost no young pulsar does.

A corner of the diagram that has to be earned

A pulsar spinning a thousand times a second cannot have been born that way and stayed that way, because its own radiation would have slowed it in a few million years. It got there by being fed, and the line it cannot lie above is where the accretion torque balances the magnetic one.

stars · Pulsars Lane–Emden solutions for n = 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5, and the one that has no surface. The dimensionless density θ against the dimensionless radius ξ, for polytropic indices 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5. Each curve is the whole structure of a star whose pressure is K times its density to the power 1 + 1/n: the equation of state and hydrostatic equilibrium leave one second-order differential equation, and this is its solution. Every curve starts at θ = 1 with zero slope, because the density is greatest at the centre and has no cusp there. What separates them is where they end. At n = 0 the density is uniform and the surface is at ξ₁ = 2.4495; by n = 3 it has moved out to 6.8968 and the central density is 54.2 times the mean. At n = 5 the curve reaches zero only at infinity — a configuration of infinite radius and, remarkably, finite mass — and every index above it has neither. The three curves that have closed forms, n = 0, 1 and 5, are drawn from the same numerical integration as the rest and agree with those forms to better than two parts in a million, which is what licenses reading the others off the picture. What the figure cannot show is the scale: ξ is radius divided by a length that depends on the central density and on K, so two stars of the same index and wildly different sizes have the same curve here.

An equation of state is already a star

Write down how a gas's pressure depends on its density, insist that the pressure hold the weight up, and everything else follows — the run of density, the fraction of the mass inside each radius, and, at one particular index, a mass that does not care what the radius is.

stars · Polytropes From six gravitational radii to one. The radius of the innermost stable circular orbit against the dimensionless spin a = Jc/GM², in units of GM/c², for orbits prograde and retrograde with the hole's rotation. Both curves are the Bardeen–Press–Teukolsky expression and are checked at the three places it has exact values: 6 at zero spin, and 1 and 9 at the extremal limit. The separation is the observable consequence of frame dragging — space near the hole is itself circulating, so an orbit going the same way can stay closer before it becomes unstable, and one going the other way cannot come as close as a non-rotating hole allows. The prograde branch is required to fall and the retrograde branch to rise at every step drawn, which is a claim about the direction of the effect rather than about its size. The marked spin of 0.998 is not the extremal value but the equilibrium a hole fed by a thin disc actually reaches, because photons emitted by the disc are preferentially captured on retrograde orbits and spin the hole down again. Nothing here depends on what the hole is made of: two numbers fix the whole geometry, and this figure is the first of them holding still while the second moves.

The second number a black hole has

A black hole in equilibrium is described by its mass and its spin, and nothing else. The mass decides how strongly it pulls. The spin decides how much light a kilogram of infalling matter can emit before it disappears — and between the two extremes that figure changes by a factor of seven.

gravitation · Black hole spin An exponent between 2.3 and 4, not a number. The local logarithmic slope of the mass–luminosity relation against mass — the exponent that "L ∝ M^3.5" stands in for — read off the same fit to eclipsing binaries that the relation itself is drawn from. It is a step function with two corners, and the steps are 2.3 below 0.43 M☉, 4 0.43 to 2 M☉, 3.5 2 to 55 M☉. The horizontal lines are what homology predicts: a star in radiative equilibrium has L ∝ μ⁴M³/κ̄, which gives an exponent of 3 when the opacity is electron scattering and a constant, 5.5 when it is Kramers and depends on density and temperature, and 1 where radiation pressure holds the star up and the luminosity is pinned to the Eddington value. The measured steps sit between those predictions rather than on them, which is what a real star does — no star is homologous, the low-mass ones are convective throughout and the heavy ones have convective cores, and the fitted exponents are what is left after all of that. The useful statement is not that the exponent is 3.5 but that it is between 2 and 5 everywhere and 4 in the middle, and that the reason it moves is a change of which opacity is carrying the energy out.

An exponent that is a slope, not a law

The phrase “L goes as M to the three and a half” stands in for a curve with three straight pieces and two corners. The exponent is 2.3 below half a solar mass, 4 in the middle and falls towards 1 at the top — and each change of exponent is a change in which opacity is carrying the energy out.

stars · The mass–luminosity relation How far the returning debris swings round, against the hole's mass. The relativistic advance of pericentre, per orbit, of the most bound debris from a disrupted star of 1 solar radius and 1 solar mass, passing at the tidal radius, against the hole's mass. Δω = 6π GM / c² a(1 − e²), and for these nearly parabolic orbits a(1 − e²) is about twice the pericentre, so the angle is set by how many gravitational radii the pericentre is — and that falls as the mass to the minus two thirds, because the tidal radius grows as the cube root of the mass while the gravitational radius grows as the mass. At 10⁵ solar masses the pericentre is 219 gravitational radii and the stream swings round by 2.5°; at 10⁶ solar masses the pericentre is 47 gravitational radii and the stream swings round by 11.6°; at 10⁷ solar masses the pericentre is 10 gravitational radii and the stream swings round by 53.4°. A light hole barely bends its debris's orbit, and a heavy one bends it by tens of degrees.

The debris that returns fastest lights up last

The debris of a star torn apart by a light black hole comes back within two weeks, in greater excess of what the hole can swallow than for any heavier hole. It should make the promptest flare, and it may make the slowest — because to shine, the returning stream has to crash into itself, and where it does so is decided by how far relativity swings its orbit round. Round a light hole the swing is a few degrees, and the streams meet only near the far end of their orbit, moving slowly.

galaxies · Tidal disruption A thousand times the supply, and eight times the light. The luminosity of an accretion disc, in units of its Eddington luminosity, against the rate at which gas is supplied to it, in units of the rate that would make a thin disc shine at exactly that limit — both on logarithmic axes. Below the limit the luminosity is proportional to the supply, the dashed line, with a tenth of the rest-mass energy radiated. Above it the disc cannot radiate the excess: the luminosity grows only as 1 + ln ṁ, so ten times the supply gives 3.3 times the limit, a hundred times gives 5.6, and a thousand times gives 7.9. The limit is a ceiling that bends rather than breaks — and whatever the supply is doing above it, the light does not say, because the same curve follows whether the surplus is blown away in a wind or carried into the hole.

A ceiling on the light and not on the mass

Pour gas onto a black hole a thousand times faster than the Eddington rate and it shines at only about eight times its limit. The rest of the energy is either blown away or swallowed, and those two fates give the same luminosity while differing by a factor of the supply in how fast the object grows — so the light a super-Eddington source emits cannot say which one it is.

stars · Eddington limit Two critical mass ratios that move with where the mass goes. The logarithmic response of the donor's Roche lobe to its own loss of mass, ζ, against the mass ratio donor over accretor, for conservative transfer (dashed) and for all of the transferred mass lost from the accretor, from the donor and to a ring. The horizontal lines are two donors' own responses: −1/3 for a deep convective envelope, which swells as it is stripped, and +2 for a radiative one, which shrinks. Transfer is stable where the donor's line lies above the lobe's curve, so each crossing is a critical mass ratio — conservatively 0.63 and 1.72. Re-emission from the accretor moves them to 0.96 and 2.25, a wind from the donor to 1.24 and beyond the range drawn; and with everything fed to a ring the convective donor is unstable at every mass ratio drawn and the radiative one only below 0.19. Nothing about the donor has changed between the curves; only the question of where a gram that is not accreted leaves from.

Mass that leaves takes the orbit's spin with it

Most of the gas a star pours onto its companion never stays there. Where it leaves from decides how much angular momentum it carries, and that one bookkeeping entry moves the largest donor that can transfer stably by a factor of two — without anything about either star having changed.

stars · Mass transfer Where relativity overtakes the margin: 306 Schwarzschild radii for 10⁵ solar masses. Two things against the size of a contracting star, measured in its own Schwarzschild radius, on logarithmic axes. The flat lines are the margin by which the star's pressure-weighted adiabatic exponent exceeds 4/3 — the Newtonian condition for stability — for stars of 1000, 10⁴, 10⁵, 10⁶, 10⁷, 10⁸ solar masses with mean molecular weight 0.61; it does not change as the star shrinks, because it is fixed by the gas fraction of the pressure, and it falls with mass from 0.036 to 1.2·10⁻⁴. The diagonal is what general relativity adds to the requirement, 1.1245 × 2GM/(Rc²), which in these units is the same line for every mass. Contraction moves each star leftward along its flat line, and where the line meets the diagonal the star becomes dynamically unstable: at 31, 97, 306, 966, 3,052, 9,649 Schwarzschild radii respectively. Every one of those crossings lies between 31 and 9,649 Schwarzschild radii out, where the star is not remotely compact — the relativistic correction is tiny, and it decides the matter only because the margin it is compared with is tinier.

A star tipped over at a thousand times its horizon

A star of a million suns is held up almost entirely by its own light, which leaves it stable by about a thousandth. General relativity raises the bar by an amount that is tiny until the star is compact, and a thousandth is tiny too — so the star collapses at nearly a thousand times the radius of the black hole it becomes, at a mean density below that of air, and with no fuel yet burning.

stars · Polytropes A field that makes electrons transparent. The electron-scattering cross-section for photons polarised across a strong magnetic field, as a share of the free-electron value, against photon energy, for fields of 10¹², 10¹³, 10¹⁴ gauss, on logarithmic axes. Below the electron cyclotron energy — 12, 116, 1160 keV for these fields — an electron bound to the field can barely respond to a wave whose electric field is perpendicular to it, and the cross-section falls as the square of the ratio of energies. At the 10 keV of these sources' X-rays, a 10¹⁴ gauss field reduces it 13,456-fold. The Eddington limit is written with the free-electron cross-section; in such a field it is the wrong number.

A limit written for free electrons

The Eddington limit says a star cannot shine brighter than the point where its light pushes its own gas away, and the push is calculated for free electrons scattering light. In a magnetic field of a hundred trillion gauss an electron is not free. It is bound to the field, it can barely respond to light polarised across it, and the limit calculated for it is the wrong number by a factor of hundreds — which is one of two ways a neutron star can shine five hundred times brighter than it is supposed to.

stars · Eddington limit The nebula's line, if the source is beamed. The luminosity of the He II 4686 Å line a surrounding nebula would emit, against the source's beaming fraction b, for sources that appear at 10⁴⁰ and 10⁴¹ erg/s to an observer in the beam, with 10% of their true output in photons able to ionise He⁺. The nebula sees the true luminosity, b times the apparent one, so its line falls in proportion to b: a source apparently at 10⁴¹ that is beamed into a hundredth of the sky lights its nebula like an unbeamed source at 10³⁹. Measured He II luminosities of nebulae round ultraluminous sources are 10³⁵ to 10³⁷ erg/s (shaded). On this conversion a source apparently at 10⁴⁰ whose nebula shows a few 10³⁶ needs no beaming at all; one apparently at 10⁴¹ with the same line is beamed into a tenth of the sky or less.

A nebula that cannot be beamed at

An X-ray source a hundred times brighter than a neutron star should be allowed to shine may be lying about its luminosity: if its light leaves through a narrow funnel pointed at the Earth, it looks as bright as a source a hundred times more powerful. A single observer cannot tell. The gas around it can. A nebula surrounding the source is lit from every direction at once and records what the source emits in all of them, and a bubble blown by its wind records the power it has put out over a million years. Each is a calorimeter no beam can fool.

stars · Eddington limit A lifetime that stops getting shorter. Main-sequence lifetime against stellar mass, both logarithmic, from a simple model in which luminosity rises as the 3.8th power of mass until radiation pressure caps it at 40% of the Eddington limit (solid), and without the cap (dashed). The Sun lives 10 billion years, a 10 M☉ star 36 million, a 40 M☉ star 3.2 million, and above about 60 M☉ the lifetime stops falling: 2.7 million at 100 M☉, 3.0 million at 300. Without the cap the steep law would give the heaviest stars lifetimes of tens of thousands of years; with it, every very massive star lives a few million years whatever its mass.

A lifetime that stops getting shorter

A star twice the Sun's mass lives a fifth as long, ten times the mass a few hundredths. Extrapolate the steep law that says so to the most massive stars known, a hundred and fifty or two hundred suns, and they should burn out in a few tens of thousands of years. They do not: every star above about sixty solar masses lives between two and a half and three million years, whatever its mass. Radiation pressure caps how bright a star can be per unit of its mass, and once luminosity and fuel both grow in proportion to mass, the mass cancels out of the lifetime.

stars · Stellar lifetimes

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Accretion discRadiation pressureAccretionHydrostatic equilibriumMain-sequenceRadiative efficiencyAngular momentumElectron scatteringMass luminosity relationSpecific angular momentumAccretion rateBeaming

All concepts