Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Equipotential — where it appears

A surface on which the potential energy of a test mass is constant. In a rotating binary the centrifugal term joins gravity in that potential, and the critical equipotential is the one that pinches to a point between the two stars and decides where matter belongs.

Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The surface a star stops at. The equipotential through L₁ — the Roche lobe — at mass fractions 0.50, 0.20, 0.05, in the frame that rotates with the pair. Each is a level set of exactly the same function the zero-velocity curves are level sets of, at exactly the critical value, so nothing here is a new construction: the Roche lobe is the last closed equipotential, and it is closed only because the two lobes touch at a single point. Material that reaches that point is no longer bound to the star it came from, and it leaves through an opening of zero area. The lobes are drawn in the orbital plane; in three dimensions each is a teardrop, and its volume-equivalent radius is what "the size of a Roche lobe" means. As the mass ratio becomes extreme the smaller star's lobe shrinks towards it, which is why a white dwarf accreting from a companion has a lobe smaller than the Sun.

The surface a star stops at

Around each star of a close pair there is a last closed equipotential, and the two touch at a single point. A star that swells to reach it hands its outer layers to its companion through an opening of zero area — and the transfer, once started, makes itself worse.

gravitation · Lagrange points Two responses to the same transfer, turning round at q = 0.79 and q = 1. What conservative mass transfer does to the orbit and to the lobe, plotted against the mass ratio of donor to accretor on a logarithmic axis. Both curves are logarithmic derivatives with respect to the donor's mass, so a positive value means the quantity shrinks as the donor loses mass and a negative one means it grows. The orbit's response is exactly twice the mass ratio less one, which follows from holding the total mass and the total angular momentum fixed and nothing else, and it crosses zero at equal masses: transfer from the heavier star draws the orbit in, transfer from the lighter one pushes it out. The lobe's response adds to that the change in the lobe's shape, and it crosses zero earlier, at a mass ratio of 0.788. Between those two crossings the orbit is still widening while the lobe is already closing. To the right of both, a donor that loses mass finds its lobe shrinking around it, which is the runaway the essay is about: the transfer narrows the valve it is flowing through.

The flow that narrows its own channel

Two stars close enough share a surface, and the point where that surface pinches is a valve. What comes through it changes the orbit, and the orbit changes the valve — with a sign that reverses at equal masses, which is why some binaries transfer quietly for a hundred million years and others tear themselves apart in a thousand.

stars · Mass transfer The Love number against central condensation: 3/2 for a uniform body, 2.4e-3 at n = 4. How willingly a body deforms, drawn against how concentrated it is. The horizontal axis is the polytropic index, which is a proxy for the run of density inside — n = 0 is uniform, n = 1.5 is a non-relativistic degenerate gas, n = 3 is a radiative star like the Sun — and the vertical axis is the fluid Love number k₂ on a logarithmic scale. The curve is the Radau equation integrated over each polytrope's own density profile, and its two ends are exact rather than fitted: a uniform incompressible body has k₂ = 3/2 exactly, and a body with all its mass at the centre has k₂ = 0, because a point mass has no quadrupole to offer. Everything real lies between. The fall is steep — four orders of magnitude across the family — which is what makes the number diagnostic: k₂ is not a mild function of structure, it is a sensitive one, and measuring it to ten per cent constrains the interior far better than measuring a mean density to the same precision. The Sun, at n ≈ 3, sits near 2.9e-2. Two conventions collide here and the figure uses one of them: the planetary literature's k₂, for which a uniform body gives 3/2. The stellar literature's apsidal-motion constant is half of this at every point, so a uniform body gives 0.75, and the two are the same quantity. What the picture cannot show is rigidity — every body on it is a fluid, and for anything smaller than a planet that assumption fails badly.

How much a world gives

A body pulled on from one side deforms, and how much it deforms is a single dimensionless number. That number is three halves for a uniform fluid, three hundredths for the Sun, and two thousandths for a moon made of ice — so measuring it is a measurement of what is inside.

gravitation · Love numbers

Named alongside it

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

AccretionLagrange pointsMass transferRoche lobeTidal forceAccretion discAlgol paradoxAngular momentumApsidal motion constantApsidal precessionBinary starsCentral condensation

All concepts