Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Orbital eccentricity — where it appears

The number between zero and one that says how far an orbit departs from a circle. It is measured from the shape of a velocity curve or the displacement of a secondary eclipse, and at small values both measurements are marginal detections of a shape.

Named by 7 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A period below which every orbit is round. Orbital eccentricity against period for binaries in four clusters of 0.125, 0.625, 6, 4 billion years, with the eccentricities drawn from one seeded distribution and then damped by exp(−age/τ), where τ rises as the 5.333 power of the period. Each cluster shows the same thing: below a boundary period nothing survives eccentric, above it the original distribution is untouched, and there is almost nothing in between because the timescale is so steep. The boundary is a clock. It moves as the three-sixteenths power of the age, which the figure checks against the drawn curves, and the calibration puts it at 6.5 days at 125 million years, 8.8 at 625 million and 12.5 at four billion — against measured cut-offs near 7.2, 8.5 and 12.5 days in the Pleiades, the Hyades and M67. The boundaries are also read back off the plotted points rather than trusted, and required to move outward with age. This is the cleanest measurement of tidal dissipation in ordinary stars that exists, and its cleanliness comes from the ages: a cluster's age is read off its main-sequence turn-off and owes nothing whatever to the tide being measured.

A cut-off period that is an age

Plot eccentricity against orbital period for the binary stars of one cluster and the picture has a wall in it. Below a certain period every orbit is circular; above it, the original spread survives untouched. The wall moves outward as the cluster ages, and where it stands is a measurement of how stars dissipate a tide.

orbits · Circularisation Every pair arrives circular. Eccentricity against gravitational-wave frequency for four binaries of 30 and 30 solar masses, each starting at 0.2 astronomical units with an eccentricity of 0.3, 0.7, 0.9, 0.99. Both axes are logarithmic and the tracks run left to right as the orbit shrinks. The curves are Peters' closed solution a(e), and they are checked against Peters' differential equation at three eccentricities on each track rather than against the integral they came from. The ordering is preserved — a pair that starts rounder stays rounder — but by the time the orbit is radiating at 10 hertz, where a ground-based detector begins to hear it, the four eccentricities are 8.8·10⁻⁸, 5.6·10⁻⁷, 3.6·10⁻⁶, 1.5·10⁻⁴. All four are far below anything a detector could measure. That is the figure's whole content and it is a strong statement: radiation reaction removes angular momentum faster, relative to energy, than a circular orbit would need, so eccentricity is destroyed on the way in. A binary observed to be eccentric in band therefore cannot have spent long shrinking quietly, and must have been put on that orbit recently — by a third body, or in the crowded centre of a cluster. The figure assumes the two bodies are points and nothing else acts on them, which is exactly the assumption an eccentric detection would refute.

Every pair arrives circular

Gravitational radiation drains a binary's energy and its angular momentum at rates that do not keep step, and the mismatch destroys eccentricity far faster than it shrinks the orbit. A pair that starts at 0.99 and spirals in from a fifth of an astronomical unit is round to better than a part in a hundred million by the time a detector can hear it.

gravitation · Gravitational waves Windows every 780 days, costing between 5 and 13. The cheapest departure energy available in each of 8 consecutive launch opportunities, each found by solving a grid of Lambert problems around the window and taking the minimum. Opportunities recur every 780 days — the synodic period of Earth and Mars, which is exact and which is why the interval between missions is always about twenty-six months. Their cost is not periodic on that interval. The cheapest here is 5.0 km²/s² and the dearest 12.9, a factor of 2.59, and the pattern repeats on a period of about fifteen years rather than on the synodic one. The cause is Mars's eccentricity of 0.093: a transfer that arrives near Mars's perihelion has less distance to cover and meets a faster-moving planet, and whether an opportunity does that depends on where Mars is in its own orbit — which drifts relative to the synodic cycle by a fixed amount each time and comes back into phase after seven windows. In launch mass the factor is larger than it looks: departure energy enters the rocket equation through an exponential, so a C₃ of 13 rather than 5 costs roughly 1.08 times the propellant at departure.

The window that comes back and the cost that does not

Launch opportunities to Mars recur every 780 days exactly, because that is the synodic period and a synodic period is arithmetic. What they cost does not repeat on that interval at all — the cheapest window is a factor of two and a half below the dearest, and the pattern comes back every fifteen years rather than every two.

spaceflight · Launch windows Three biases against eccentricity, and they do not agree. Four quantities against orbital eccentricity, each relative to a circular orbit of the same semi-major axis, averaged over the argument of periastron. The transit probability rises as (1 − e²)⁻¹, because an eccentric planet spends part of its orbit inside its own semi-major axis: at e = 0.5 a transit is 1.33 times as likely. The transit duration falls as √(1 − e²), so the event carries less signal-to-noise, and the two together — probability times the square root of the time in transit — come to 1.24 at the same eccentricity. They very nearly cancel, and that is the surprise: a transit survey has almost no eccentricity bias at all. The radial-velocity curve is the one that does. A Keplerian of eccentricity e puts less of its variance in the fundamental and more into harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at — 68 per cent remains at e = 0.6 and 47 per cent at e = 0.8 — so a velocity survey loses amplitude exactly where a transit survey does not. What no figure here can show is which of these the measured eccentricity distribution is made of, because the correction depends on a detection pipeline rather than on geometry, and the two surveys have to be corrected separately before their answers can be compared.

Every method prefers a circle, and not for the same reason

A transit is more likely on an eccentric orbit and shorter when it happens, and the two very nearly cancel. A velocity curve loses amplitude to harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at, and that one does not cancel at all.

exoplanets · Detection bias The sunniest place on Earth is the summer pole. Daily-mean insolation against latitude, on the June solstice, an equinox, the December solstice, computed from Q = (S₀/π)(ā/r)²[H₀ sin φ sin δ + cos φ cos δ sin H₀] with the half-day angle clipped to a whole day inside the polar circle. On the June solstice the north pole receives 524 W/m² and the equator receives 385 — a third more, at a place where the Sun never climbs above 23.4°. Both halves of the product move: the Sun is low, so each square metre catches little; and it never sets, so the catching goes on for twenty-four hours. The second wins. That is why the daily total and the noon altitude disagree about where summer is strongest, and the daily total is the one an ice sheet answers to. The two hemispheres are not equal either. The Earth is nearest the Sun in early January, so the December solstice delivers 559 W/m² to the south pole against the north pole's 524 in June — 6.7 per cent more. What this cannot show is any temperature. Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth and receives the most sunlight of anywhere on any day; between the insolation and the temperature sit an albedo, an altitude and an ocean.

The sunniest place is the summer pole

On the June solstice the north pole receives 524 watts per square metre averaged over the day, and the equator 385. The Sun there never climbs above 23.4° and never sets, and the second wins.

sky · Seasons A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line. The tidal quality factor against the system's age, with each line the locus of one measured circularisation boundary. For a planet the eccentricity damping time τₑ goes as Q′P^(13/3), so the cut-off period goes as (age/Q′)^(3/13) and only the ratio of the two appears. A measured wall is therefore a straight line of slope exactly 1 in this plane and never a point on it: a 5-day boundary is consistent with Q′ = 2·10⁵ in a one-billion-year-old system and with Q′ = 2·10⁶ in a ten-billion-year-old one, and nothing in the light curve chooses. The stellar version of this measurement escapes because the cluster supplies the age, from a main-sequence turn-off that owes the tide nothing — which is why a cut-off period read off four clusters is a dissipation measurement and the same wall in the hot-Jupiter plane is not. The shaded band is what a field star's age is actually worth: known to a factor of 3, it leaves Q′ known to a factor of 3 and no better, against a quantity whose published values for giant planets span 10⁴ to 10⁹. What would break the degeneracy is a second measurement with a different power of P in it — an orbital decay rate, which goes as Q′⁻¹ with no age in it at all, and which has now been measured for one planet.

A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line

The same circularisation boundary drawn for planets probes the dissipation inside the planet rather than inside the star. But the boundary depends only on age over Q′, so with no cluster to date the system the measurement is a line in a plane and never a point on it.

orbits · Circularisation A wall that leans the way the damping body says. The orbital period inside which a hot Jupiter's eccentricity is damped within 3 billion years, against the planet's mass, around a Sun-like star with planet Q′ = 10⁶, star Q′ = 10⁷ and a planetary radius of 1.1 Jupiter radii. If the planet's own tide did all the damping, the wall would fall with mass, from 5.5 days at one Jupiter mass to 3.2 at ten. If the star's tide did, it would rise, from 1.5 to 2.5 days. Together they give 5.5 and 3.4. Points are measured planets: filled where the orbit is eccentric, open where it is circular. The massive planets HAT-P-2 b, XO-3 b and WASP-14 b keep eccentric orbits at periods where lighter planets are all circular, which is the lean the planet's tide predicts and the opposite of the star's.

A wall that leans towards the body that damps

A hot Jupiter's eccentric orbit is rounded off by two tides at once, one dissipated in the planet and one in its star, and they depend on the planet's mass in opposite ways. So the period inside which planets are circular should fall with planet mass if the planet does the work and rise if the star does — and the heavy hot Jupiters that keep eccentric orbits where light ones never do say which.

orbits · Circularisation

Named alongside it

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

Equilibrium tideTidal circularisationTidal dissipationTidal quality factorAngular momentumEccentricity dampingHot jupiterArgument of periastronAxial tiltBinary black holeCharacteristic energyChirp mass

All concepts