Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Roche lobe overflow — where it appears

The condition in which a star's photosphere reaches the critical equipotential of its binary, so material can cross to its companion. Whether the resulting flow is steady or runs away depends on how the star's own radius responds to losing mass compared with how the lobe does.

Named by 6 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Pluto and Triton sit on the nitrogen line, and the Earth sits between helium and nitrogen. Escape speed against exospheric temperature, with a criterion line for each molecular species at v_esc = 6 v_th — the speed at which the Jeans loss time is comparable to the age of the solar system. Every line has slope one half, because the thermal speed goes as √T; a body above a line keeps that gas and a body below it does not. The horizontal axis is the temperature at the exobase, which for the Earth is near 1000 K rather than the 255 K of its equilibrium — the difference is extreme-ultraviolet heating, and using the wrong temperature puts the Earth above the hydrogen line, keeping an atmosphere it observably lost. Three readings are worth making. The Earth falls between helium and nitrogen and does exactly that: it loses helium as fast as radioactive decay supplies it, and keeps nitrogen for ever. Titan sits just above nitrogen and just above methane, which is why it has a thick nitrogen atmosphere and is slowly losing its methane. And Pluto and Triton sit on the nitrogen line, within 1 per cent — which is why both have atmospheres that are marginally bound and measurably escaping. Where it fails it fails in one direction only. Mercury, the Moon and the Galilean satellites all plot above lines for gases they do not have, because retention is necessary and not sufficient: a body also needs a source, and needs to survive the non-thermal losses this criterion says nothing about. Venus is the sharpest case — it sits above the hydrogen line and has still lost an ocean, because that hydrogen left by charge exchange with the solar wind rather than by moving fast enough.

The gas a planet cannot keep

Escape is a statement about the tail of a distribution rather than about its mean, so the threshold is not a speed but a dimensionless number near thirty — and past that number the loss rate falls by twelve orders of magnitude. Then, for a hot Jupiter, the whole picture fails and the atmosphere leaves as a wind.

exoplanets · Atmospheric escape 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 same equation, run away at q = 0.8 and settled at q = 0.5. The donor's overfill of its own Roche lobe against time, integrated for 3 mass ratios at a donor adiabatic response of −0.33 — a star with a deep convective envelope, which expands as it loses mass. The overfill sets the transfer rate and the transfer rate changes the overfill, and the sign of that feedback is the stability criterion: where the lobe shrinks faster than the star does, ζ_L > ζ_ad, the overfill grows and the growth is exponential. At q = 0.8 the lobe responds at 0.03 and the overfill runs away; At q = 1.4 the lobe responds at 1.32 and the overfill runs away. At q = 0.5 it responds at -0.62 and the transfer throttles itself back. The critical ratio for this donor is 0.63 — below equal masses, which is the result the whole subject turns on: a giant transferring to a lighter companion is already unstable before the mass ratio has reversed, and what follows is not accretion but a common envelope. Nothing here is a fitted rate. The vertical scale is logarithmic and the runaway is a straight line on it, which is what an exponential is.

Three clocks and a runaway

Whether mass transfer between two stars is stable is a comparison of two logarithmic derivatives. How fast it runs is a separate question with three possible answers fourteen orders of magnitude apart — and the answer decides whether the companion accretes, is buried, or is swallowed.

stars · Mass transfer 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 A period set by the donor's density, running in two directions. The orbital period at which a donor exactly fills its Roche lobe, against the donor's mass, onto a 0.7 M☉ white dwarf. A lobe-filling star's period is fixed by its mean density alone, so the period follows the donor's mass–radius relation. A main-sequence donor shrinks as it is stripped and grows denser, and the period falls: from 6.0 hours at 0.6 M☉ to 1.5 hours at the hydrogen-burning limit. A white-dwarf donor swells and grows less dense, and the period rises — 3.5 minutes at 0.2 M☉, 13 at 0.05, 47 at 0.01. The binaries with helium-rich spectra and periods between five minutes and an hour lie along the second curve and nowhere near the first, and their period is a mass gauge for a star that cannot be seen.

A donor that grows as it is eaten

A white dwarf that loses mass gets bigger, so a binary in which one white dwarf feeds another runs backwards — its period lengthens as the donor shrinks. Whether the pair survives first contact at all depends less on the donor than on whether the stream finds room to form a disc, and for most pairs it does not.

stars · Mass transfer Orbital energy spent against the envelope it has to lift. The orbital energy a 0.6 M☉ companion releases by spiralling in from the onset of a common envelope down to a final separation, against that separation (curve), and the binding energy of the 0.85 M☉ envelope of a 1.2 M☉ giant with a 0.35 M☉ core, divided by the efficiency, for αλ of 0.25, 0.5, 1 (horizontal lines). Energies are in units of GM☉²/R☉. The giant fills its lobe at a separation of 118 R☉, and the companion releases nothing net until the orbit has shrunk below 34 R☉, because the envelope's mass leaves with the envelope; from there it falls until the energy released pays for the envelope, so each crossing is a final orbit — 1.29, 2.48, 4.63 R☉. The released energy grows only as one over the separation, so halving the efficiency halves the final orbit: a factor of four in αλ is a factor of four in the outcome, and there is no measurement of αλ that does not run through outcomes like these.

The least known number in binary evolution

When a giant swallows its companion, the companion spirals inward until the orbital energy it has released is enough to throw the envelope off. The final orbit is set by one product of two unknowns, it moves in proportion to that product, and the merger time of the white dwarfs it leaves moves as its fourth power.

stars · Mass transfer

Named alongside it

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

Mass transferAccretion discWhite dwarfAccretionCommon envelopeCompact binaryConvective envelopeGravitational wavesMass ratioAdiabatic responseAngular momentumBinary pulsar

All concepts