Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Tidal quality factor — where it appears

A dimensionless number packaging how weakly a body dissipates the tide raised on it — large for an efficient body, small for a lossy one. It is not calculable from first principles for a star or a giant planet, and is calibrated from observed orbits instead.

Named by 4 essays across 2 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 The same orbit, realigned by one star and not by the other. The time an equilibrium tide takes to bring a planet's orbit into the plane of its star's equator, against orbital separation in stellar radii, for a planet of 1e-3 stellar masses. Both axes are logarithmic. The two curves differ only in how efficiently the star dissipates the tide, by a factor of 10⁴ — the contrast between a star with a convective envelope, where turbulence turns the tidal flow into heat, and one hotter than about 6,250 K, which has almost none. The lower curve is calibrated so that a Jupiter at 8 stellar radii realigns a cool star's orbit in 1 billion years, which is what the aligned systems require; the tidal quality factor of a star is not known from first principles and this is the honest way to say so. Everything else follows from the sixth power of the separation, which is measured off the drawn curve as 6.000. The two curves cross a Hubble time at 12.4 and 2.7 stellar radii, and their ratio is the sixth root of the dissipation contrast. Hot Jupiters sit between those two numbers. So the same arrival distribution of orbital tilts is erased around cool stars and preserved around hot ones, and a survey that finds cool hosts aligned and hot hosts scattered has measured the filter rather than the arrivals.

A misalignment only cool stars forget

A third of hot Jupiters orbit at a large angle to their star's equator, and some go round backwards. Sort the same planets by the temperature of their host and the picture changes — below about 6,250 kelvin almost all are aligned, and above it almost none are. The boundary is not about the planets.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment 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 Two damping times, one crossing, and the slope that separates them. Circularisation timescale against orbital period for the two tidal mechanisms, both logarithmic, normalised to 1.217 Gyr at 10 days. On logarithmic axes a power law is a straight line and the index is its slope, so the figure's content is that the two lines have different slopes and one crossing. The equilibrium tide gives 5.33, the bulge raised on a convective envelope being dragged ahead by a viscosity that is turbulent convection itself; the dynamical tide gives 7, gravity waves launched at the convective boundary carrying angular momentum to wherever they break. The horizontal lines are the ages of populations a boundary can be read in: where each curve crosses one is the wall that population shows — at 0.125 Gyr, 6.5 days against 7.2; at 0.625 Gyr, 8.8 days against 9.1; at 4 Gyr, 12.5 days against 11.9; at 10 Gyr, 14.8 days against 13.5. One cluster measures one number and both theories have a free normalisation, so one cluster cannot choose. The separation across every age available is a factor of 1.11. The discriminator that does not depend on the normalisation is mass: the equilibrium tide needs a convective envelope, and above about 1.3 solar masses there is not one, so the two predict different behaviour on either side of a boundary the theory names in advance. That is a measurement about where the wall stops behaving, not about where it is — and it is the reason the samples had to grow from tens of binaries per cluster to hundreds.

Two damping times, one crossing, and the slope that separates them

The equilibrium tide gives a damping time going as the sixteen-thirds power of the period and the dynamical tide as the seventh. One cluster measures one number and both theories have a free normalisation, so one cluster cannot choose.

orbits · Circularisation

Named alongside it

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

Equilibrium tideConvective envelopeEccentricity dampingTidal circularisationTidal dissipationCluster ageDynamical tideHot jupiterMain sequence turn-offOrbital eccentricityTurbulent viscosityAngular momentum

All concepts