Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The period-eccentricity generator

Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be
Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be. Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed.

Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed.

7 essays call period-eccentricity. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be. Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed. Exoplanets

A planet where one cannot form

A Jupiter at four days orbits inside a region that was too hot to hold ice and too small to hold the material. It did not form there — and the distribution of eccentricities says which of two journeys brought it in.

 Relativity switches the cycle off, halving its reach at a ratio of 0.80. The greatest eccentricity a Kozai–Lidov cycle reaches, against the strength of the orbit's own relativistic pericentre precession, measured in units of the cycle's own precession rate at zero eccentricity. The horizontal axis is logarithmic and spans three decades. At the left the relativistic term is negligible and the cycle reaches 0.838, which is the closed-form value for a start at 65 degrees and is what the integration is checked against. At the right it is gone. The mechanism depends on the pericentre staying put while the outer body pulls on the same side of the orbit for a whole cycle, and the relativistic precession is a competing rotation of that same pericentre; when it is faster, the pull averages away. The threshold sits near one by construction and the transition is sharp rather than gradual, with the reach halved at 0.80. What makes it matter is where the relativistic term is largest: it grows as the pericentre falls, so it strengthens exactly as the cycle drives the orbit inward, and it therefore sets a floor on the pericentre distance that this mechanism can deliver a body to. Orbits

The precession that switches the cycle off

A distant companion can trade an orbit's inclination for its eccentricity, over and over, and drive a pericentre almost onto the central body. General relativity's own precession competes with the mechanism for the same pericentre, and when it wins the cycle stops — sharply, at a ratio of one, which puts a floor on how close anything can be delivered.

 The inflation threshold at 2·10⁵ W m⁻², and the 0.69 R_J above it. Radius against the starlight received, for a population of Jupiter-mass planets. The horizontal line is what a structural model gives for a cold, old, Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen and helium: 1.06 Jupiter radii, and it hardly depends on mass at all in this range, because degeneracy is beginning to set in and the mass–radius relation is flattening toward its turnover. Planets receiving less than about 2·10⁵ watts per square metre sit on that line, with a median of 1.06, which is the control the rest of the figure depends on: the models are not wrong in general. Above the threshold the radii climb, reaching a median of 1.75 — half again the size a cold planet of the same mass can be — and the onset is sharp enough to be called a threshold rather than a trend. Starlight by itself will not do this. Irradiation is absorbed high in the atmosphere and re-emitted from there; it slows the escape of heat from below, which delays contraction, but it cannot deposit energy beneath the radiative–convective boundary, and it is the interior entropy that sets the radius. So the excess is evidence for a mechanism that carries roughly half a per cent of the incident flux down to pressures of tens of bars — ohmic dissipation of currents driven through a partly ionised atmosphere, breaking gravity waves, and tidally forced turbulence are the candidates, and the threshold is the number each of them has to reproduce. The points are a synthetic population from a seeded generator, not a catalogue; what is real is the threshold, the size of the excess, and the fact that the un-irradiated planets sit exactly where they should. Exoplanets

A radius no cold planet is allowed

A Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen has a maximum size, and it is about 1.06 Jupiter radii however old or young it is. Hundreds of hot Jupiters are half again that, and the excess switches on sharply above a threshold in the starlight they receive — which means something is putting energy in deep.

 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. Orbits

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.

 The best-fitting eccentricity of a circular orbit. What a fitted eccentricity comes out at when the orbit's true eccentricity is 0 and each component of the eccentricity vector carries an error of 0.03. The distribution is not centred on the truth and cannot be: an eccentricity is the length of the vector (e cos ϖ, e sin ϖ), lengths are not negative, and a quantity bounded below by zero whose components scatter symmetrically has a distribution pushed away from the bound. For a circular orbit the most likely fitted value is exactly one error bar, 0.0300 here, and the mean is 0.0376 — 1.2533 error bars, which is √(π/2) and comes from geometry rather than from any property of the data. The practical consequence is a catalogue of small eccentricities that are all measurements of their own error bars, and the fix is not a better fit but a different question: an upper limit rather than a value. Orbits

An eccentricity that cannot be zero

Fit an orbit to noisy data and the eccentricity that comes back is never zero, not even when the orbit is a perfect circle. The reason has nothing to do with the data and everything to do with the fact that a length cannot be negative.

 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. Orbits

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.

 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. Orbits

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.

The whole library · All essays