Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The tidal-evolution generator

The tidal couple, with the bulge leading by 3°
The tidal couple, with the bulge leading by 3°. Friction carries the Earth's tidal bulge ahead of the Earth–Moon line by a small angle — 3° here — so the two bulges pull on the Moon along slightly different lines. The near one is closer and wins: at the Moon's real distance of 60.3 Earth radii its couple exceeds the far bulge's by 10.4 per cent, and the three bars are the two pulls and the 9.5 per cent of one of them that survives the cancellation. That residual is the whole of the Moon's recession. Because the two forces are central, the couple that speeds the Moon up is exactly the couple that slows the Earth's rotation down; the figure computes both and requires them to cancel. Nothing here is to scale: the bulge is drawn 3.5·10⁶ times its true height, the real equilibrium ocean tide being 0.36 m on a radius of 6,371 km, or 5.7·10⁻⁸ of it, and the Moon is drawn at a small fraction of its true distance.

Friction carries the Earth's tidal bulge ahead of the Earth–Moon line by a small angle — 3° here — so the two bulges pull on the Moon along slightly different lines. The near one is closer and wins: at the Moon's real distance of 60.3 Earth radii its couple exceeds the far bulge's by 10.4 per cent, and the three bars are the two pulls and the 9.5 per cent of one of them that survives the cancellation. That residual is the whole of the Moon's recession. Because the two forces are central, the couple that speeds the Moon up is exactly the couple that slows the Earth's rotation down; the figure computes both and requires them to cancel. Nothing here is to scale: the bulge is drawn 3.5·10⁶ times its true height, the real equilibrium ocean tide being 0.36 m on a radius of 6,371 km, or 5.7·10⁻⁸ of it, and the Moon is drawn at a small fraction of its true distance.

4 essays call tidal-evolution. 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.

An eccentricity and an inclination trading, at 65° of mutual tilt. The secular equations integrated from a nearly circular orbit (e = 0.02) inclined at 65° to a distant perturber's plane, over three oscillations. Above, the eccentricity; below, the inclination, with the constant √(1−e²)cos i drawn as the flat line it is. The eccentricity climbs to 0.8380 and the inclination falls to 39.25° at the same instant, and neither is a coincidence: the product is fixed, so one can only rise as the other falls. That floor is the same for every starting tilt — at maximum eccentricity j = √(5/3)Θ, so cos i = √(3/5) and the inclination arrives at 39.23° whether the orbit began at 50° or at 89°. The closed form for a circular start is e_max = √(1 − (5/3)cos²i₀) = 0.8380, which contains nothing about the perturber — not its mass, not its distance. Those set the clock and not the amplitude, and the period here is 4.83 Kozai times. What the figure cannot show is what happens at the top of the cycle in a real system: at e = 0.838 the pericentre is 0.1620 of the semi-major axis, where tides, general relativity or a stellar surface all intervene, and the quadrupole picture ends. Orbits

An inclination that turns into an eccentricity

A distant companion cannot change an orbit's size or its energy. It can take a circular orbit tilted past 39.23 degrees and drive it to an eccentricity near one, and back, over and over — and the companion's mass and distance set only the clock.

 Integrating the measured recession back: the Moon reaches the Earth 1.54 Gyr ago. The Earth–Moon separation and the length of the Earth's day, integrated backwards from the measured present recession rate of 3.83 cm per year. Constant-Q tidal friction makes a^(13/2) linear in time, so the history is a single line in a variable nobody plots, and it is calibrated to the laser-ranging measurement rather than to a modelled k₂/Q — the k₂/Q it implies is 0.0257, or Q = 11.6 for the Earth's k₂ of 0.299, which is a startlingly dissipative Earth. Run back at that rate the separation reaches zero 1.54 Gyr ago and crosses the Roche limit at 2.88 Earth radii only 4 years before it, so the drawing is cut off there rather than extrapolated. The Moon is 4.5 Gyr old, so this is a refutation and not a date: the present rate cannot have been the rate, and a mean Q of 34 — drawn dashed, reaching 4.51 Gyr — is the sort of value the age requires. Tidal rhythmites at 620 Myr put the day at 21.9 h and the Moon at 96.5 per cent of its present distance, and this history reads 20.1 h and 92.4 per cent — too fast and too close, which is the same failure the zero crossing is. Day length follows from total angular momentum, 23.93 h today, 9.84 h at half the present lunar distance and 4.97 h at the Roche limit, and depends on the separation alone: it is the same curve whatever Q is. The rate of lengthening the recession requires is 2.10 ms per century, against a tidal total of about 2.3 including the Sun's tide, which slows the Earth without moving the Moon, and an observed 1.75 from ancient eclipses and occultations — the shortfall being the Earth's moment of inertia falling as the mantle rebounds from the last glaciation. Gravitation

A day five hours long

The tidal bulge leads, so the Earth's spin is being paid into the Moon's orbit. Run the measured payment backwards and two curves come out of one integration — a timeline that is refuted by the Moon's own age, and a day length that is refuted by nothing.

 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. Exoplanets

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.

 One measurement, one line, and every point on it is an interior. The Love number against the quality factor, both logarithmic. An orbital measurement — a moon observed to be receding, a spin observed to be slowing — determines only the ratio of the two, so it picks out a diagonal band rather than a point, and every interior along that band reproduces the observation exactly. A body that deforms twice as easily and dissipates half as efficiently is indistinguishable from one that does the opposite. What breaks it is a measurement of the deformation on its own: a spacecraft tracking the body's gravity field through a tidal cycle measures k₂ directly, which is a vertical line here, and the intersection gives Q = 5.36·10⁴. The uncertainty on that answer is the two fractional errors added in quadrature, 20 per cent, and it is dominated by whichever of the two was worse — which for every body in the solar system is the orbital rate rather than the Love number. Gravitation

A heat flow that depends on a number nobody can compute

Every tidal rate in astronomy — a moon receding, a spin slowing, an orbit circularising, a satellite melting — is proportional to one combination of two quantities that no orbital measurement can separate. One of them describes how much a body deforms and the other how badly it leaks, and only a spacecraft can tell them apart.

The whole library · All essays