Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The tidal-field generator

The tidal field is a difference
The tidal field is a difference. The pull of a distant body at each point of a sphere, minus its pull at the sphere's centre. What remains stretches along the line to the source and squeezes across it — two bulges, not one.

The pull of a distant body at each point of a sphere, minus its pull at the sphere's centre. What remains stretches along the line to the source and squeezes across it — two bulges, not one.

4 essays call tidal-field. 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.

The tidal field is a difference. The pull of a distant body at each point of a sphere, minus its pull at the sphere's centre. What remains stretches along the line to the source and squeezes across it — two bulges, not one. Gravitation

The tide is a difference, which is why there are two of them

The Moon pulls the ocean toward it. That explains one bulge. The second one, on the far side, is the whole of the physics — and it comes from subtracting.

 The tide across a moon, against the moon's own gravity. The tidal acceleration across a satellite and the satellite's own surface gravity, both in units of that surface gravity, against distance from the primary in planet radii. The tide falls as the inverse cube and the self-gravity does not fall at all, so they cross once — at 2.23 radii for the density ratio drawn. Inside the crossing the tide wins and a body held together only by its own weight comes apart. Gravitation

The distance at which a moon stops holding together

The tide across a body falls as the inverse cube; the body's own gravity does not fall at all. There is therefore exactly one crossing, and Saturn's rings end within a few per cent of it.

 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 Love number against central condensation: 3/2 for a uniform body, 2.4e-3 at n = 4. How willingly a body deforms, drawn against how concentrated it is. The horizontal axis is the polytropic index, which is a proxy for the run of density inside — n = 0 is uniform, n = 1.5 is a non-relativistic degenerate gas, n = 3 is a radiative star like the Sun — and the vertical axis is the fluid Love number k₂ on a logarithmic scale. The curve is the Radau equation integrated over each polytrope's own density profile, and its two ends are exact rather than fitted: a uniform incompressible body has k₂ = 3/2 exactly, and a body with all its mass at the centre has k₂ = 0, because a point mass has no quadrupole to offer. Everything real lies between. The fall is steep — four orders of magnitude across the family — which is what makes the number diagnostic: k₂ is not a mild function of structure, it is a sensitive one, and measuring it to ten per cent constrains the interior far better than measuring a mean density to the same precision. The Sun, at n ≈ 3, sits near 2.9e-2. Two conventions collide here and the figure uses one of them: the planetary literature's k₂, for which a uniform body gives 3/2. The stellar literature's apsidal-motion constant is half of this at every point, so a uniform body gives 0.75, and the two are the same quantity. What the picture cannot show is rigidity — every body on it is a fluid, and for anything smaller than a planet that assumption fails badly. Gravitation

How much a world gives

A body pulled on from one side deforms, and how much it deforms is a single dimensionless number. That number is three halves for a uniform fluid, three hundredths for the Sun, and two thousandths for a moon made of ice — so measuring it is a measurement of what is inside.

The whole library · All essays