Consequences of Strong Compression in Tidal Disruption Events

By Nicholas C. Stone, R. Sari, Abraham Loeb. 2012

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The dynamics of stellar tidal disruption depend strongly on how deeply the victim star’s orbit plunges into the tidal sphere. In this Chapter, we show that most previous estimates of the spread in debris energy, \(\Updelta \epsilon\), are inaccurate when \(\beta=R_{\rm t}/R_{\rm p}> 1\); the traditional formula for \(\Updelta \epsilon\) can be incorrect by orders of magnitude for high β events. After presenting a revised formula that is independent of β and correct to leading order, we develop a new analytic model for tidal disruption events (TDEs) and employ this to test our conclusion that \(\Updelta\epsilon\) does not depend on β.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fe248f96bdef141cbf0edfb50fd8d0696cc0a222

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

Citations in the corpus

A bright year for tidal disruptions (2015, background): “…Et could be dramatically increased for rare deeply penetrating events; at high β, the interaction between tidal compression and misaligned BH spin may be capable of binding a large fraction of the debris much more tightly to the BH (Stone et al. 2013), but this has not been simulated numerically.”
Circularization of Tidally Disrupted Stars around Spinning Supermassive Black Holes (2015, methodology): “If we approximate the frozen-in specific energy spread of e∗ ≈ 1 tidal debris as (Stone et al. 2013) ∆ t = GMBH rt r∗ rt , (11) then we can calculate the fallback time with Kepler’s third law for the most tightly bound debris to be tfb = 1 2 √ 2 ( MBH m∗ )1/2 P∗ = 3.5× 106 [s] ( MBH 106M )1/2 × (…”
Rates of stellar tidal disruption as probes of the supermassive black hole mass function (2014, methodology): “Though relatively dim to begin with, this emission process appears to be even less promising now due to the lower energy spread ∆ of the debris found by recent studies (e.g. Stone et al. 2013), and because self-gravity may confine unbound ejecta to a tiny solid angle for β .”
PS1-10jh: THE DISRUPTION OF A MAIN-SEQUENCE STAR OF NEAR-SOLAR COMPOSITION (2013, background): “If the return of the material to pericenter behaved in the same way as the original encounter, the maximum collapse velocity v⊥ would be equal to the sound speed at rt multiplied by β, yielding a dissipation per orbit V = q−2/3/β, equal to 2% for q = 103 and β = 2 (Carter & Luminet 1983; Stone et al”