Paper detail

Tidal radii of main sequence stars -- II. Simulation methodology and the character of full tidal disruptions

This is the second in a series of papers presenting the results of fully general relativistic simulations of stellar tidal disruptions in which the stars' initial states are realistic main-sequence models. We consider eight different stellar masses, from $0.15~{\rm M}_\odot$ to $10~{\rm M}_\odot$. In the first paper (Ryu et al. 2019a), we gave an overview of this program and discussed the principal observational implications of our work. Here we describe our calculational method and provide details about the outcomes of full disruptions. We find that, relative to the traditional order-of-magnitude estimate $r_{\rm t}$, the physical tidal radius of low-mass stars is larger by tens of percent, while for high-mass stars ($M_{\star} \gtrsim1~ {\rm M}_\odot$) it is smaller by a factor $2-2.5$. The traditional estimate of the range of energies found in the debris is approximately accurate for low-mass stars, but is a factor $\sim 2$ too small for high-mass stars; in addition, the energy distribution for high-mass stars has significant wings. For all stars undergoing tidal encounters, we find that mass-loss continues for a long time because the ${\it instantaneous}$ tidal radius, the distance out to which the black hole's tidal gravity competes with the instantaneous stellar gravity at the star's surface, stays comparable to the distance to the black hole until the star has reached $O(10)~r_{\rm t}$. These findings indicate significant failings in the popular "frozen-in" approximation.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.