Tidal circularization of gaseous planets orbiting white dwarfs

Dimitri Veras; Jim Fuller

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 19 references

Tidal circularization of gaseous planets orbiting white dwarfs

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that a gas giant scattered close to a white dwarf undergoes chaotic f-mode tidal evolution only when its orbital pericentre lies within about twice the white dwarf's Roche radius, and that this chaotic phase can…

desk verdict Useful, honest application of the Vick et al. chaotic-tidal map to white-dwarf planets; the u<2 activation threshold and Eq. (38) hold up, but the 'destroys ice giants' headline overstates a proxy the authors themselves hedge. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08052 v1 pith:OLDX3CH5 submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Dimitri Veras , Jim Fuller This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

keywords whitedwarfplanetarysystemstidalcircularizationchaoticf-modeexcitationhigh-eccentricitymigrationgiantplanetsmetalpollutionqualityfactorRocheradius

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Planets that survive their star's red-giant phases can later be scattered onto almost radial orbits toward the white dwarf that remains. This paper models the two tidal stages that follow: a chaotic phase in which the star's gravity repeatedly excites a planet's internal oscillation mode (the quadrupolar f-mode), then a slower phase of ordinary equilibrium-tide circularization. The main claim is that the chaotic phase turns on only when the orbital pericentre is within about twice the white dwarf's Roche radius, and that the energy it deposits is enough to restructure or destroy ice giants but not gas giants. The paper also derives a simple formula for the later circularization timescale, which, combined with the white dwarf's measured cooling age, bounds when the scattering happened and how dissipative the planet is. A destroyed ice giant would add a new thermal route to the metal pollution seen in white-dwarf atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless pericentre $u = r_p/r_{\rm Roche}$, measured against the white dwarf's Roche radius for a fluid planet. The machinery is an iterative map for chaotic f-mode tides: at each pericentre passage the dominant quadrupolar mode of a polytropic planet exchanges energy with the orbit, the mode amplitude is carried forward, and when the mode energy reaches $E_{\rm max} = 0.1 E_{\rm bind}$ the energy is thermalized and the mode reset. This map yields $\tau_{\rm chaos}$ and the planet's orbital state when chaos ends. The non-chaotic regime then uses the equilibrium weak-friction tidal equations with a constant modified quality factor $Q'_p$, and the empirical formula for $\tau_{\rm non-chaos}$ carries the argument through its steep $u^{13/2}$ scaling: both whether chaotic evolution turns on and how long circularization takes are controlled by this single pericentre ratio.

What would settle it

A structural calculation of a Neptune-mass planet repeatedly absorbing 0.1 of its binding energy per event would settle the destruction claim; if it survives ten events by inflating or radiating the heat away, the new pollution channel fails. Observationally, a giant planet around a white dwarf whose measured cooling age $t_{\rm cool}$ is shorter than the sum $\tau_{\rm chaos} + \tau_{\rm non-chaos}$ for any $Q'_p$ within the allowed range would falsify the timescale framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a phase-space map of tidal migration for giant planets around white dwarfs. Using a single-mode iterative map for the quadrupolar f-mode, the paper finds that chaotic f-mode excitation, and the rapid orbital shrinkage it causes, occurs only for initial pericentres $u = r_p/r_{\rm Roche}$ between roughly 1.1 and 2.0. Within that window, the number of thermalization events (mode energy capped at 10% of the binding energy and then reset) grows steeply as $u$ shrinks, and Neptune-mass planets typically exceed ten events—the paper's adopted disruption threshold—whereas Jupiter-mass planets suffer fewer than ten. After chaos ends at an eccentricity still near 0.9, weakly dissipative equilibrium tides take over, and the paper derives the empirical circularization timescale $$\tau_{\rm non-chaos} \approx 37.4\,{\rm Myr}\, $u^{{13/2}}$ \left(\frac{Q'_p}{$10^{6}$}\right) \left(\frac{M_p}{M_{\rm Jup}}\right)^{-2/3} \left(\frac{\rho_p}{1\,{\rm g/$cm^{3}$}}\right)^{-1/2},$$ accurate to a few percent across the plausible phase space. Combining the two regimes with the inequality $t_{\rm cool} > t_{\rm sca} + \tau_{\rm chaos} + \tau_{\rm non-chaos}$ means an observed white-dwarf cooling age converts into coupled upper bounds on the scattering epoch and on the planetary tidal quality factor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ten thermalization events, each depositing roughly a tenth of the planet's binding energy, are enough to destroy or fatally restructure an ice giant; the paper itself says whether it would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear, and no structural model backs the threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A measured white-dwarf cooling age $t_{\rm cool}$ gives an upper bound on the sum $t_{\rm sca} + \tau_{\rm chaos} + \tau_{\rm non-chaos}$, so a detected close-in giant planet dates the gravitational scattering that put it there.
At early cooling ages ($t_{\rm cool} \sim 10$ Myr), the bound becomes tight: the scattering must have occurred within the first ten million years of white-dwarf life, and the planetary tidal quality factor $Q'_p$ must be small enough to circularize the orbit within that time.
For old white dwarfs ($t_{\rm cool} \sim 1$ Gyr) the same argument cannot constrain the tides, but a giant planet orbiting a metal-polluted white dwarf would still constrain the dynamical interactions between major and minor planets in that system.
The chaotic and non-chaotic regimes can be treated almost independently: $\tau_{\rm chaos}$ is largely insensitive to planet mass, density, and radius, while $\tau_{\rm non-chaos}$ varies by orders of magnitude with those quantities.
Ice giants that enter the chaotic regime as they approach a white dwarf can be thermally destroyed before reaching the Roche radius, providing a new channel for white-dwarf metal pollution, including volatile-rich or oxygen-rich pollution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the deposited mode energy is radiated away efficiently near the planet's surface rather than stored in the interior (one possibility the paper notes), the ice-giant destruction channel would weaken; a structural model with realistic radiative cooling would decide.
Because $\tau_{\rm non-chaos} \propto u^{13/2}$, even a coarse measurement of a planet's current pericentre makes the circularization timescale a sharp probe of $Q'_p$: small errors in $u$ translate into large changes in the inferred dissipation.
White-dwarf systems may serve as a cleaner laboratory for high-eccentricity migration than main-sequence hot Jupiters, because the white-dwarf cooling age provides an absolute clock and disc migration is largely ruled out for planets scattered in after the white dwarf forms.
A targeted search for young white dwarfs with cooling ages near ten million years and close giant planets would be the sharpest test of the paper's coupled timescale inequality.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the quick read: this is a careful application of the Vick et al. (2019) iterative map to a new setting—giant planets scattered to highly eccentric orbits around white dwarfs. The headline contributions are the clean finding that chaotic f-mode evolution only turns on for pericentres within about twice the WD Roche radius (u<2), and the empirical formula for the non-chaotic circularization timescale, Eq. (38). Both are useful, and the paper is transparent that Eq. (38) is a fit to their own integrations. The cooling-age bookkeeping in Eq. (1) is a nice observational hook.

The main soft spot is the destruction claim. The paper counts 10 thermalization events—each depositing 0.1 of the binding energy—as "destroyed," but there is no structural or hydrodynamical model connecting that heat to inflation or breakup. The authors themselves write in §2.5.2 that 'whether the planet would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear,' and the Summary repeats the hedge. The abstract is more assertive, saying chaotic tides 'easily restructures or destroys ice giants.' That mismatch is worth flagging. But it doesn't sink the paper: the u<2 threshold and the circularization timescale do not depend on the 10-event proxy, so the more conservative claims stand on their own.

Other assumptions—constant Q'_p over many orders of magnitude, the single-mode approximation, polytropic planet structure—are reasonable for a first survey and are discussed. The strong dependence on Q'_p is honestly presented as a scaling.

The paper deserves a serious referee. The physics is sound, the phase-space survey is thorough, and the results are falsifiable: a young WD with a close giant planet, or a clean census of metal pollution in young WDs, can test the framework. The destruction prediction needs follow-up, and I would ask the authors to soften the abstract and frame the 10-event count as a trigger for 'possible inflation/disruption' rather than destruction. With that revision, I'd be happy to see it in print.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper models the post-scattering tidal evolution of gaseous planets around white dwarfs by combining a chaotic f-mode iterative map taken from Vick et al. (2019) with a weak-friction equilibrium-tide calculation. The authors compute the duration of the chaotic phase across a grid of planet masses, densities, initial semimajor axes, and pericentre distances, and find that chaotic f-mode excitation activates only when the initial pericentre is within about twice the white-dwarf Roche radius (u ≲ 2). They show that chaotic evolution shrinks the semimajor axis substantially while leaving u nearly unchanged, and they provide an empirical formula (Eq. 38) for the subsequent circularization timescale. They also argue that energy deposition during chaotic mode thermalization can restructure or destroy ice giants, providing a new white-dwarf pollution channel, while leaving gas giants intact.

Significance. If the u < 2 activation threshold and the circularization timescale formula hold, the paper offers a practical framework for combining a measured white-dwarf cooling age with the orbit of a discovered giant planet to bound the scattering epoch and the planetary tidal quality factor. The use of a deterministic iterative map and the explicit propagation of the chaotic phase make the orbital part of the calculation reproducible, and the authors are careful to label Eq. (38) as empirical and to state many of their simplifications. The central destruction claim, however, depends on an unmodeled thermalization-to-disruption assumption and is therefore not established at the same level as the orbital timescales.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.5.2, Eqs. (30)-(32), Figs. 2-3] The headline claim that chaotic tides 'easily restructures or destroys ice giants but not gas giants' rests on the assumption that ten thermalization events, each depositing E_max - E_resid ≈ 0.1 E_bind, constitute disruption. No structural, thermal, or hydrodynamical model is used to convert this deposited energy into inflation or breakup, and the authors themselves state that 'whether the planet would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear' (Section 2.5.2). Because the abstract and Section 4.2 present this destruction as a new white-dwarf pollution channel, this is a load-bearing point. I recommend either replacing the destruction language with a clear 'may become inflated or disrupted' hedge throughout, or adding a quantitative energy-budget model (e.g., comparing the thermalization rate to the radiative cooling time, or a simple envelope-inflation calculation) to justify a disruption threshold.
[Section 3, Eq. (38)] Equation (38) is presented as accurate to within a few per cent over the entire plausible phase space, but the fitting procedure, residuals, and range of validity are not shown in the text. Since this formula is one of the main tools for observational constraints, please provide the underlying numerical data or an appendix with the fit and its scatter, and state explicitly that the quoted accuracy is with respect to the simplified constant-Q'_p model rather than to a full frequency-dependent tide calculation.

minor comments (3)

[Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'A total of 10 thermalization events may disrupt the planet, which we denote here as destroyed' conflates a modeling criterion with a physical outcome; since the paper itself is uncertain about the planet's response, the caption should say 'assumed to be destroyed in our criterion' or similar.
[Abstract and Section 5] The Summary appropriately hedges with 'may become inflated or disrupted', but the Abstract and Section 4.2 use stronger language ('destroys', 'thermal destruction'); please harmonize the wording to match the actual level of model support.
[Section 3, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The stellar-tide terms are retained in Eqs. (36)-(37) even though the text immediately justifies neglecting them; consider moving the full equations to an appendix or deleting the stellar terms after the justification to improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Destruction claim is definitional: Fig. 3 labels 'destroyed' as 10 thermalization events while the text concedes the structural outcome is unclear, so the abstract's 'destroys ice giants' restates the counting threshold as a physical result; the u<2 activation condition and Eq. (38) remain independent.

self definitional [Section 2.5.2, Figure 3 caption, Abstract]
"Hence, 10 thermalization events (assuming no energy is radiated away) would deposit enough energy in the planet's interior to substantially alter its structure. Whether the planet would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear... A total of 10 thermalization events may disrupt the planet, which we denote here as "destroyed"."

The model never computes structural disruption; 'destroyed' is defined in the Figure 3 caption as 'a total of 10 thermalization events.' The abstract then asserts that chaotic f-mode evolution 'easily restructures or destroys ice giants,' so the destruction result is the definitional counting threshold restated as a physical outcome. The paper itself says 'whether the planet would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear,' confirming that no independent physical model converts the deposited energy into breakup. Planets are labeled destroyed exactly when the input proxy is satisfied, making the headline destruction claim equivalent to its own definition rather than a derived result.

full rationale

The bulk of the tidal calculation is not circular. The chaotic activation and termination criteria (Eqs. 13 and 34) are imported from the iterative map of Vick et al. (2019), whose authors do not overlap with the present paper, and they are applied to a new white-dwarf parameter space; the u<2 activation result is a computed consequence, not a fitted output. Eq. (38) is explicitly labeled an empirical formula fitted to the paper's own integrations, so it is a disclosed compression of the model rather than a hidden fit to the target observable. The paper's self-citations to Veras et al. are contextual (scattering histories, solid-body tides) and are not load-bearing for the new computation. The one genuinely definitional step is the destruction claim: Figure 3 defines 'destroyed' as ten thermalization events, while Section 2.5.2 admits 'whether the planet would slowly inflate or be disrupted is unclear,' and the abstract converts that threshold into 'destroys ice giants.' That specific claim is forced by the label, not by the dynamics; the rest of the paper's constraints on scattering epoch and tidal quality factor remain independent of this proxy, which is why the score is partial rather than maximal.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are the tidal quality factor, the destruction threshold, the two mode-energy thresholds adopted from Vick et al. 2019, and the numerical coefficient of the empirical circularization formula. The axioms are the imported Vick et al. map, the single-mode approximation, the Hut equilibrium-tide treatment, the representative WD mass, and the ad hoc 10-event destruction criterion. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Q'_p (modified planetary tidal quality factor) = 10^3 to 10^7
Appears linearly in Eqs. 36-38; tau_non_chaos is directly proportional to it. It is not measured, is known to be frequency- and time-dependent, and is here bounded rather than fit.
Disruption threshold (number of thermalization events) = 10 events
Fig. 3 caption states 'A total of 10 thermalization events may disrupt the planet.' No structural model supports this number; the paper admits uncertainty in Section 2.5.2.
Mode energy cap E_max = 0.1 E_bind
Eq. 32; when mode energy reaches this cap it is treated as thermalized. Adopted from Vick et al. 2019; controls how often the mode resets and hence how many thermalization events occur.
Residual mode energy E_resid = 0.001 E_bind
Eq. 31; mode amplitude is reset to this energy after thermalization, which sets the stopping behavior via Eq. 34.
Coefficient in circularization formula = 37.4 Myr
Eq. 38; obtained by fitting the numerical integrations over the surveyed phase space; stated accurate to a few per cent.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Single f=2 mode approximation is valid for the relevant pericentre range.
Section 2.1 states this approximation; support comes from Fig. 1 of Vick et al. 2019 rather than from this paper.
domain assumption Chaotic tidal map and activation/stopping criteria of Vick et al. 2019 are correct when scaled to WD parameters.
Section 2 relies on Eqs. 13, 28, and 51 of Vick et al. 2019 without re-derivation.
domain assumption Equilibrium weak-friction tides (Hut 1981) with pseudosynchronous rotation and constant Q'_p govern the non-chaotic regime.
Section 3 adopts Eqs. 36-37; Q'_p is assumed constant and bounded, an acknowledged simplification.
domain assumption A white dwarf of 0.6 M_sun is representative for the surveyed systems.
Section 2 adopts M* = 0.6 M_sun throughout; results may scale with WD mass but this is not explicitly shown.
ad hoc to paper Ten thermalization events correspond to destruction.
Fig. 3 and Section 2.5.2; no hydrodynamical or structural modeling of inflation or disruption is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tidal circularization of gaseous planets orbiting white dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLDX3CH5

@misc{pith2026190808052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tidal circularization of gaseous planets orbiting white dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLDX3CH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08052}
}

read the original abstract

A gas giant planet which survives the giant branch stages of evolution at a distance of many au and then is subsequently perturbed sufficiently close to a white dwarf will experience orbital shrinkage and circularization due to star-planet tides. The circularization timescale, when combined with a known white dwarf cooling age, can place coupled constraints on the scattering epoch as well as the active tidal mechanisms. Here, we explore this coupling across the entire plausible parameter phase space by computing orbit shrinkage and potential self-disruption due to chaotic f-mode excitation and heating in planets on orbits with eccentricities near unity, followed by weakly dissipative equilibrium tides. We find that chaotic f-mode evolution activates only for orbital pericentres which are within twice the white dwarf Roche radius, and easily restructures or destroys ice giants but not gas giants. This type of internal thermal destruction provides an additional potential source of white dwarf metal pollution. Subsequent tidal evolution for the surviving planets is dominated by non-chaotic equilibrium and dynamical tides which may be well-constrained by observations of giant planets around white dwarfs at early cooling ages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08052 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Chaotic orbital evolution of a gas giant planet orbiting a typical 0.6M⊙ white dwarf solely due to energy exchange with the dominant internal mode of the planet. Only a fraction of the pericentre passages are plotted as individual points. The planet properties are Mp = 1MJupiter and Rp = 1RJupiter. The initial orbit parameters are what may be expected to be generated from a scattering event which occurred during the… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Energy evolution of the planetary f-modes from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Number of thermalization events across the phase space of initial semimajor axis and physical properties. “Light Gas Giant” corresponds to Mp = 0.3MJupiter and Rp = 1.0RJupiter, “Heavy Gas Giant” to Mp = 13MJupiter and Rp = 1.0RJupiter, and “Ice Giant” to Mp = 1.0MNeptune and Rp = 1.0RNeptune. Although each class of planets are simulated at increments of u = 0.05, at each value of u the families are slightly offset … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Like in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of the value of τchaos with the simple analytical approximation from equation (35) for every simulation for which a value of τchaos was obtained. The histogram illustrates that the analytical approximation reproduces the true value of τchaos to within about …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Continuation of the evolution of the u = 1.6 case from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

C., & Bloch, A

Adams, F. C., & Bloch, A. M. 2013, ApJL, 777, L30 Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R. 1986, ApJ, 302, 462 Alexander, M. E. 1973, Ap&SS, 23,

work page 2013
[14]

Petrovich, C., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 116 Raddi, R., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., et al. 2015, MN- RAS, 450, 2083 Rao S., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, A18 Rowan, D. M., Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4574 Sandhaus, P. H., Debes, J. H., Ely, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 49 Schleicher, D. R. G., & Dreizler, S. 2014, A&A, 563, ...

work page 2017
[18]

T., Farihi, J., Tout, C

Wickramasinghe, D. T., Farihi, J., Tout, C. A., Ferrario, L., & Stancliﬀe, R. J. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1984 Wu, Y. 2005, ApJ, 635, 688 Wu, Y. 2018, AJ, 155,

work page 2010
[93]

1981, A&A, 99, 126 Ivanov, P

Hut, P. 1981, A&A, 99, 126 Ivanov, P. B., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2004, MNRAS, 347,

work page 1981
[96]

2011, MNRAS, 414, 1788 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14 Tides between giant planets and white dwarfs 13 Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M

Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1788 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14 Tides between giant planets and white dwarfs 13 Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1631 Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930 Bonsor, A., & Veras, D. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 53 Bou´ e, G., Figueira, P., Correia, A. C. M., & Santos, N. C. 2012, A&A, 537, L...

arXiv 2011
[118]

C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J

Wyatt, M. C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J. E., & Bonsor, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3371 Xu, S., & Jura, M. 2012, ApJ, 745, 88 Xu, S., Ertel, S., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, L8 Xu, S., Zuckerman, B., Dufour, P., et al. 2017, ApJL, 836, L7 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14

work page 2014
[121]

2003, ApJL, 584, L91 Kepler, S

Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91 Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4078 Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3413 Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 5 Koester, D. 2009, A&A, 498, 517 Kunitomo, M., Ikoma, M., Sato, B., Katsuta, Y., & Ida, S. 2011, ApJ, 737, 66 Liv...

arXiv 2003
[192]

S., Farihi, J., et al

Girven, J., Brinkworth, C. S., Farihi, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 154 Goldstein, J. 1987, A&A, 178, 283 Go´ zdziewski, K., & Migaszewski, C. 2014, MNRAS, 440,

work page 2012

Show all 19 references

[437]

B., & Papaloizou, J

Ivanov, P. B., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2007, A&A, 476,

2007
[459]

B., & Bildsten, L

Bauer, E. B., & Bildsten, L. 2018, ApJ, 859, L19. Bauer, E. B., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 872,

2018
[482]

Vick, M., Lai, D., & Anderson, K. R. 2019, MNRAS, 484,

2019
[732]

2008, Science, 322,

Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322,

2008
[1080]

2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, ISBN 978-3-319- 55332-0, Springer International Publishing, 24 Matsumura, S., Peale, S

Mathis, S. 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, ISBN 978-3-319- 55332-0, Springer International Publishing, 24 Matsumura, S., Peale, S. J., & Rasio, F. A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1995 McNeill, L. O., Mardling, R. A., & M¨ uller, B. 2019, sub- mitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1901.09045. Mestel, L. 195...

2018 arXiv
[1348]

M., et al

Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2010, Nature, 468,

2010
[2784]

A., Rappaport, S., et al

van Sluijs L., Van Eylen V., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4603 Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546 Veras, D., Wyatt, M. C., Mustill, A. J., Bonsor, A., & El- dridge, J. J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2104 Veras, D., Hadjidemetriou, J. D., & Tout, C. A. 2013...

2018 arXiv
[3140]

R., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Soifer, B

Graham, J. R., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Soifer, B. T. 1990, ApJ, 357, 216 Gurri, P., Veras, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 321 Hadjidemetriou, J. D. 1963, Icarus, 2, 440 Hamers A. S., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2016, MNRAS, 462, L84 Harrison, J. H. D., Bonsor, A....

1990
[3814]

R., & Clarke, F

Hogan, E., Burleigh, M. R., & Clarke, F. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2074 Hogg, M. A., Wynn, G. A., & Nixon, C. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4486 Hollands, M. A., Koester, D., Alekseev, V., Herbert, E. L., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4970 Hollands, M. A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester,...

2009
[3939]

Nelemans, G., & Tauris, T. M. 1998, A&A, 335, L85 Nordhaus, J., & Spiegel, D. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 500 Ogilvie, G. I. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 171 Omarov, T. B. 1962, Izv. Astroﬁz. Inst. Acad. Nauk. KazSSR, 14, 66 Payne, M. J., Veras, D., Holman, M. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T. c© 2019 RAS, ...

1998
[5645]

2007, ApJ, 661, 1192 Villaver, E., & Livio, M

Villaver, E., & Livio, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1192 Villaver, E., & Livio, M. 2009, ApJL, 705, L81 Villaver, E., Livio, M., Mustill, A. J., & Siess, L. 2014, ApJ , 794, 3 V¨ olschow, M., Banerjee, R., & Hessman, F. V. 2014, A&A, 562, A19 Voyatzis, G., Hadjidemetriou, J. D., Veras, ...

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C., & Bloch, A

Adams, F. C., & Bloch, A. M. 2013, ApJL, 777, L30 Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R. 1986, ApJ, 302, 462 Alexander, M. E. 1973, Ap&SS, 23,

work page 2013

[2] [14]

Petrovich, C., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 116 Raddi, R., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., et al. 2015, MN- RAS, 450, 2083 Rao S., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, A18 Rowan, D. M., Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4574 Sandhaus, P. H., Debes, J. H., Ely, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 49 Schleicher, D. R. G., & Dreizler, S. 2014, A&A, 563, ...

work page 2017

[3] [18]

T., Farihi, J., Tout, C

Wickramasinghe, D. T., Farihi, J., Tout, C. A., Ferrario, L., & Stancliﬀe, R. J. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1984 Wu, Y. 2005, ApJ, 635, 688 Wu, Y. 2018, AJ, 155,

work page 2010

[4] [93]

1981, A&A, 99, 126 Ivanov, P

Hut, P. 1981, A&A, 99, 126 Ivanov, P. B., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2004, MNRAS, 347,

work page 1981

[5] [96]

2011, MNRAS, 414, 1788 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14 Tides between giant planets and white dwarfs 13 Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M

Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1788 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14 Tides between giant planets and white dwarfs 13 Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1631 Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930 Bonsor, A., & Veras, D. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 53 Bou´ e, G., Figueira, P., Correia, A. C. M., & Santos, N. C. 2012, A&A, 537, L...

arXiv 2011

[6] [118]

C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J

Wyatt, M. C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J. E., & Bonsor, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3371 Xu, S., & Jura, M. 2012, ApJ, 745, 88 Xu, S., Ertel, S., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, L8 Xu, S., Zuckerman, B., Dufour, P., et al. 2017, ApJL, 836, L7 c© 2019 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–14

work page 2014

[7] [121]

2003, ApJL, 584, L91 Kepler, S

Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91 Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4078 Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3413 Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 5 Koester, D. 2009, A&A, 498, 517 Kunitomo, M., Ikoma, M., Sato, B., Katsuta, Y., & Ida, S. 2011, ApJ, 737, 66 Liv...

arXiv 2003

[8] [192]

S., Farihi, J., et al

Girven, J., Brinkworth, C. S., Farihi, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 154 Goldstein, J. 1987, A&A, 178, 283 Go´ zdziewski, K., & Migaszewski, C. 2014, MNRAS, 440,

work page 2012