Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Gaseous Dynamical Friction on Hyperbolic Scatterings

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform gas always drains orbital energy from equal-mass hyperbolic flybys, shrinking semi-major axes, damping eccentricity toward e=1, and promoting supersonic gas-captures.

desk verdict Solid linear-theory extension of Paper I to hyperbolic encounters, with a useful taxonomy and a real non-frictional force effect, but the linearity violation across much of the presented parameter space limits how far the quantitative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20470 v1 pith:HTCR2NFB submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

David O'Neill , Daniel J. D'Orazio , Martin E. Pessah This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords gaseousdynamicalfrictionhyperbolicencountersdensitywakeslinearperturbationtheoryorbitaleccentricitydampingbinaryformationingasMachconeclassificationastrophysicaldisks
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

An equal-mass pair flying past each other on a hyperbolic orbit excites a density wake in the surrounding gas, and this paper works out what that wake does back to the orbit. Using linear perturbation theory for a static, uniform gas, it constructs the retarded density wake from both bodies' Keplerian trajectories and integrates the resulting force over the encounter. Its central findings are that the gas always removes orbital energy, so semi-major axes shrink and pericenter Mach numbers increase, and that eccentricity is typically damped toward $e=1$, so the gas pushes unbound scatterings toward supersonic captures. The force is not strictly frictional for asymptotically subsonic encounters, and although the orbit-integrated energy loss resembles the standard rectilinear prescription, the angular momentum and precession behavior differ. If correct, the result means gaseous environments systematically convert flybys into bound, eccentric, supersonic binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless density wake $\mathcal{D}(\Omega t, x/a_e, X/a_e, v/c_s, q)$ built from the retarded Green's function solution of the linearized wave equation $\partial_t^2\alpha - c_s^2\nabla^2\alpha = \nabla^2\Phi_{\rm pert}$, evaluated on a prescribed equal-mass hyperbolic orbit and summed over both bodies. This wake is integrated to obtain the time-dependent force, then the power, torque, and apsidal precession rate, which are integrated over the encounter to give $\Delta E$, $\Delta L$, and $\Delta\omega$. The classification of trajectories is carried by a projected Mach number $M_{\rm proj}$ that decides whether each body re-enters the Mach cone it created during approach or the cone created by its companion, yielding the self-embedded, self-extracted, companion-embedded, and companion-extracted classes.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation of an equal-mass hyperbolic encounter with $e=1.25$, $M_p=5$, and medium radius $R_{\max}=100a_e$ in a uniform static gas should reproduce the predicted self-extracted wake, net energy loss, and eccentricity damping; seeing the perturbers re-enter a wake classified as extracted, or a positive net energy change, would show the linear treatment misses the decisive physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that a uniform gas does not act merely as a straight-line friction on equal-mass hyperbolic scatterings. The retarded density wake built from the two bodies' orbital history produces a radial force that can be attractive, giving positive power during the approach of asymptotically subsonic encounters; energy is nonetheless always lost over a full passage, $\Delta E<0$, so semi-major axes shrink and pericenter Mach numbers $M_p$ rise. Angular momentum change $\Delta L$ can have either sign, and the argument of pericenter precesses by much more than the rectilinear proxy predicts. Eccentricity is typically damped ($\Delta e<0$), pulling $e$ down toward $1$, so the medium nudges hyperbolic scatterings into more curved, more supersonic orbits and, when the dissipated energy exceeds the initial binding threshold, into captured binaries. Six orbital classes---strictly subsonic, transonic, self-embedded and self-extracted, companion-embedded and companion-extracted---organize the wake morphology and mark the extrema of angular momentum and precession.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the two bodies keep their prescribed hyperbolic orbits and the gas response is linear, with density and velocity perturbations $\alpha,\beta \ll 1$ and $A\tau \ll 1$; because $A=4M_\infty^2$, the most supersonic encounters plotted lie outside that linear regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The gas always dissipates orbital energy in the studied parameter space, so semi-major axes shrink and pericenter Mach numbers increase, with the largest energy loss near the transonic line $M_\infty=1$.
  • Orbital eccentricity is typically damped, pushing $e$ downward toward $1$, which promotes supersonic gas-captures from initially unbound scatterings.
  • Angular momentum can be gained or lost: gain is maximal near the self-extraction separatrix and loss near the companion-extraction separatrix, and co-moving Mach cones can exert persistent positive torques.
  • The gas-induced apsidal precession is much larger than the rectilinear proxy predicts, which would rapidly disperse the orientations of scattered orbits.
  • The rectilinear Ostriker proxy matches the energy change to within about 25 percent for intermediate medium sizes, but it fails for angular momentum and for very small or very large media because it misses wake memory and companion-wake effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that if the eccentricity damping persists under live orbital feedback, gas-assisted binary formation proceeds in two stages: a hyperbolic flyby is captured near $e=1$ with a high pericenter Mach number, and the bound-orbit result from the companion paper then shrinks and circularizes it.
  • The separatrix structure suggests a clean numerical test: place encounters on either side of $M_p^{\triangleright}=e/(e-1)$ and $M_p^{\triangleleft}=e\sqrt{(e+1)/(e-1)}$ and check whether the angular momentum gain or loss flips exactly at those lines.
  • A practical extension is to tabulate the fitted $\xi$ coefficients for $\Delta L$ as a function of $(e,M_p)$ and feed them into Monte Carlo scattering codes for gas-rich clusters; the paper provides only five sample trajectories for the fit.
  • Because the force is not strictly frictional for asymptotically subsonic encounters, binary capture rates estimated with the rectilinear formula may be more accurate for energy but potentially biased in angular momentum, which controls which binaries remain bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a linear perturbation theory for the gaseous dynamical friction force on equal-mass hyperbolic encounters in a uniform, static gas. The authors compute the density wake from the retarded Green's function of the wave equation, superpose the wakes of the two perturbers, integrate the resulting gravitational force, and from the power, torque, and apsidal precession rate construct changes in energy, angular momentum, and pericenter orientation across eccentricity and pericenter Mach number. They introduce a classification of hyperbolic orbits (subsonic, transonic, self/companion embedded/extracted), compare the orbit-averaged results with an Ostriker (1999) rectilinear proxy, and derive a gas-capture criterion based on the fitted energy-loss formula. The headline claims are that the gas always dissipates orbital energy, typically damps eccentricity, increases pericenter Mach number, and can produce non-frictional forces (including positive power) for asymptotically subsonic trajectories, promoting gas-assisted capture.

Significance. If valid within its linear domain, this is a useful and timely extension beyond the constant-velocity O99 prescription: it is the first systematic treatment of gaseous dynamical friction for hyperbolic two-body encounters, it gives analytic wake and force profiles from first principles with no fitted parameters in the force calculation, and it provides falsifiable predictions (wake morphology, force sign changes, classification boundaries) that numerical hydrodynamics can check. The self/companion embedded-extracted classification is elegant and gives a natural explanation of the torque sign changes. The main caveat, discussed below, is that a substantial fraction of the presented parameter space violates the linearity assumption, so the breadth of the claims currently exceeds the demonstrated domain of validity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, §3.3–3.7, Figs. 10–11] The linearity assumption is violated over most of the presented parameter space. Section 2.1 requires α,β≪1, and Section 2.4 defines the nonlinearity parameter A=GM/(a_e c_s^2)=4M_∞^2; hence A>1 for M_∞>0.5, and the density perturbation at orbital scales is α∼A a_e/|x|=O(1). For e=1.25 and M_p=5, Eq. (15) gives M_∞=M_p sqrt((e−1)/(e+1))=5/3, so A≈11.1. The authors acknowledge this in Section 2.4 and in the caveats of Section 4.2, but Figs. 10 and 11 and the gas-capture discussion of Section 3.7 present results across pericenter Mach numbers up to ~10 without marking or excluding the non-linear regime. Since the non-frictional force claim (Section 3.2, Fig. 9) and the orbital-evolution flow field (Fig. 11) are sensitive to the wake amplitude at the companion's position, the central conclusions are not yet established for exactly the encounters that drive them. Please either restrict the claims to the linear regime (e.g., M_∞≲0.3 where A≲0.4, with the transonic and supersonic cases treated as a separate, clearly delimited extrapolation) or validate a representative subset against non-linear hydrodynamics and quote the resulting uncertainty in the abstract and in the figure captions.
  2. [§3.7, Eq. (53)] The gas-capture inequality has the wrong sign. The dissipated energy is ΔE=2πAτ M a_e^2 Ω^2 E(Rmax,M∞) with E(Rmax,M∞)<0 from Eq. (47), and the initial total energy is E0=M a_e^2 Ω^2/8 from Eq. (52). Capture requires E0+ΔE≤0, which reduces to E(Rmax,M∞)≤−1/(16πAτ). The manuscript states E≥−1/(16πAτ), which would exclude the large-Rmax, large-|E| region that Fig. 15 identifies as forming bound systems. If E in Eq. (53) is meant to be a positive magnitude, this should be stated explicitly and the notation made consistent with Eqs. (46)–(47).
  3. [§2.7 and §3.5] The numerical force calculation depends on an arbitrary inner cutoff r_min=0.05a_e, and the paper does not test or justify this choice. For supersonic wakes the energy loss has a logarithmic dependence on this scale, as seen in the ln(2Rmax/rmin) term of Eq. (47); changing r_min by an O(1) factor changes the absolute values in Figs. 10–12 by a few tens of percent in the supersonic regime. In addition, the 'analytical' energy model in Eq. (47) contains a fitted K=0.9775 and the angular momentum model in Eq. (48) contains fitted exponents ξ, so these fits are not parameter-free predictions. At minimum, the paper should show convergence with respect to r_min, identify a physical cutoff (e.g., accretion/Bondi radius) if one is intended, and state clearly which results are numerical and which are fitted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.6] In the paragraph introducing Fig. 14, the text says '5 characteristic orbits (the same as in Fig. 14)', but Fig. 14 is the Q-versus-Rmax plot; the five trajectories are selected in Fig. 12, so the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be fixed: 'asmyptotic' (Section 2.4), 'Catesian' (Section 2.4), 'hypebolic' (Section 3.6), 'reminscent' (Section 3.4), 'T ransonic' (Section 2.5), and '20aa' (Section 4.1, item 6).
  3. [§3.5] The fitted exponents ξ for ΔL are reported only 'in the legend of Fig. 12'; since the legend is not reproduced in the text, the numerical values should be listed in the caption or in the body.
  4. [Abstract and §4.1] The unconditional statements 'the gas to always dissipate orbital energy' and 'we typically find the orbital eccentricity to be damped' should carry the qualifiers 'within linear theory' and 'under the fixed-orbit approximation', because Sections 2.4 and 4.2 restrict the domain of validity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core derivation is parameter-free; only a minor, non-load-bearing fit-to-same-data step appears in the analytic gas-capture criterion.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5, Eq. (47); Section 3.7, Eq. (53) and Fig. 15]
    "The parameter K has been introduced as a fitting factor, which we determine to be K= 0.9775 by requiring it to minimise the geometric mean of the fractional error between our results and Eq. (47). Therefore, if we assume that this is also true for orbits experiencing live gas feedback, we can define the criteria for gas-capture."

    The analytic energy-loss formula (Eq. 47) is calibrated by fitting K to the same numerical Delta-E results that it is then used to represent. Section 3.7 and Fig. 15 define the gas-capture threshold using this fitted formula, so the capture map is a compact re-expression of the paper's own integrated energy-loss calculation rather than a prediction from independent physics. The step is transparent and explicitly labeled a fit, and it is not load-bearing for the central results: the wake morphology, instantaneous force profiles, and orbital-evolution vector field are computed without any fitted parameter.

full rationale

The central claimed derivation is not circular. The density wake is obtained from the linearized wave equation with a prescribed Keplerian world-line via a retarded Green's function (Eqs. 5-14); no fitted parameter enters the wake or the force integral (Eqs. 19-20). The orbital changes Delta-E, Delta-L, and Delta-omega are direct time integrals of the computed power, torque, and precession rates (Eqs. 23-26), so the claims that energy is always dissipated, angular momentum can increase or decrease, and eccentricity is typically damped follow from the numerical solution rather than from an input assumption. The rectilinear-proxy comparison uses the externally published Ostriker (1999) formula as a benchmark, and the disagreement between proxy and hyperbolic wakes is a computed result, not an input. Self-citations to Paper I provide coordinate conventions and a qualitative bound-orbit comparison, but the hyperbolic derivation is independent; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The only fitted quantities are K in Eq. (47) and xi in Eq. (49), explicitly labeled as fitting factors matched to the paper's own numerical curves. The gas-capture criterion inherits the fitted K, which is why it is flagged as a minor fit-to-same-data step, but it does not affect the parameter-free wake, force, or orbital-evolution results. The overall circularity burden is therefore low, and no significant circularity affects the paper's central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central wake and force computation is built directly from linearized fluid equations and a retarded Green's function, with no fit parameters in the core calculation. The free parameters are limited to the fitting constants K and ξ used for compact energy and angular momentum formulas, the medium radius R_max that sets the interaction time, and the numerical cutoff r_min. The main axioms are the standard linearization, the fixed-orbit assumption, and the uniform static background; each is flagged in the paper's own caveat list.

free parameters (4)
  • K = 0.9775
    Fitting factor in the energy dissipation formula Eq. (47), chosen to minimize geometric mean fractional error against the numerical results (Section 3.5).
  • ξ (angular momentum power-law coefficient) = five values, one per orbit, given in Fig. 12 legend
    Phenomenological coefficient in the ΔL fit, Eq. (49), fitted per trajectory.
  • R_max (medium radius) = 100 a_e fiducial; varied 20 a_e to 1e5 a_e
    Sets the interaction time t_- and t_+; all orbit-integrated changes (ΔE, ΔL, Δω) depend on it (Section 2.7, Fig. 12).
  • r_min (inner integration cutoff) = 0.05 a_e
    Minimum shell radius for wake construction (Section 2.7); numerical regularization of the point-mass singularity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The gas density and velocity perturbations are small, α, β << 1, permitting linearization of continuity and momentum equations (Eqs. 3 and 4).
    Invoked in Section 2.1; violated for asymptotically supersonic encounters since A = 4 M_inf^2 (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption The perturbers follow prescribed, fixed hyperbolic Keplerian trajectories; gas feedback does not alter the orbit during the encounter.
    Stated in Section 2.2 and listed as a caveat in Section 4.2; requires low gas density τ << 1.
  • domain assumption The background medium is infinite, static, and homogeneous with density ρ0 and sound speed c_s.
    Section 2.1; Appendix A gives conditions for validity in Keplerian disks (L/H << 1).
  • domain assumption Equal-mass scattering q=1, with both perturbers orbiting the common barycenter.
    Section 2.3; used to avoid center-of-mass drift.
  • standard math The Green's function solution with Heaviside cutoff at t_- correctly accounts for the finite interaction time with the medium.
    Eq. (6), standard retarded-Green's function solution of the wave equation, with the medium size R_max setting t_-.
  • standard math The perturber's potential can be treated as a point-mass world-line delta source.
    Eq. (7), standard point-mass approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaseous Dynamical Friction on Hyperbolic Scatterings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTCR2NFB

@misc{pith2026250520470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaseous Dynamical Friction on Hyperbolic Scatterings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTCR2NFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20470}
}
read the original abstract

We present a study of equal-mass hyperbolic encounters, embedded in a uniform gaseous medium. Using linear perturbation theory, we calculate the density wakes excited by these perturbers and compute the resulting forces exerted on them by the gas. We compute the changes to orbital energy, orbital angular momentum and apsidal precession across a wide range of eccentrities and pericenter Mach numbers. We identify six distinct classes of hyperbolic orbits, differing through their wake structure and subsequent orbital evolution. We find the gas to always dissipate orbital energy, leading to smaller semi-major axes and higher pericenter Mach numbers. The orbital angular momentum can either increase or decrease, whereas we typically find the orbital eccentricity to be damped, promoting supersonic gas-captures. Additionally, we find that the force exerted by the gas is not strictly frictional -- particularly for asymptotically subsonic trajectories. Therefore, despite the orbit-integrated changes to orbital parameters being similar to those predicted by the \cite{O99} prescription, the time evolution of the density wakes and the instantaneous forces exerted on the perturbers are significantly different.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the relevant quantities and coordi￾nates considered in this study. The solid black curve is the fixed hyperbolic trajectory followed by the perturber, with it’s current location marked by the black circle. The black cross lies at the focus of the hyperbola and the dotted lines are it’s asymptotes. The grey circle depicts the perturber’s location at some previous time ti, where we can envision a sound… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depending on the orbital eccentricity and peri￾center Mach number, both, one or none of the perturbers may escape the wake created during the incoming approach. Black Lines: The prescribed trajectories of the massive per￾turbers. Blue Shade: The density wake created by one of the incoming perturbers. Brown Lines: The front of the density wake, propagating at the speed of sound cs. While the gas dynamics is linear in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A parameter space spanned by orbital eccentricity and pericenter Mach number. The shaded regions indicate the regions of parameter space according to the orbital clas￾sifications introduced in Section 2.5. M▷ p , such that Mproj = 1 for which, M▷ p = e e − 1 . (36) We note that in the limit of rectilinear motion e → ∞, this separatrix in Mach number approaches unity M▷ p → 1. At this “sonic” Mach number, a rectiline… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The logarithm of the dimensionless density perturbation Ds(Ωt, x/a, e,Mp) (Eq. 14) for three different Mach numbers, Mp ∈ [2, 3, 5] all with eccentricity e = 1.25. The pericenter passage (t = 0) is shown on the top row, while the bottom row depicts a later time, t = 0.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The intersection of the incoming and outgoing Mach cones for e = 1.25 at time Ωt = 3 over a spatial domain of size L = 40 × 40. Both panels are strictly supersonic, although the top panel has a lower Mach number and is self-embedded whereas the bottom panel has a large…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 2D slices of the density wake created by a tran￾sonic trajectory (e = 1.1,Mp = 4.5) across three orthogonal planes. The dashed white line denotes the orbital trajectory while the black dotted and dashed lines are the orthogonal planes plotted adjacently. Trajectories w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Logarithmic plots of the density wake De(Ωt, x/ae, e,Mp) created by an equal mass hyperbolic scattering. We present a selection of Mach numbers (see labels) with fixed eccentricities of e = 1.5 all at equal times following pericenter t = 0.5 [2πΩ −1 ]. The dashed gray …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Radial and azimuthal forces (Fr in red and Fθ in blue) as a function of time. Right: Dimensionless power and torque profiles (P0 in purple and T0 in green) as defined from Eqs. 29, 30. Our selection of orbital parameters correspond to trajectories which are (a) s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The time dependent force profile of an asymptotically subsonic trajectory. Here the red curves denote the radial force Fr, while the blue curves denote the azimuthal force Fθ (which are largely subdominant). For comparison, the dashed lines are the predictions made by …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The change in specific energy E, specific angular momentum L and the angle of precession ω as a function of orbital eccentricity e and pericenter Mach number Mp. The dashed black line separates strictly supersonic (above) from transonic (below) and the dotted black li…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A flow diagram of the orbital parameters (eccentricity e and pericenter Mach number Mp) for equal-mass trajectories embedded in media of radius Rmax = 100ae. The white arrows depict the normalised unit vectors of direction, while the colorbar indicates the rate of orb…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial dependence of the change in energy ∆E and angular momentum ∆L for a set of fixed trajectories (see legend). In contrast, the change in orbital angular momentum is dominated by the torques exerted due to wake inter￾sections and accelerations at pericenter – not …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The normalised alignment coefficient Q (see Eq. 51) used to compare the orbital evolution results between consistent hyperbolic trajectories and the rectilinear proxy. The red solid curve indicates the companion-embedding criterion M◁ p(e), while the green curve repre…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The normalised alignment coefficient Q (see Eq. 51) for a selection of orbital parameters (coloured lines) as a function of Rmax [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: we illustrate the energy dissipated as a function of the asymptotic Mach number M∞ and medium scale Rmax. As expected, the amount of energy dissipated in￾creases monotonically with Rmax and peaks at M∞ = 1. Additionally, we overplot isocontours of Aτ which distin￾guis…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The changes to specific energy, specific angular momentum, and angle of pericenter as a function of the orbital eccentricity and pericenter Mach number. Top: Results obtained with the “two-wake” proxy model. Bottom: Results obtained with the “one-wake” proxy model. Th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., & Spurzem, R

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Eichhorn, C., Porter, E. K., & Spurzem, R. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2268, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15842.x

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  3. [3]

    2010, A&A, 523, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014414

    Bitsch, B., & Kley, W. 2010, A&A, 523, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014414

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014414 2010

  4. [4]

    Orbital evolution of eccentric perturbers under dynamical friction: crossing the sound barrier

    Buehler, R., Kolyada, R., & Desjacques, V. 2023, Orbital evolution of eccentric perturbers under dynamical friction: crossing the sound barrier. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05244

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Burns, J. A. 1976, American Journal of Physics, 44, 944, doi: 10.1119/1.10237

    doi:10.1119/1.10237 1976

  6. [6]

    Cardoso, V., Macedo, C. F. B., & Vicente, R. 2021, PRD, 103, 023015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.023015 2021

  7. [7]

    1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517

    doi:10.1086/144517 1943

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    Chen, N., Ni, Y., Tremmel, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3411 2022

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Cresswell, P., & Nelson, R. P. 2006, A&A, 450, 833, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054551

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, Icarus, 181, 587, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007

    Crida, A., Morbidelli, A., & Masset, F. 2006, Icarus, 181, 587, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1412

    DeLaurentiis, S., Epstein-Martin, M., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1412

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf2

    Dodici, M., & Tremaine, S. 2024, ApJ, 972, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf2

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & MacFadyen, A

    Duffell, P. C., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2013, ApJ, 769, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/41

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07981, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07981

    Cardoso, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07981, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07981

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad758b

    Eytan, G., Desjacques, V., & Buehler, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad758b

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Caban, F., et al

    Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3004

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16948 —

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16948 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 535, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2499

    doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fairbairn, C. W. 2025, ApJ, 979, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c73

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    W., & Rafikov, R

    Fairbairn, C. W., & Rafikov, R. R. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf117

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa465

    Desjacques, V. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa465

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2002, Nature, 420, 643

    Goldreich, P., Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2002, Nature, 420, 643

    2002

  15. [23]

    Grishin, E., & Perets, H. B. 2015, ApJ, 811, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/54 —. 2016, ApJ, 820, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/106

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 196

    Hashimoto, Y., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 196

    2003

  17. [25]

    Hernquist, L., & Mihos, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 448, 41, doi: 10.1086/175940

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    Hirai, R., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Pudritz, R

    Howard, C. S., Pudritz, R. E., & Harris, W. E. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 725, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0506-0

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Jackson, J. D. 1999, Classical electrodynamics, American Association of Physics Teachers

    1999

  21. [29]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 432, doi: 10.1086/519302

    Kim, H., & Kim, W.-T. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 432, doi: 10.1086/519302

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1278, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1278

    Kim, H., & Kim, W.-T. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1278, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1278

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 1069, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1069

    Kim, W.-T. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1069, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1069

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1145

    Kritos, K., Berti, E., & Silk, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1145

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, A&A, 693, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452108

    Koter, A. 2025, A&A, 693, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452108

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    S., & Volonteri, M

    Lescaudron, S., Dubois, Y., Beckmann, R. S., & Volonteri, M. 2023, A&A, 674, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243392

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Li, K., Bogdanović, T., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2020, ApJ, 896, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93c6

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Tremaine, S. 1983, ApJ, 264, 364, doi: 10.1086/160604

    1983 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed. C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, & K. D. Kokkotas, 16, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_16-1

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Muto, T., Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2010, ApJ, 724, 448, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/448

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/37 Nesvorný, D., Li, R., Simon, J

    Muto, T., Takeuchi, T., & Ida, S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/37 Nesvorný, D., Li, R., Simon, J. B., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 27, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd858 O’Neill, D., D’Orazio, D. J., Samsing, J., & Pessah, M. E....

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Ostriker, E. C. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 513, 252, doi: 10.1086/306858 25

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65ce

    Park, K., & Bogdanović, T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65ce

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Yesilyurt, S., & Ercan, E

    Popolo, A. D., Yesilyurt, S., & Ercan, E. N. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 556, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06194.x Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724, doi: 10.1038/nature024...

    2003

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b53

    Qian, K., Li, J., & Lai, D. 2024, ApJ, 962, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b53

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., Kocsis, B., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3641

    Haiman, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3641

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf547

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., Fabj, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf547

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Rozner, M., Generozov, A., & Perets, H. B. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad603

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Rozner, M., & Perets, H. B. 2022a, ApJ, 931, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d55 —. 2022b, ApJ, 931, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d55 —. 2024, ApJ, 968, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bdd

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Samsing, J., & Perets, H

    Rozner, M., Trani, A. A., Samsing, J., & Perets, H. B. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf072

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C

    Samsing, J., D’Orazio, D. J., Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C. L., & Askar, A. 2020, PRD, 101, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123010 Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46ae Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J., & Chametla, R. O. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4863, doi: 10....

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Spieksma, T. F. M., & Cannizzaro, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08033

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Küpper, A

    Stone, N. C., Küpper, A. H. W., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx097

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34af Szölgyén, A., MacLeod, M., & Loeb, A

    Suzuguchi, T., Sugimura, K., Hosokawa, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34af Szölgyén, A., MacLeod, M., & Loeb, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 5465–5473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1294

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2020a, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c —

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020a, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c —. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    doi

  47. [55]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 3812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1877

    Tagawa, H., Umemura, M., & Gouda, N. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1877

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1099

    Tagawa, H., Umemura, M., Gouda, N., Yano, T., & Yamai, Y. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1099

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1f7

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Quaini, S., & Colpi, M

    Trani, A. A., Quaini, S., & Colpi, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347920 Velasco Romero, D. A., & Masset, F. S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3382 Vigna-Gómez, A., MacLeod, M., Neijssel, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical S...

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L81–L85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/l81

    Villaver, E., & Livio, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L81–L85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/l81

    2009 doi

  52. [60]

    Wang, Y., Zhu, Z., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae321

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1989, MNRAS, 239, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/239.2.549

    1989 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1430

    Whitehead, H., Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., & Kocsis, B. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1430

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.