Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 75 references

A disturbance in the force. How force fluctuations hinder dynamical friction and induce core stalling

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that core stalling—the premature halting of a massive object's orbital decay near the center of a galaxy or cluster—is caused by force fluctuations from the system's finite particle number, so the stalling radius shrinks…

desk verdict A solid N-body study that directly measures rs ∝ N^-1/2 and credibly ties core stalling to granularity, though the high-N extrapolation rests on a white-noise approximation the authors themselves flag as rough. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04505 v2 pith:T4GA27R3 submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.GA cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.plasm-ph

Pierfrancesco Di Cintio , Bruno Marcos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.plasm-ph
keywords dynamicalfrictioncorestallingN-bodysimulationsforcefluctuationsHoltsmarkdistributionLangevinequationgamma-modelswanderradius
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

This paper aims to settle why a massive tracer—a black hole or satellite—stops sinking toward the centre of a cored stellar system earlier than standard dynamical-friction predictions say it should. It argues that the dominant cause is granularity, not resonance: random force fluctuations from the finite number of background particles stir the tracer and statistically balance the friction, so the stalling radius follows $r_s \propto N^{-1/2}$ at fixed tracer mass fraction. The same scaling appears in self-consistent $N$-body runs and in runs where field particles are non-interacting tracers in the static smooth potential, in both cored ($\gamma=0$) and cuspy ($\gamma=1$) models, and a stochastic Langevin version of the same physics reproduces the trend up to $N=10^{13}$. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns a long-debated astrophysical puzzle into a finite-resolution effect, with the corollary that low-resolution simulations exaggerate how far dynamical friction drags massive objects inward.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a stochastic equation of motion for the tracer, $\ddot{\mathbf r} = -\nabla\Phi(\mathbf r) - \eta\mathbf v + \delta\mathbf f(\mathbf r)$, in which $-\eta\mathbf v$ is the Chandrasekhar dynamical-friction drag and $\delta\mathbf f$ is a random force per unit mass sampled from the Holtsmark distribution, normalized by the local density and particle mass. The paper anchors this model in the discrete dynamics by computing the force-fluctuation field in $N$-body snapshots as the difference between the discrete and smooth-potential accelerations and showing that the empirical distribution is close to Holtsmark across radii. The argument is carried by the identity $r_s \approx C r_c \sqrt{m/m_t}$, the same scaling as the wander radius of a heavy particle undergoing Brownian motion in the cluster core, so the stalling radius is interpreted as the point where noise-induced random walking balances friction-driven infall.

What would settle it

Run tracer-only simulations in a cored $\gamma=0$ model at fixed $m_t/M=10^{-3}$ with $N=10^7$ and $10^8$, at a fixed softening below the predicted $r_s$, with two timesteps differing by a factor of two; if $r_s$ follows the $N^{-1/2}$ line in both, the granularity mechanism holds, while a plateau at the $r_s\approx r_c/2$ level would favor the resonance-buoyancy explanation. Separately, measure the force autocorrelation time $\tau_c$ in an $N$-body snapshot sequence and check whether adding it to the stochastic equation moves $r_s$ beyond the run-to-run scatter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At fixed $m_t/M$ and nearly circular initial orbits, the stalling radius in the cored $\gamma=0$ and mildly cuspy $\gamma=1$ spherical models obeys $r_s \approx C r_c \sqrt{m/m_t} = C r_c \sqrt{M/(N m_t)}$, hence $r_s \propto N^{-1/2}$, across $10^4 \le N \le 3\times10^6$ (Section 3.2, Fig. 6), both with and without field-particle self-gravity. The authors verify that the per-shell force-fluctuation distribution matches the Holtsmark form, reproduce the $N$-body orbital decay with a Langevin equation combining local Chandrasekhar friction and Holtsmark-distributed noise, and show that this stochastic model extends the $N^{-1/2}$ law for both models to $N=10^{13}$, with the cored case flattening to a nearly $N$-independent $r_s$ above about $10^9$ particles. Contrary to the common view that stalling is special to flat cores, the suppression shows up in the cuspy $\gamma=1$ model as well, at smaller radii. They further report that the super-Chandrasekhar phase seen in earlier cored-model work appears only at $N \lesssim 3\times10^5$, which they attribute to enhanced collisionality at low resolution rather than to a physical breakdown of the standard friction formula.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-$N$ background can be treated as uncorrelated Poissonian noise: force fluctuations drawn independently from a Holtsmark distribution at every time step, with no memory; the paper itself notes that force fluctuations cannot be fully uncorrelated because the density fluctuations that source them integrate to zero at fixed total mass, so a non-negligible correlation time could shift the noise-friction balance that sets the stalling radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed tracer mass fraction, doubling the particle number shrinks the stalling radius inward by about $\sqrt{2}$, so stalling radii measured in $N\sim10^5$-$10^6$ simulations are not directly transferable to real stellar systems with $N\gtrsim10^{11}$ particles.
  • The super-Chandrasekhar drag phase seen in earlier cored-model simulations is a low-resolution artifact appearing only for $N\lesssim3\times10^5$, and should not be treated as a physical enhancement of dynamical friction.
  • The self-gravitating wake or polarization cloud is not the controlling agent: switching off field-particle self-gravity leaves the stalling radius nearly unchanged for $3\times10^{-4}\lesssim m_t/M\lesssim10^{-2}$.
  • Core stalling and heavy-particle wander share the same mass-ratio dependence ($r\propto\sqrt{m/m_t}$), so they are the same granularity phenomenon approached from different initial conditions.
  • In the stochastic model, cored systems show a resolution floor: for $m_t/M=10^{-3}$ the stalling radius becomes nearly $N$-independent above about $N=10^9$, whereas cuspy systems keep shrinking until the model's slope change near $10^9$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the argument identifies the mass ratio $m_t/m = m_t N/M$ as the control variable, a natural test is to fix $N$ and vary $m_t$ over two decades in tracer-only runs, checking that $r_s/(r_c\sqrt{m/m_t})$ collapses onto one constant; if the collapse fails, a resonance contribution is still present at fixed granularity.
  • The authors flag the delta-correlated noise assumption as approximate; measuring the force-fluctuation autocorrelation time in the $N$-body snapshots and re-running the Langevin equation with colored noise would show whether the $N^{-1/2}$ law survives beyond the simplest noise model.
  • The unexplained $N^{-1/6}$ slope change in cuspy models above $N\approx10^9$ can be probed directly with high-resolution tracer-only runs, which the paper notes are feasible on parallel hardware; a time-step convergence study would separate a physical regime from a numerical artifact.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stalling of a massive tracer subject to dynamical friction in spherical stellar systems, using N-body simulations (N=10^4 to 3x10^6) and single-particle Langevin integrations. The authors report that the stalling radius scales as rs ∝ rc N^{-1/2} at fixed mt/M in both cored (γ=0) and cuspy (γ=1) models, that the same scaling holds in self-consistent and non-interacting-tracer runs, and that a Langevin model with locally normalized Holtsmark force fluctuations reproduces the trend and allows extrapolation to N~10^13. They interpret core stalling as a granularity-induced balance between friction and force fluctuations, relating rs to the known wander-radius scaling, and argue that the result is compatible with, rather than contradictory to, resonance-based explanations of core stalling.

Significance. If the central N-body result holds, it provides a concrete, quantitative explanation for the long-debated resolution dependence of core stalling and connects it to the known wander-radius scaling of a heavy particle in a granular potential. The paper's direct N-body measurements over two decades in N (Figs. 6 and 7) are a valuable contribution, and the empirical validation of the Holtsmark form of force fluctuations in Fig. 2 is a genuine strength. The comparisons between self-consistent and non-interacting-tracer runs also help isolate the role of the wake. However, the high-N extrapolation and the proposed noise-friction balance interpretation rest on the delta-correlated approximation in Eq. (14), which the authors themselves describe as a rough approximation, so the extrapolated slope changes should be regarded as tentative until the colored-noise issue is addressed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (14), and Fig. 10] The extrapolation of rs(N) to N~10^13, including the slope changes around N~10^7-10^9, is entirely based on the Langevin equation with delta-correlated Holtsmark noise. The paper explicitly states in Section 2.3, in the paragraph following the description of the Mannella integrator, that force fluctuations cannot be completely delta-correlated because the space-integrated density fluctuations integrate to zero and a correlation time tau_c would be needed. This is not a cosmetic caveat: in the near-harmonic core the stalling radius is controlled by the integrated autocorrelation of the noise, not only by the one-point distribution plotted in Fig. 2. The cited works by Pogorelov & Kandrup and Terzic & Kandrup are not shown to cover this parameter regime, so they do not license the quantitative slope changes in Fig. 10. I recommend implementing a colored-noise variant with tau_c varied over the relevant range, or deriving an analytic correction to the white-noise limit, before the high-N predictions are presented as results rather than as extrapolations under an acknowledged approximation. The paper's own statement that the origin of the slope change 'remains unclear' and could be numerical reinforces this concern.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figs. 6 and 7] The direct N-body scaling is the paper's central claim, but at the high-N end the measured rs is only marginally above the softening length; the text reports rs > epsilon for all N, and Section 3.3 notes that at N~10^8 the associated rs is around epsilon. The softening length therefore provides a conceivable floor that could bias the fitted N^{-1/2} slope. The paper mentions runs with varying epsilon but does not show them, and Figs. 6 and 9 have no error bars from realization-to-realization scatter or from the time-averaging window used to define rs. Please add (i) a quantitative demonstration that rs(N) at fixed N is insensitive to epsilon for epsilon values below the standard 2x10^-3 rc, at least for the highest N shown, and (ii) error bars on rs in Figs. 6 and 9. Without this, the apparent N^{-1/2} trend at the high-N end is not fully distinguishable from a softening floor.
  3. [Section 3.2, paragraph beginning 'Aiming at comparing with the idealized Chandrasekhar DF'] The claim that the super-Chandrasekhar regime appears only for N ≲ 3x10^5 is not supported by any quantitative criterion in the paper. From Fig. 7 alone the reader cannot determine how 'super-Chandrasekhar' is defined, for example whether it means that the actual infall time is shorter than the local-Maxwellian Chandrasekhar prediction by some stated factor, and with which choice of bmax and velocity distribution the comparison is made. Because this claim is used to argue that the super-Chandrasekhar phase is a low-resolution artifact, it needs a reproducible metric and a plot of that metric versus N for both gamma=0 and gamma=1.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figs. 11 and 12] The proposed physical interpretation via a balance between the Holtsmark force scale alpha^{2/3} and the drag eta v_c is not quantitatively consistent with the reported N^{-1/2} scaling. For gamma=0 in the harmonic core, alpha^{2/3} is proportional to m^{1/3} and hence to N^{-1/3} at fixed M and rc, while eta v_c is nearly N-independent for mt/M=10^-3 and N>=10^4; the crossing radius in Fig. 12 would then scale as N^{-1/3}, not N^{-1/2}. The N^{-1/2} law instead matches the wander-radius scaling rwan proportional to sqrt(D/eta) with D proportional to m, i.e. a diffusion-coefficient balance rather than a typical-force balance. Please state clearly which of these two criteria the stochastic integrations actually determine, and reconcile the crossing-point discussion in Fig. 12 with the measured rs(N).
  5. [Section 3.3, Fig. 10 and surrounding text] The extrapolated results are presented without error bars or realization statistics, and the stochastic runs are not described in enough detail for the reader to assess convergence. In particular, the number of independent stochastic realizations per N, the time step used, and the criterion for assigning rs from the integrated trajectories should be reported, because Fig. 10 is the only evidence for the high-N slope changes and the claimed N-independence of rs in cored models above N~10^9.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (22)] The paper writes log for the Coulomb logarithm in Eq. (22) but ln in Eq. (1); the notation should be unified to avoid ambiguity about the base.
  2. [Section 3.1 after Fig. 4] There is a typo in the phrase 'via stronger field particles ejection (see Fif. 4)', which should read 'Fig. 4'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The statement that the test particle mass ranges from 2x10^-4 to 10^-2 M is followed by figures using intermediate values; it would be helpful to state explicitly in Fig. 8 which mass values are shown and how many realizations were used for each curve.
  4. [Section 4, Outlook] The sentence 'observing the onset of a resonance-driven core stalling in N-body experiments remains a challenging task' is useful, but the proposed test with a distribution function composed entirely of circular orbits should be described more concretely, since such a distribution would not be self-consistently stable and the paper does not say how the test would be carried out in practice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the N^{-1/2} stalling-radius scaling is measured directly in N-body runs and reproduced by a stochastic model whose noise is validated independently; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing method reference.

full rationale

The central result is empirical: rs/rc is measured from N-body decays (Figs. 6-7) and exhibits rs ∝ N^{-1/2}; this scaling is not imposed by the models. The stochastic equation (14) takes as inputs the smooth potential, the Chandrasekhar friction coefficient with a local Maxwellian Ξ(v), and a Holtsmark noise whose normalization α is set by local ρ and m = M/N. No stalling radius is fed into Eq. (14), and the Holtsmark one-point distribution is checked against the independently measured force-fluctuation histograms (Fig. 2). The constant C in rs = C rc sqrt(m/mt) (Fig. 9) is a fit to the measured trend, used for comparison with the wander radius rwan, not an input to the stochastic integrations; the same N^{-1/2} law is recovered in Sec. 3.3 without tuning to rs. The only self-citation is methodological: Sec. 2.3 adopts the Langevin framework 'following the approach of Sartorello et al. (2025)', a paper sharing an author, but the framework is explicitly presented as an assumption and is benchmarked against the paper's own N-body runs; the authors also flag the delta-correlated-noise idealization as a rough approximation. That is a correctness/extrapolation caveat (a finite correlation time could affect the high-N slopes), not a circular reduction. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation only; the derivation itself is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Chandrasekhar DF as the smooth drag, on the delta-correlated Holtsmark noise representation of granularity, and on the neglect of self-gravity/wake in tracer runs. Free parameters are the softening length, the normalization constant C of the stalling law, and the Coulomb logarithm convention; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Softening length epsilon = 2e-3 rc (fixed)
    Chosen by hand for all runs; the paper shows increasing epsilon increases the stalling radius, so the quantitative values of rs and the extent of the N^{-1/2} scaling may depend on this choice. Appears in Section 2.2 and the softening tests in Section 3.2.
  • Dimensionless constant C in rs = C rc sqrt(m/mt) = of order unity (not quoted precisely)
    Fit to the measured stalling radii in Fig 9; the normalization of the stalling radius law is not derived. Section 3.2.
  • Coulomb logarithm parameters (bmax = r*, bmin from sigma) = ln(1 + (r* sigma^2 / (G(mt+m)))^2)
    The choice of maximum impact parameter bmax = r* (average interparticle distance) is one of several debated conventions; the paper notes the exact choice has little effect below N ~ 5e6 but it still sets the DF drag amplitude in Eq. (1) and hence the friction-noise balance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Chandrasekhar dynamical friction formula (Eq. 1) with local density and velocity dispersion remains a valid description of the smooth drag on the tracer inside cores.
    The paper's noise-friction balance interpretation assumes the DF term eta v in Eq. (14) is the correct friction even where the density profile is harmonic; if resonant suppression of DF (Banik & van den Bosch) is significant, the balance radius would shift. The authors test the local Maxwellian approximation in Appendix A but not the resonant correction.
  • domain assumption The granularity of the finite-N system is statistically equivalent to a delta-correlated force noise with a local Holtsmark distribution (Eq. 15).
    Stated in Section 2.3, with the authors noting that the noise cannot be fully uncorrelated because force fluctuations integrate to zero (Poisson constraint). Used for the stochastic extrapolations and the interpretation of the N^{-1/2} scaling as Poissonian.
  • domain assumption Field particles in the 'tracer' runs may be propagated in the fixed smooth potential without self-gravity, and wake/polarization effects on DF are negligible in the explored mass range.
    Central to the comparison in Figs 3, 4, 6 and Appendix B; the paper shows the stalling radii agree with self-consistent runs, providing partial support, but the simplification is an assumption about the physics of wake formation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A disturbance in the force. How force fluctuations hinder dynamical friction and induce core stalling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4GA27R3

@misc{pith2026250504505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A disturbance in the force. How force fluctuations hinder dynamical friction and induce core stalling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4GA27R3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04505}
}
abstract

Dynamical friction is an important phenomena in stellar dynamics resulting in the slowing down of a test particle upon many two-body scatters with background particles. Chandrasekhar's original formulation, developed for idealized infinite and homogeneous systems, has been found to be sufficiently accurate even in models of finite extent and radially dependent density profiles. However, in some cases $N-$body simulations evidenced a breakdown of Chandrasekhar's formalism. In particular, in the case of cored stellar systems, the analytical predictions underestimate the rate of in-fall of the test particle. Several explanations for such discrepancy have been proposed so far, in spite of this it remains unclear whether the origin is a finite N effect or an effect arising from the resonance of the orbits of the test and field particles, which is independent on $N$, such as dynamical buoyancy. Here we aim at shedding some light on this issue with tailored numerical experiments. We perform ad hoc simulations of a massive tracer initially placed on a low eccentricity orbit in spherical equilibrium models with increasing resolution. We use an $N-$body code where the self-consistent interaction among the background particles can be substituted with the effect of the static smooth potential of the system's continuum limit, so that the higher order contributions to the dynamical friction arising from the formation of a wake can be neglected if needed. We find that, contrary to what reported in the previous literature, a suppression of dynamical friction happens in both cuspy and cored models. When neglecting the interaction among field particles we observe in both cases a clear $N^{-1/2}$ scaling of the radius at which dynamical friction ceases to be effective. This hints towards a granularity-induced origin of the so-called core-stalling of the massive tracer in cored models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial profile of the average of the discrete force fluctuations (left panel) and its variance (right panel) evaluated for a single realization of a Plummer system with N = 106 . with radial mass profile M(r) = M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerically evaluated distribution of force fluctuation P(δ f) in different shells of increasing radius (clockwise from top left, r = 3.1×10−2 , 7.2 × 10−2 , 0.38, 1.3, 6.9 and 54.8 in units of rc) for a Plummer model with N = 106 and 102 realizations (gray dots). The blue dots mark the PDF averaged over said ensemble while the red curve is the corresponding the Holtsmark distribution (15) computed for the local val… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial decay of a massive tracer mt = 10−3M orbiting in a γ = 0 (left) and a γ = 1 (right) model in a self consistent N−body run (blue curves) and a simplified simulation where the same N = 106 field particles move independently in the static smooth potential (ma￾genta curves). The horizontal orange dashed line marks the value of the softening parameter ϵ = 2×10−3 rc , while the black dotted line indicates the radiu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Decay of the galactocentric distance in a Plummer system for a particle with mt = 2 × 10−3M in a N−body simulation with N = 106 (magenta curve), and two semi analytical integrations in the parent smooth potential with dynamical friction and fluctuations (solid cyan lin…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Initial density profile corresponding to a γ = 0 (top) and a γ = 1 (bottom) model (filled orange squares) and corresponding density pro￾files at t = 103 tc in the self consistent and tracers in smooth potential simulations (blue upward triangles and magenta downward tr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Decay of the galactocentric distance of a tracer particle of mass mt = 10−3M in models with γ = 0 (top left panel) and 1 (bottom left) and the data collapse after a N 1/2 scaling (mid panels) to the time-averaged scaling radius rs , and the evolution of the correspondi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stalling radius in a γ = 0 model as a function of the mass ratio mt/m for the two system resolutions N = 5 × 105 (red diamonds) and N = 106 (blue squares). The dashed line marks the (mt/m) −1/2 trend. 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 104 105 106 107 108 109 101010111012 1013 rs/rc …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Decay of the galactocentric distance in a γ = 0 cored system for test particle with masses in the range 2 × 10−4 ≤ mt/M ≤ 10−2 and N = 106 (top panel) indicated by increasingly lighter shades of blue, the dashed lines mark the radial decay predicted by the Chandrasekha…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Core-stalling radius as function of N for a particle of mass mt = 10−3M in a cored model (γ = 0, cyan circles) and a mildly cuspy model (γ = 1, red triangles) as extrapolated from Langevin simulations. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial dependence of the DF force acting on a particle of mass mt = 10−3M on a circular orbit at vc (dashed lines), of the typical force fluctuation δ f ≈ α 2/3 (solid lines, increasingly lighter shades of red correspond to larger values of N), and radial dependence o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial dependence of the difference of between the DF term and typical force fluctuation, normalized by the local value of ||∇Φ||, for the same systems shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In this case, where the resolution is N = 106 we observe a remarkably good agreement of the final values of the relative energy for both values of γ with relatively small fluctuations. Smaller values of N (not shown here) also yield rather similar values, though bearin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agekyan, T. A. 1962, Soviet Ast., 5, 809

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    & Cohen, L

    Ahmad, A. & Cohen, L. 1973, ApJ, 179, 885

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    & Cohen, L

    Ahmad, A. & Cohen, L. 1974, ApJ, 188, 469

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Arena, S. E. & Bertin, G. 2007, A&A, 463, 921

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    E., Bertin, G., Liseikina, T., & Pegoraro, F

    Arena, S. E., Bertin, G., Liseikina, T., & Pegoraro, F. 2006, A&A, 453, 9

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Bahcall, J. N. & Wolf, R. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 214

    1976

  7. [7]

    & van den Bosch, F

    Banik, U. & van den Bosch, F. C. 2021, ApJ, 912, 43

    2021

  8. [8]

    & van den Bosch, F

    Banik, U. & van den Bosch, F. C. 2022, ApJ, 926, 215

    work page 2022

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Bekenstein, J. D. & Maoz, E. 1992, ApJ, 390, 79

    1992

  2. [10]

    2003, A&A, 405, 73 Bílek, M., Combes, F., Nagesh, S

    Bertin, G., Liseikina, T., & Pegoraro. 2003, A&A, 405, 73 Bílek, M., Combes, F., Nagesh, S. T., & Hilker, M. 2024, A&A, 690, A119

    2003

  3. [11]

    & Tremaine, S

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

    2008

  4. [12]

    Bontekoe, T. R. & van Albada, T. S. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 349

    1987

  5. [13]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1308

    Brockamp, M., Baumgardt, H., & Kroupa, P. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1308

    2011

  6. [14]

    2007, SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing, 29, 245

    Burrage, K., Lenane, I., & Lythe, G. 2007, SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing, 29, 245

    2007

  7. [15]

    & von Neumann, J

    Chandrasekhar, S. & von Neumann, J. 1942, ApJ, 95, 489

    1942

  8. [16]

    & von Neumann, J

    Chandrasekhar, S. & von Neumann, J. 1943, ApJ, 97, 1

    1943

  9. [17]

    2003, ApJ, 592, 32

    Chatterjee, P., Hernquist, L., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 32

    2003

  10. [18]

    & Kataria, S

    Chiba, R. & Kataria, S. K. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4115

    2024

  11. [19]

    & Marcos, B

    Chiron, D. & Marcos, B. 2019, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 60, 052901

    2019

  12. [20]

    2021, Introduction to Stellar Dynamics

    Ciotti, L. 2021, Introduction to Stellar Dynamics

    2021

  13. [21]

    R., Dehnen, W., Read, J

    Cole, D. R., Dehnen, W., Read, J. I., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 601

    2012

  14. [22]

    C., Weinberg, M

    Dattathri, S., van den Bosch, F. C., Weinberg, M. D., & Banik, U. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.23905

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    1993, MNRAS, 265, 250

    Dehnen, W. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 250

    1993

  16. [24]

    2000, ApJ, 536, L39 Del Popolo, A

    Dehnen, W. 2000, ApJ, 536, L39 Del Popolo, A. 1996a, A&A, 305, 999 Del Popolo, A. 1996b, A&A, 311, 715 Di Cintio, P., Ciotti, L., & Nipoti, C. 2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 495810504 Di Cintio, P., Ciotti, L., & Nipoti, C. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 351, Star Cluster...

    2000

  17. [25]

    A., Everitt, M

    El-Zant, A. A., Everitt, M. J., & Kassem, S. M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1456

    2019

  18. [26]

    2014, Phys

    Gabrielli, A., Joyce, M., & Morand, J. 2014, Phys. Rev. E, 90, 062910

    2014

  19. [27]

    Gardiner, C. W. 1994, Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry and the natural sciences

    1994

  20. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 957

    Genina, A., Springel, V ., & Rantala, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 957

    2024

  21. [29]

    Gilbert, I. H. 1970, ApJ, 159, 239

    1970

  22. [30]

    I., & Stadel, J

    Goerdt, T., Moore, B., Read, J. I., & Stadel, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1707

    2010

  23. [31]

    I., Stadel, J., & Zemp, M

    Goerdt, T., Moore, B., Read, J. I., Stadel, J., & Zemp, M. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1073

    2006

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2041

    Hamilton, C., Fouvry, J.-B., Binney, J., & Pichon, C. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2041

    2018

  25. [33]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    1990

  26. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 4193

    Heyvaerts, J., Fouvry, J.-B., Chavanis, P.-H., & Pichon, C. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4193

    2017

  27. [35]

    1919, Annalen der Physik, 363, 577

    Holtsmark, J. 1919, Annalen der Physik, 363, 577

    1919

  28. [36]

    Huang, S., Dubinski, J., & Carlberg, R. G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 73

    1993

  29. [37]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1181

    Inoue, S. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1181

    2011

  30. [38]

    Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 31, IAU Colloq. 10: Gravitational N-Body Problem, ed. M. Lecar, 13

    1972

  31. [39]

    Kandrup, H. E. 1980, Phys. Rep., 63, 1

    1980

  32. [40]

    Kandrup, H. E. 1983, Ap&SS, 97, 435

    1983

  33. [41]

    & Sridhar, S

    Kaur, K. & Sridhar, S. 2018, ApJ, 868, 134

    2018

  34. [42]

    & Stone, N

    Kaur, K. & Stone, N. C. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 407

    2022

  35. [43]

    J., Karydas, T

    Kavanagh, B. J., Karydas, T. K., Bertone, G., Di Cintio, P., & Pasquato, M. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063071

    2025

  36. [44]

    2004, ApJ, 601, 37

    Kazantzidis, S., Magorrian, J., & Moore, B. 2004, ApJ, 601, 37

    2004

  37. [45]

    2003, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 1, 18

    Londrillo, P., Nipoti, C., & Ciotti, L. 2003, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 1, 18

    2003

  38. [46]

    & Kalnajs, A

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1

    1972

  39. [47]

    F., Kelley, L

    Ma, L., Hopkins, P. F., Kelley, L. Z., & Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5543

    2023

  40. [48]

    2004, Physical Review E, 69

    Mannella, R. 2004, Physical Review E, 69

    2004

  41. [49]

    2017, Phys

    Marcos, B., Gabrielli, A., & Joyce, M. 2017, Phys. Rev. E, 96, 032102

    2017

  42. [50]

    Marochnik, L. S. 1968, Soviet Ast., 11, 873

    1968

  43. [51]

    2007, AJ, 133, 553

    Merritt, D., Berczik, P., & Laun, F. 2007, AJ, 133, 553

    2007

  44. [52]

    & Merritt, D

    Mikkola, S. & Merritt, D. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 219

    2006

  45. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 44

    Miocchi, P., Pasquato, M., Lanzoni, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 44

    2015

  46. [54]

    Mulder, W. A. 1983, A&A, 117, 9

    1983

  47. [55]

    T., Gualandris, A., Read, J

    Nasim, I. T., Gualandris, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4794

    2021

  48. [56]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 681

    Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 681

    2006

  49. [57]

    & Di Cintio, P

    Pasquato, M. & Di Cintio, P. 2020, A&A, 640, A79

    2020

  50. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 163

    Pasquato, M., Miocchi, P., & Yoon, S.-J. 2018, ApJ, 867, 163

    2018

  51. [59]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1972, ApJ, 178, 371

    1972

  52. [60]

    Petrovskaya, I. V . 1986, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 12, 237

    1986

  53. [61]

    A., Gualandris, A., & Read, J

    Petts, J. A., Gualandris, A., & Read, J. I. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3778

    2015

  54. [62]

    A., Read, J

    Petts, J. A., Read, J. I., & Gualandris, A. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 858

    2016

  55. [63]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460

    1911

  56. [64]

    Pogorelov, I. V . & Kandrup, H. E. 1999, Phys. Rev. E, 60, 1567

    1999

  57. [65]

    I., Goerdt, T., Moore, B., et al

    Read, J. I., Goerdt, T., Moore, B., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1451

    2006

  58. [66]

    A., & Pasquato, M

    Sartorello, S., Di Cintio, P., Trani, A. A., & Pasquato, M. 2025, A&A, 698, A28

    2025

  59. [67]

    1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    1987

  60. [68]

    1969, ApJ, 158, L139

    Spitzer, Jr., L. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139

    1969

  61. [69]

    & Kandrup, H

    Terzic, B. & Kandrup, H. E. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2003

  62. [70]

    Trani, A. A. & Di Cintio, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02173

    2025

  63. [71]

    O., Byun, Y .-I., et al

    Tremaine, S., Richstone, D. O., Byun, Y .-I., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 634

    1994

  64. [72]

    & Weinberg, M

    Tremaine, S. & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 729 van Albada, T. S. & Szomoru, A. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 351, Star Clus- ters: From the Milky Way to the Early Universe, ed. A. Bragaglia, M. Davies, A. Sills, & E. Vesperini, 532–535

    1984

  65. [73]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 451

    1985

  66. [74]

    White, S. D. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 53

    1983

  67. [75]

    Zelnikov, M. I. & Kuskov, D. S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3597 Article number, page 12 of 13 Pierfrancesco Di Cintio and Bruno Marcos: A disturbance in the force Appendix A: Analytical dynamical friction coefficient for the Plummer sphere The dynamical friction expressed in Eq. (1) is...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.