4.7 Article

Gas pile-up, gap overflow and Type 1.5 migration in circumbinary discs: general theory

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22129.x

关键词

accretion; accretion discs; black hole physics; gravitational waves; galaxies: active

资金

  1. NASA [PF9-00063, NNX08AL43G, NNA09DB30A, NNX11AE05G]
  2. Chandra X-ray Observatory Center
  3. National Aeronautics Space Administration [NAS8-03060]
  4. NSF [AST-0907890]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many astrophysical binaries, from planets to black holes, exert strong torques on their circumbinary accretion discs, and are expected to significantly modify the disc structure. Despite the several decade long history of the subject, the joint evolution of the binary + disc system has not been modelled with self-consistent assumptions for arbitrary mass ratios and accretion rates. Here, we solve the coupled binarydisc evolution equations analytically in the strongly perturbed limit, treating the azimuthally averaged angular momentum exchange between the disc and the binary and the modifications to the density, scaleheight, and viscosity self-consistently, including viscous and tidal heating, diffusion limited cooling, radiation pressure and the orbital decay of the binary. We find a solution with a central cavity and a migration rate similar to those previously obtained for Type II migration, applicable for large masses and binary separations, and near-equal mass ratios. However, we identify a distinct new regime, applicable at smaller separations and masses, and mass ratio in the range 10-3 ? q ? 0.1. For these systems, gas piles up outside the binary's orbit, but rather than creating a cavity, it continuously overflows as in a porous dam. The disc profile is intermediate between a weakly perturbed disc (producing Type I migration) and a disc with a gap (with Type II migration). However, the migration rate of the secondary is typically slower than both Type I and Type II rates. We term this new regime Type 1.5 migration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据