Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:17:55.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Problem of Three Stars: Stability Limit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

M. Valtonen
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, 21500 Piikkiö, Finland email: mavalto@utu.fi
A. Mylläri
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, 21500 Piikkiö, Finland email: mavalto@utu.fi
V. Orlov
Affiliation:
Sobolev Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University, Russia email: vor@astro.spbu.ru
A. Rubinov
Affiliation:
Sobolev Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University, Russia email: vor@astro.spbu.ru
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The problem of three stars arises in many connections in stellar dynamics: three-body scattering drives the evolution of star clusters, and bound triple systems form long-lasting intermediate structures in them. Here we address the question of stability of triple stars. For a given system the stability is easy to determine by numerical orbit calculation. However, we often have only statistical knowledge of some of the parameters of the system. Then one needs a more general analytical formula. Here we start with the analytical calculation of the single encounter between a binary and a single star by Heggie (1975). Using some of the later developments we get a useful expression for the energy change per encounter as a function of the pericenter distance, masses, and relative inclination of the orbit. Then we assume that the orbital energy evolves by random walk in energy space until the accumulated energy change leads to instability. In this way we arrive at a stability limit in pericenter distance of the outer orbit for different mass combinations, outer orbit eccentricities and inclinations. The result is compared with numerical orbit calculations.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Aarseth, S. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggleton, P. & Kiseleva, L. 1995, ApJ 455, 640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golubev, V. G. 1967, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 12, 529Google Scholar
Golubev, V. G. 1968, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 13, 373Google Scholar
Harrington, R. S. 1977, Rev. Mexicana AyA 3, 139Google Scholar
Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS 173, 729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggie, D. C. 2006, in Flynn, C. F. (ed.), Few Body Problem: Theory and Computer Simulations, Ann. Univ. Turku, Ser. 1 A, Vol. 358, p. 20Google Scholar
Mardling, R. & Aarseth, S. 1999, in Steves, B. A. & Roy, A. E. (ed.), The Dynamics of Small Bodies in the Solar System Studies, Kluwer, p. 385Google Scholar
Mardling, R. & Aarseth, S. 2001, MNRAS 321 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkola, S. 1997, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astr., 67, 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A. & Haddow, M. 2003, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astr., 87, 411Google Scholar
Tokovinin, A. 2004, Rev. Mexicana AyA 21, 7Google Scholar
Valtonen, M. & Karttunen, H. 2006, The Three-Body Problem, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, Chapter 2Google Scholar
Zhuchkov, R., Orlov, V., & Rubinov, A. 2006, in Flynn, C. F. (ed.), Few Body Problem: Theory and Computer Simulations, Ann. Univ. Turku, Ser. 1 A, Vol. 358, p. 79Google Scholar