1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,a4paper]{mn2e}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig,natbib}
4: \usepackage{amssymb,txfonts}
5: \usepackage{epstopdf}
6:
7: \newcommand{\de}{\mbox{d}}
8:
9: \title[Stellar disruption by a SMBH]{Stellar disruption by a supermassive
10: black hole: is the light curve really proportional to $t^{-5/3}$?}
11: \author[Lodato, King \& Pringle]{G. Lodato$^1$, A. R. King$^1$ and J. E. Pringle$^{1,2}$\\
12: $^1$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH\\
13: $^2$Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road,
14: Cambridge CB3 0HA } \date{} % Activate to display a given date or no date
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: In this paper we revisit the arguments for the basis of the time evolution
21: of the flares expected to arise when a star is disrupted by a supermassive
22: black hole. We present a simple analytic model relating the lightcurve to
23: the internal density structure of the star. We thus show that the standard
24: lightcurve proportional to $t^{-5/3}$ only holds at late times. Close to the
25: peak luminosity the lightcurve is shallower, deviating more strongly from
26: $t^{-5/3}$ for more centrally concentrated (e.g. solar--type) stars. We test
27: our model numerically by simulating the tidal disruption of several stellar
28: models, described by simple polytropic spheres with index $\gamma$. The
29: simulations agree with the analytical model given two considerations. First,
30: the stars are somewhat inflated on reaching pericentre because of the
31: effective reduction of gravity in the tidal field of the black hole. This is
32: well described by a homologous expansion by a factor which becomes smaller
33: as the polytropic index becomes larger. Second, for large polytropic indices
34: wings appear in the tails of the energy distribution, indicating that some
35: material is pushed further away from parabolic orbits by shocks in the tidal
36: tails. In all our simulations, the $t^{-5/3}$ lightcurve is achieved only at
37: late stages. In particular we predict that for solar type stars, this
38: happens only after the luminosity has dropped by at least two magnitudes
39: from the peak. We discuss our results in the light of recent observations of
40: flares in otherwise quiescent galaxies and note the dependence of these
41: results on further parameters, such as the star/hole mass ratio and the
42: stellar orbit
43: \end{abstract}
44: \begin{keywords}
45: black holes -- hydrodynamics - galaxies: nuclei
46: \end{keywords}
47:
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: X-ray flares from quiescent (non-AGN) galaxies are often interpreted as
52: arising from the tidal disruption of stars as they get close to a dormant
53: supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the centre of the galaxy \citep{komossa99}.
54: Similar processes also occur on much smaller scales, such as in compact binary
55: systems, where the black hole is only of stellar mass
56: \citep{rosswog08,rosswog08b}.
57:
58: The pioneering work by \citet{lacy82,rees88,phinney89b} and, from a numerical
59: point of view, by \citet{evans89} have set the theoretical standard for the
60: interpretation of such events. In particular, a distinctive feature of this
61: theory is an apparent prediction for the time dependence of the light curve of
62: such events, in the form $L(t)\propto t^{-5/3}$ (note that the original paper
63: by \citealt{rees88} quotes a $t^{-5/2}$ dependence, later corrected to
64: $t^{-5/3}$ by \citealt{phinney89b}). Since then, a $t^{-5/3}$ light curve is
65: generally fitted to the observed luminosities of events interpreted as stellar
66: disruptions. In this paper, we revisit the theoretical arguments behind such
67: scaling and we show (as also originally argued by \citealt{rees88}) that the
68: light curve does {\it not need} to have this scaling and, in particular, that
69: it critically depends on the internal structure of the star being disrupted.
70: We provide a simple model to calculate the light curve starting from the
71: density profile of the star and we show that more centrally concentrated stars
72: tend to produce shallower light curves. We further supplement our model by a
73: numerical calculation of the process, using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
74: (SPH).
75:
76: We start by briefly summarizing the main argument of \citet{rees88}. Let us
77: consider a star, originally in hydrostatic equilibrium at a large distance
78: from the black hole. Since pressure forces and the internal self-gravity of
79: the star are in equilibrium, the only unbalanced force is the gravitational
80: pull of the black hole. The various fluid elements of the star therefore move
81: in essentially Keplerian orbits around the black hole, each one with its own
82: eccentricity, that is initially very close to the eccentricity of the centre
83: of mass of the star (in the following, for simplicity, we make the simple
84: assumption that the centre of mass of the star is in a parabolic orbit around
85: the black hole). Therefore, the distribution of specific mechanical energy
86: within the star is very narrow around the energy of the centre of mass. As
87: the star moves closer to the black hole, the various Keplerian orbits tend to
88: be squeezed, perturbing the hydrostatic balance. Pressure forces then
89: redistribute energy inside the star, therefore widening the specific energy
90: distribution. After the encounter, the star is thus characterized by a much
91: wider distribution of internal energies, with part of the fluid having a
92: negative energy (and therefore being bound to the black hole) and part having
93: a positive energy (and therefore remaining unbound). In the picture of
94: \citet{rees88} it is this energy distribution (and only this) that determines
95: the light curve of the event. Indeed, after the encounter the fluid elements
96: again move in Keplerian orbits (but with their new energy). The bound elements
97: then come back close to pericentre after a Keplerian period $T$, linked to
98: their (negative) energy $E$ by:
99: \begin{equation}
100: E=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi GM_{\rm h}}{T}\right)^{2/3},
101: \label{eq:ET}
102: \end{equation}
103: where $M_{\rm h}$ is the black hole mass. The mass distribution with specific
104: energy $\de M/\de E$ then translates, through Eq. (\ref{eq:ET}), into a mass
105: distribution of return times $\de M/\de T$. The next fundamental assumption is
106: that once the bound material has come back to the pericentre it loses its
107: energy and angular momentum on a timescale much shorter than $T$, thus
108: suddenly accreting onto the SMBH and giving rise to the flare. The mass
109: distribution of return times is therefore effectively the mass accretion rate
110: of the black hole during the event, from which the luminosity can be easily
111: computed. We thus have:
112: \begin{equation}
113: \frac{\de M}{\de T}=\frac{\de M}{\de E}\frac{\de E}{\de T}=\frac{(2\pi GM_{\rm h})^{2/3}}{3}\frac{\de M}{\de E} T^{-5/3}.
114: \label{eq:MT}
115: \end{equation}
116: In order to obtain the `standard' $t^{-5/3}$ light curve, we then have to make
117: the second fundamental assumption that the energy distribution is uniform.
118: Note that \citet{rees88} did not show that this should be the case, and only
119: assumed it for simplicity. Later, the numerical simulations by \citet{evans89}
120: apparently showed a uniform energy distribution, hence suggesting that the
121: light curve is generally proportional to $t^{-5/3}$. In the following, we
122: first show analytically that the energy distribution need not be uniform, but
123: depends on the properties of the star, and in particular on its internal
124: structure. We then show numerically that in fact it is not uniform and does
125: depend on the properties of the stars, in a way that approximately reproduces
126: the analytical results.
127:
128: Starting from the pioneering work of \citet{carter82,carter83}, numerical
129: simulations of this process have been performed in a variety of studies
130: \citep{bicknell83,evans89,laguna93a,laguna93b,ayal2000,bogdanovic04}. Most of
131: these studies used Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH,
132: \citealt{monaghan92}), mostly because of its ability of following the system
133: over a wide range of physical scales, where much of the simulated region is
134: essentially 'empty'. These various attempts have considered the effects of
135: varying the orbital parameters of the encounter \citep{bicknell83,evans89}, of
136: the inclusion of relativistic terms in the equation of motion
137: \citep{laguna93a,laguna93b,ayal2000} and have described the expected
138: observational outcome \citep{bogdanovic04}. However, surprisingly, no attempt
139: has been made at exploring the effect of varying the internal structure of the
140: star. Indeed, all such analyses have considered a simple polytropic model for
141: the star, with $\gamma$ invariably set to $5/3$ (although
142: \citealt{rosswog08,rosswog08b} has consider the encounter of a white dwarf
143: with a stellar mass black hole, which is in the much smaller mass ratio
144: regime).
145:
146: The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe our analytical
147: model to derive the energy distribution of the disrupted debris. In section 3
148: we describe our numerical code and the set up of our simulations. In section 4
149: we describe the results of the simulations. In section 5 we discuss our
150: results and draw our conclusions.
151:
152: \section{The process of tidal disruption of a star by a SMBH}
153:
154: \begin{figure}
155: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Scheme.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
156: \caption{Schematic view of the geometry of the system. The radius of the
157: star is $R_{\star}$The SMBH is on the right, at a distance $R_{\rm p}\gg
158: R_{\star}$.}
159: \label{fig:scheme}
160: \end{figure}
161:
162: \begin{figure*}
163: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=distr.eps,width=0.3\textwidth}
164: \epsfig{figure=acc.eps,width=0.3\textwidth}
165: \epsfig{figure=pl.eps,width=0.3\textwidth}}
166: \caption{Left: Distribution of internal energy for polytropic stars with
167: different indices. Solid line: $\gamma=5/3$, long-dashed line: $\gamma =1.4$,
168: short-dashed line: $\gamma=4/3$. Center: corresponding evolution of the
169: accretion rate for the same three cases. The red line indicates for
170: comparison a simple $t^{-5/3}$ power-law. Right: time evolution of the
171: power-law index $n=\de\ln\dot{m}/\de\ln t$. As can be seen the value
172: $n=-5/3$ is only approached at late times.}
173: \label{fig:analytic}
174: \end{figure*}
175:
176: A simple and instructive way to consider the process is by treating the
177: interaction of the star with the black hole under the impulse approximation,
178: that is assuming that the interaction occurs in a very small time span as the
179: star gets close to pericentre. This approximation is probably appropriate for
180: highly hyperbolic encounters, but is only approximate for the parabolic case
181: considered here. We therefore expect the details to differ somewhat from what
182: is derived here below, even if the qualitative behaviour is correct. In this
183: approximation, the motion of the star is simply a straight line until it
184: reaches pericentre, at which point it is subject to a short impulse that
185: deflects the various fluid elements, each of them individually conserving
186: their specific energy. Until it reaches pericentre, therefore, the structure
187: of the star is essentially unchanged and it keeps its original radial density
188: profile and its initial radius. The key thing to realize here is that the
189: spread of specific energy the star has reached just before the impulse is
190: simply given by the different depths at which the various fluid elements are
191: within the black hole potential well, because they all share the same velocity
192: and therefore the same kinetic energy. This was clearly realized by
193: \citet{lacy82} and \citet{evans89} who pointed out that ``The spread in
194: specific energy of the gas... is given by the change in the black hole
195: potential across a stellar radius''. The impulse occurs istantaneously and
196: therefore does not modify the kinetic energy of the fluid emlements but
197: imparts some degree of rotation in the star, with $\Omega\approx (2GM_{\rm
198: h}/R_{\rm p}^3)^{1/2}$, where $R_{\rm p}$ is the pericenter distance (cf.
199: \citealt{evans89}). We consider here the case in which the stellar radius
200: $R_{\star}$ is much smaller than $R_{\rm p}$, which is appropriate for the
201: case of stellar disruption by a supermassive black holes (although not for the
202: case of compact binaries). This allows us to easily estimate the expected
203: energy spread, as
204: \begin{equation}
205: \Delta E = \left(\frac{\de E_{\rm p}}{\de r}\right)_{R_{\rm p}}\Delta r_{\rm max} = \frac{GM_{\rm h}}{R_{\rm p}^2}R_{\star},
206: \label{eq:deltaE}
207: \end{equation}
208: where $E_{\rm p}=GM_{\rm h}/r$ is the potential energy due to the black hole
209: and $\Delta r_{\rm max}= R_{\star}$ is the maximum deviation from the
210: pericentre distance (cf. \citealt{lacy82}). We thus expect the energy
211: distribution to extend roughly between $-\Delta E$ and $\Delta E$. This simple
212: result has been obtained in all the early analyses of the problem. However, in
213: the same approximation as before, we are also able to derive the whole energy
214: distribution starting from the density, by calculating what is the fraction of
215: stellar mass at a given $\Delta r$ from the centre. Fig. \ref{fig:scheme}
216: illustrates the geometry. It can be easily shown that
217: \begin{equation}
218: \frac{\de M}{\de\Delta r} = 2\pi \int_{\Delta r}^{R_{\star}}\rho(r)r\de r,
219: \label{eq:MR}
220: \end{equation}
221: where $\rho(r)$ is the spherically symmetric mass density of the star. The
222: relation between the distribution of $\Delta r$ and the distribution of energy
223: $E$ is simply given by:
224: \begin{equation}
225: \frac{\de M}{\de E} = \frac{\de M}{\de\Delta r}\frac{R_{\star}}{\Delta E},
226: \label{eq:ME}
227: \end{equation}
228: where $\Delta E$ is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:deltaE}).
229:
230: It is useful to introduce dimensionless quantities. We then define $\epsilon =
231: -E/\Delta E$ (where we have also included a minus sign because we are
232: interested in material with negative specific energy) as our dimensionless
233: energy, $x=\Delta r/R_{\star}$ as our radial coordinate within the star,
234: $x_{\rm p}=R_{\rm p}/R_{\star}\gg 1$ as our dimensionless pericentre distance
235: and $m=M/M_{\star}$ as our dimensionless mass. We also introduce a fiducial
236: time unit $T_0 = 2\pi(R_{\rm p}^3/GM_{\rm h})^{1/2}$ and a dimensionless time
237: $\tau = T/T_0$, as well as a fiducial density $\rho_0=M_{\star}/R_{\star}^3$
238: and a dimensionless density $\hat{\rho}=\rho/\rho_0$. The outcome of the
239: disruption event depends on the 'penetration factor' $\beta=R_{\rm p}/R_{\rm
240: t}$, that is the ratio of the pericenter distance to the tidal radius
241: $R_{\rm t}=q^{1/3}R_{\star}$, where $q=M_{\rm h}/M_{\star}$ is the mass ratio
242: between the black hole and the star. In order to tidally disrupt the star we
243: require $\beta\lesssim 1$. For example, for a mass ratio $q= 10^6$, we have
244: $\beta=1$ for $R_{\rm p}=100 R_{\star}$. To give an idea of the numbers
245: involved, we note that for $R_{\rm p}=100R_{\odot}$, $M_{\rm
246: h}=10^6M_{\odot}$, $M_{\star}=1M_{\odot}$ and $R_{\star}=R_{\odot}$, we have
247: $T_0 \approx 3.18~10^{-4}$ yrs $\approx 0.11$ days, while the unit for the
248: accretion rate is $M_{\star}/T_0\approx 3.1~10^3M_{\odot}$/yr. In these
249: units, Eqs. (\ref{eq:ET}), (\ref{eq:MT}), (\ref{eq:MR}) and (\ref{eq:ME})
250: become simply:
251: \begin{equation}
252: \epsilon = \frac{x_{\rm p}}{2}\tau^{-2/3},
253: \label{eq:dim1}
254: \end{equation}
255: \begin{equation}
256: \frac{\de m}{\de\tau} = \frac{x_{\rm p}}{3}\frac{\de m}{\de\epsilon}\tau^{-5/3},
257: \label{eq:dim2}
258: \end{equation}
259: \begin{equation}
260: \frac{\de m}{\de x} = 2\pi\int_x^1\hat{\rho}(x')x'\de x',
261: \label{eq:dim3}
262: \end{equation}
263: \begin{equation}
264: \frac{\de m}{\de \epsilon}=\frac{\de m}{\de x} .
265: \label{eq:dim4}
266: \end{equation}
267:
268: The above simple set of equations therefore allows us to calculate the
269: accretion rate onto the black hole as a function of the internal stellar
270: structure. In general, we expect the density to show a peak at small radii $x$
271: and therefore a peak at small specific energies $\epsilon$. Since material at
272: lower energies contributes to the accretion at later times, we can already
273: predict what relative changes do we expect with respect to the standard
274: $t^{-5/3}$ light curve. In particular, we expect that if the star is more
275: centrally condensed the flare should start with a relatively longer delay
276: (less matter at large energies - small return time) and should have a
277: shallower light curve (more matter at small energies - large return time).
278: However, unless the density is strongly diverging at small radii, we expect
279: $\de m/\de x= \de m/\de\epsilon$ to flatten at the lowest energies and
280: therefore the light curve to approach a $t^{-5/3}$ profile at late times.
281:
282: \begin{figure*}
283: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=dens_prof.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
284: \epsfig{figure=initial_dens.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
285: }
286: \caption{Radial density profiles for the four models considered here. In the
287: left panel we show the density of four solutions of the Lane-Emden equation
288: with (from the highest to the lowest central density) $\gamma=1.4$, 1.5, 5/3
289: and 1.8. In the right panel we show the corresponding SPH density estimates
290: for the initial conditions of our simulations.}
291: \label{fig:initial}
292: \end{figure*}
293:
294:
295: As an example, we can use the above analytical formulae to calculate the
296: specific energy distribution and the accretion rate as a function of time
297: predicted for some simple stellar models with known density profiles. We have
298: thus considered simple polytropic spheres with different indices $\gamma =
299: 5/3$, 1.4 and $4/3$. We have first solved numerically the Lane-Emden equation
300: for the three cases and have then computed the various relevant quantities
301: using Eq. (\ref{eq:dim1})-(\ref{eq:dim4}) above, assuming $x_{\rm p}=100$. The
302: results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:analytic}. The left panel shows the
303: prediction for the energy distribution, where the solid line indicates the
304: relatively non compact case $\gamma=5/3$, the short-dashed line indicates
305: $\gamma=1.4$ and the long-dashed case shows the most compact case
306: $\gamma=4/3$. As can be seen, the energy distributions do extend up to
307: $\epsilon \sim 1$, but are not flat except at very low energies, the effect
308: becoming more pronounced for the more compact cases. The middle panel shows
309: the predicted evolution of the mass accretion rate $\dot{m}=\de m/\de \tau$,
310: for the three values of $\gamma$ with the same line styles as the left panel.
311: The red line shows for comparison a simple power law with index -5/3. It can
312: be seen that indeed the light curves are slightly shallower that $t^{-5/3}$
313: and approach it only at late times. This is even more evident in the right
314: panel, where we plot the power law index $n=\de\ln\dot{m}/\de\ln\tau$ for the
315: three cases. If we want to put some numbers on the estimates above, note that
316: for our standard numerical values described above a time of 1 year corresponds
317: to roughly $\tau\approx 3000$. We then see that the power law index after 1
318: year of the flare is $n\approx -1.5$ for $\gamma=5/3$, which is reasonably
319: close to the expected -5/3. However, such stellar model is probably
320: unrealistic for a solar type star, whose structure is rather more similar to a
321: $\gamma=4/3$ polytrope, in which case, after 1 year of the flare the power law
322: index is still $n\approx -0.8$.
323:
324: \section{Numerical simulations}
325:
326: The model described in the previous section is only approximate in that it
327: treats the interaction between the star and the black hole as instantaneous.
328: In particular, the distribution of specific energy of the disrupted stellar
329: material, and consequently the resultant lightcurve, has been computed by
330: assuming that the stellar structure is essentially unchanged until it reaches
331: pericentre. Still, it highlights some important features of the stellar
332: disruption process: the expected energy distribution is in general not flat,
333: and it tends to become progressively more peaked towards lower energies as the
334: stellar structure model gets more centrally concentrated (that is, as the
335: polytropic index $\gamma$ becomes smaller). In order to gain a better
336: understanding of the process, we have therefore compared the analytical
337: expectations with the results of numerical hydrodynamical simulations of the
338: process.
339:
340:
341: \begin{figure*}
342: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=peri1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
343: \epsfig{figure=peri2.eps,width=0.465\textwidth}
344: }
345: \caption{{\bf (a)} Projected density of the of the star at pericentre.
346: The black hole is outside the image, at the origin of the
347: coordinate system. The four panels refer to different values of $\gamma=$
348: 1.4 (upper left), 1.5 (upper right), 5/3 (lower left) and 1.8 (lower
349: right). {\bf (b)} Same as panel {\bf (a)}, but after
350: the encounter, when the star is located at roughly two times the pericentre
351: distance.}
352: \label{fig:image}
353: \end{figure*}
354:
355:
356:
357: \subsection{Numerical setup}
358:
359: In the case where the encounter is parabolic, as mentioned above, the two
360: relevant dynamical parameters are the mass ratio between the star and the
361: black hole, $q=M_{\rm h}/M_{\star}$ and the penetration factor $\beta = R_{\rm
362: p}/R_{\rm t}$. In this work we have considered the case where $\beta=1$ and
363: $q=10^6$, which imply that the pericentre distance is equal to 100 times the
364: radius of the star.
365:
366: Following the several investigations summarized in the Introduction, we have
367: also used a non-relativistic SPH code to simulate the encounter. Our code uses
368: individual particle timesteps \citep{bate95}, it evolves the smoothing length
369: by keeping a fixed mass within a smoothing sphere (equivalent to roughly 60
370: particles) and includes the relevant terms needed to ensure energy
371: conservation when the smoothing length is variable (see \citealt{price05} for
372: a recent review). We also adopt a standard SPH artificial viscosity
373: \citep{monaghan92} with viscosity parameters $\alpha_{\rm sph}=1$ and
374: $\beta_{\rm sph}=2$.
375:
376: In order to describe the basic dynamics of the encounter we do not require to
377: use an extremely large number of particles in order to reach a satisfactory
378: resolution. Indeed, \citet{evans89} have shown that their results were
379: numerically converged with a number of particles $N$ equal to a few $10^4$.
380: Even recent calculations have only used a relatively small number of
381: particles, of the order of $10^3$ \citep{ayal2000} up to $2~10^4$
382: \citep{bogdanovic04}. In this work we have run all our simulations at the two
383: resolution of $N=10^4$ and $N=10^5$ and have noticed no appreciable difference
384: in the results, thereby confirming the numerical convergence of the results.
385: In the following, we only show the higher resolution results.
386:
387: We initialize our simulations by placing the SPH particles to form the
388: structure of a polytropic star of given index $\gamma$ (we have considered the
389: four cases $\gamma = 1.4$, 1.5, 5/3 and 1.8). This is done by initially
390: placing the particles using close sphere packing and then differentially
391: stretching their radial position to achieve the desired density profile. This
392: method minimizes the statistical noise associated with random placing of the
393: particles (we thank Walter Denhen for providing this setup routine). We then
394: relax the structure of the star by evolving it in isolation until its internal
395: properties settle down.
396:
397: We have considered four different values of $\gamma=$ 1.4, 1.5, 5/3 and 1.8.
398: In this way we encompass the expected range for different kinds of stars, from
399: radiative to convective ones. Indeed, a solar type star has a density profile
400: close to a $\gamma=4/3$ polytrope (it is actually best described by
401: $\gamma\approx 1.3$). Unfortunately, a $\gamma=4/3$ polytrope is difficult to
402: simulate, as it has zero binding energy. The lowest value of $\gamma$ that we
403: use is then 1.4. Red giants and low mass stars can be described by a
404: $\gamma=5/3$ polytrope, while neutron stars have a structure which is probably
405: closer to a $\gamma=2.5$ polytrope.
406:
407: We plot in Fig. \ref{fig:initial} the initial density
408: profile of our four models as predicted from the solution of the Lane-Emden
409: equation (left panel) and as realized after the initial conditions have been
410: allowed to relax (right). As can be seen, the four models differ in their
411: central concentration, such that the $\gamma=1.4$ model is the most
412: concentrated and the $\gamma=1.8$ is the least. It might be worth also to
413: recall that models with larger $\gamma$ are less compressible than models with
414: lower $\gamma$.
415:
416: Finally, we introduce the black hole as a point mass at the origin and we
417: displace the star so as to place its center of mass on the required parabolic
418: orbit (since the star is an extended object this actually means that the total
419: mechanical energy of the star is slightly negative, amounting to roughly
420: -0.005 in our units). The initial distance from the black hole is three times
421: the pericentre distance (in other simulations not described here, we have also
422: used a larger initial distance and found no significant difference). Our code
423: units are $R_{\star}$ for length and $M_{\star}$ for mass, which ensure that
424: our results are described in the same dimensionless variables as described in
425: Section 2. The black hole is modelled as a sink onto which SPH particles can
426: be accreted if they come closer to the black hole that a distance 0.25 in code
427: units. However, in practice, given that our pericentre is very large and that
428: we do not follow the evolution of the debris long after the interaction, no
429: particles are actually accreted during the course of our simulations.
430:
431: \section{Results}
432:
433: \subsection{The $\gamma=5/3$ case}
434:
435: Before comparing the results obtained with various polytropic indices, we
436: start by describing the results that we have obtained in the $\gamma=5/3$,
437: which is directly comparable to the simulations discussed in previous papers.
438: In particular, this simulation is essentially a higher resolution version of
439: the one initially discussed in \citet{evans89}.
440:
441: Two snapshots of the integrated density profile of the star are shown in the
442: lower left panels of Fig. \ref{fig:image}(a,b), at two different times, that
443: is when the star is at pericentre and when it is at roughly two times the
444: pericentre distance, after the encounter. The overall structure of the star
445: looks qualitatively similar to the one shown in \citet{evans89}. It is
446: interesting to notice that at pericentre the star is already quite distorted
447: with respect to its initial configuration and in particular it has expanded
448: somewhat (recall that its initial radius is 1 in code units). This occurs
449: because, in isolation, the star is in hydrostatic equilibrium between its
450: pressure and its self-gravity. As the star approaches the black hole the tidal
451: field effectively acts as to reduce the stellar gravity, making pressure
452: forces unbalanced and therefore `inflating' the star. This effect is expected
453: to be more significant for small than for large $\gamma$. This reflects the
454: fact that the radius of a polytrope with small $\gamma$ is more sensitive to
455: the effective gravity.
456:
457: A more quantitative comparison can be done by looking at the distribution of
458: specific energies of the disrupted star. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:evans}
459: at four different times during the simulations: at $t=0$ (upper left panel),
460: at pericentre (upper right), and after the encounter, when the star is roughly
461: at four times the pericentre distance (lower left) and ten times the
462: pericentre distance (lower right). For ease of comparison with
463: \citet{evans89}, only for this plot we have used a logarithmic scale for the
464: distribution. It can be seen that initially the distribution is very narrow
465: and centered at $\epsilon=0$, which just reflect the fact that the whole star
466: is initially on a parabolic orbit. As the star approaches the black hole, the
467: distribution becomes wider and indeed approaches the width predicted by the
468: simple analysis of Section 2 (which is equal to unity in the units adopted
469: here). The lower left panel, in particular, showing the distribution at four
470: times the pericentre, compares almost exactly with the distribution shown by
471: \citet{evans89} (their fig. 3), confirming that indeed our simulations
472: replicate accurately their results. However, one can see that the density
473: distribution keeps evolving until the star is at roughly 10 pericentre
474: distances, where it finally settles down in the configuration shown in the
475: lower right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:evans}. We thus see that the distribution
476: is characterized by a central peak at lower energies, followed by two `wings'
477: at larger energies. The presence of a central peak is expected based on the
478: analytical model described above. The wings, on the other hand, refer to the
479: stellar material at the surface of the star, which at pericentre is somewhat
480: distorted from its initially spherical shape (as can be seen in Fig.
481: \ref{fig:image}, lower left panel) and would obviously show some discrepancies
482: with respect to the simple `spherical' model of Section 2.
483:
484: Fig. \ref{fig:spec1} (solid line) shows the distribution of specific energies
485: averaged over 10 time units, when the stars has reached $\sim 20$ pericentre
486: distances and the distribution has settled down. This is compared with the
487: prediction of the analytical model of Section 2 (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:analytic},
488: left panel), which is shown with a dashed line. Since the profiles are all
489: normalized to 1, in order to compare the shape of the distribution at the
490: peak, we have scaled down the analytical profile by a factor $\approx 1.6$. We
491: thus see that the analytical profile does approximately match the shape of the
492: distribution at the peak, except for the presence of the wings, indicating the
493: presence of more material at extreme energies than predicted by the model.
494: Note that, obviously, the light curve produced in this case does not show the
495: standard $t^{-5/3}$ decline, especially at early times. More details on the
496: resultant light curves are given in the next Section, where we compare the
497: results obtained with different values of the polytropic index.
498:
499: \begin{figure}
500: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=evans.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
501: }
502: \caption{Distribution of specific energies for the case $\gamma=5/3$. The four
503: show the distribution for the initial condition (upper left panel), when the
504: star is at pericentre ((upper right), at four times the pericentre distance
505: (lower left) and at ten times the pericentre distance (lower right).}
506: \label{fig:evans}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: \begin{figure}
510: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=specg1.66.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
511: }
512: \caption{Distribution of specific energies for the case $\gamma=5/3$. Solid
513: line: average distribution at the end of the simulation. Dashed line:
514: predicted distribution based on the analytical model, re-normalized to match
515: the peak.}
516: \label{fig:spec1}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519: \subsection{Varying the polytropic index}
520:
521: We now discuss the effects of varying the polytropic index $\gamma$ on the
522: structure of the disrupted star. A first comparison can be obtained by looking
523: at Fig. (\ref{fig:image}), where the various panels show the projected density
524: of the star at pericentre (left) and at two times the pericentre (right) for
525: the four cases considered (from top left to bottom right: $\gamma=1.4,$ 1.5,
526: 5/3 and 1.8). Several interesting differences can be already seen from these
527: images. First of all, note that the overall expansion of the star is similar
528: in all cases. However, for larger values of $\gamma$ the density structure of
529: the star is much more uniform. This is particularly evident in the right
530: panel, which refers to well after pericentre passage. In the case where
531: $\gamma=1.4$ the high density core is compact, with the density in the `puffy'
532: tidal tails gently declining. In contrast, at the opposite extreme of
533: $\gamma=1.8$ the high density region is more extended and the edge of the
534: tidal tails is more clearly defined, revealing a sharper density cut-off at
535: the edge. It is also interesting to note the different degree of internal
536: rotation induced in the star by the tidal interaction, with the elongated core
537: being more aligned with the line joining the star and the black hole (at the
538: origin of the coordinate system) for smaller $\gamma$ than for larger ones.
539:
540: \begin{figure*}
541: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=specg1.4.eps,width=0.35\textwidth}
542: \epsfig{figure=specg1.5.eps,width=0.35\textwidth}}
543: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=specg1.66b.eps,width=0.35\textwidth}
544: \epsfig{figure=specg1.8.eps,width=0.35\textwidth}}
545: \caption{Specific energy distribution for the four simulations. Upper left:
546: $\gamma=1.4$, upper right: $\gamma=1.5$, lower left: $\gamma=5/3$, lower
547: right: $\gamma=1.8$. The solid lines are the result of the simulations,
548: while the dashed lines show the distribution expected from the simple
549: analytical theory outlined in Section 2, where in each case the initial
550: density profile of the star has been homologously expanded by a factor
551: $\xi=2.5$, 2.1, 1.63 and 1.6 for the four cases $\gamma=1.4$, 1.5, 5/3 and
552: 1.8, respectively.}
553: \label{fig:specave}
554: \end{figure*}
555:
556:
557: \begin{figure}
558: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=shock_image.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
559: \caption{Top: Projected density fot the $\gamma=5/3$ case at
560: $t=16.75$. Bottom: vertical cross section of the quantity $q$, defined in
561: Eq. (\ref{eq:q}). When $|q|>1$ the gas undergoes a shock. It can be seen
562: that this occurs at the edge of the tidal tails.}
563: \label{fig:shockimage}
564: \end{figure}
565:
566: \begin{figure}
567: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=deltam.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
568: \caption{Amount of material involved in shocks as a function of time for the
569: four simulations with $\gamma=1.4$ (solid line), $\gamma=1.5$ (short-dashed
570: line), $\gamma=5/3$ (long-dashed line) and $\gamma=1.8$ (dot-dashed
571: line). As the polytropic index grows more mass undergoes shocks, producing
572: progressively more pronouced wings in the energy distribution
573: (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:specave}).}
574: \label{fig:deltam}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577:
578: Let us now look at the distribution of specific energies within the star for
579: the four different simulations. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:specave}, where
580: the solid lines refer to the simulations, averaged over 10 time units when the
581: star has reached a distance of roughly 20 times the pericentre. Note that in
582: each simulation, as mentioned above, the stars are somewhat inflated once they
583: reach pericentre. In order to compare the numerical results with the
584: analytical predictions we therefore have to take into account this expansion.
585: We have thus simply taken the initial equilibrium density as a function of
586: radius within the star and re-scaled the radius by a constant factor $\xi$,
587: thus effectively applying a homologous expansion to the stellar structure. We
588: have then calculated the expected energy distribution based on Eqs.
589: (\ref{eq:dim3}) and (\ref{eq:dim4}) for this `inflated' profile. The resulting
590: analytical predictions are then shown in Fig. \ref{fig:specave} with a dashed
591: line. The expansion factor to match the numerical data is $\xi=2.5$, 2.1, 1.63
592: and 1.6 for the four cases $\gamma=1.4$, 1.5, 5/3 and 1.8, respectively. It
593: interesting to see that this expansion parameter decreases as we increase
594: $\gamma$, reflecting the reduced response to variations in the gravity field
595: as $\gamma$ gets larger. It can be seen that for $\gamma=1.4$ our inflated
596: polytropic model describes very accurately the outcome of the simulation.
597: However, as $\gamma$ increases the results of the simulations start to deviate
598: from the model, in particular in the appearance of wings in the tail of the
599: distribution. These wings become progressively more prominent as $\gamma$ gets
600: larger. In the previous section we have already shown that the core of the
601: distribution for $\gamma=5/3$ is well described by a non inflated model.
602: Essentially, what is happening here is that as $\gamma$ increases the
603: expansion of the star becomes progressively less homologous, with more
604: material being pushed to higher energies (in absolute value). Since the
605: expansion velocity is significantly supersonic, the only way to transfer
606: energy within the star is through shocks, occurring in the tidal tails. As
607: $\gamma$ increases, the density profile of the star becomes shallower, and
608: more material undergoes shocks in the outer layers of the star, hence
609: increasing the appearance of the wings. We estimate quatitatively the
610: importance of shocks in our simulations in the following way. For each
611: particle $i$ in our simulations we compute the quantity
612: \begin{equation}
613: q_{i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
614: \displaystyle \frac{h_i({\mathbf{\nabla\cdot u}})_i}{c_{{\rm s},i}} &
615: \mbox{when \hspace{2mm}} (\mathbf{\nabla\cdot u})_i<0 \\
616: 0 & \mbox{otherwise}
617: \end{array}
618: \right.
619: \label{eq:q}
620: \end{equation}
621: where $h_i$ is the particle's smoothing length, $(\mathbf{\nabla\cdot u})_i$
622: is the local divergence of flow velocity and $c_{{\rm s},i}$ is the local
623: sound speed. The quantity $q$ is therefore non-zero and negative in regions of
624: convergent flow and shocks occur where $|q|\geq 1$. Fig. \ref{fig:shockimage}
625: shows the structure of the disrupted star for the $\gamma=5/3$ case at
626: $t=16.75$. The top panel shows the projected density, while the bottom panel
627: shows a vertical cross section of $q$. It can be seen that most of the
628: disrupted star is expanding, except for the tip of the tidal tails, where
629: there is a strong convergent flow, which has indeed $|q|>1$ and therefore
630: undergoes a shock.
631:
632: To see how does the effect of shocks changes as the polytropic index is
633: varied, we also compute the quantity $\delta m_{\rm shock}$, that we define
634: as the total mass of particles that have $|q|>1$. Fig. \ref{fig:deltam} shows
635: the time evolution of $\delta m_{\rm shock}$ for the four simulations with
636: $\gamma = 1.4$ (solid line), $\gamma=1.5$ (short-dashed line), $\gamma=5/3$
637: (long-dashed line) and $\gamma=1.8$ (dot-dashed line). This plot shows a few
638: interesting features. First, we see that as the index $\gamma$ increases, the
639: amount of shocked mass increases as well, confirming our expectation that more
640: mass is involved with the shocks in the tidal tails. In particular, the two
641: simulations with the largest $\gamma$, which are the ones displaying the more
642: pronounced 'wings' in the energy distribution, are also the two in which more
643: mass undergoes shocks. Second, we see that shocks appear to occur in a
644: sequence of peaks. The first one, common to all simulations, occurs at
645: $t\approx 4$, which corresponds to pericenter passage. For the largest values
646: of $\gamma$, we then see a number of other peaks, which can be interpreted as
647: the manifestation of strongly non-linear stellar pulsations induced by the
648: tidal interaction (see also \citealt{ivanov01}). The period of these
649: oscillation decreases with increasing $\gamma$, consistent with the
650: expectation that the period of the fundamental mode of stellar pulsations
651: should vary as $(3\gamma-4)^{-1/2}$ (e.g., \citealt{cox80}).
652:
653: As mentioned in Section 2, the fact that for larger $\gamma$ the energy
654: distribution becomes relatively flatter implies that the distribution of
655: return times should become steeper and more rapidly approach the $t^{-5/3}$
656: profile expected for an exactly flat distribution. The resultant accretion
657: rate for the four simulations is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:acc} (left panel),
658: where the solid line refers to $\gamma=1.4$, the short-dashed line to
659: $\gamma=1.5$, the dot-dashed line to $\gamma=5/3$ and the long-dashed line to
660: $\gamma=1.8$. To give an idea of the numbers involved we have ploted the
661: results in physical units, assuming $M_{\star}=1M_{\odot}$ and
662: $R_{\star}=R_{\odot}$ (note that if the disrupted star is a giant, the time
663: unit is increased by a factor $(R_{\rm giant}/R_{\odot})^{3/2}$, which can be
664: several hundreds, then suggesting that the rise to peak might be observable,
665: and the decay time prior to reaching the asymptotic $t^{-5/3}$ behaviour can
666: be very long). It can be indeed be easily seen that only for the largest
667: values of $\gamma$ does the light curve follow the $t^{-5/3}$ profile at early
668: time, while for lower $\gamma$ the profile gets significantly more shallow.
669: This is seen even better in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:acc}, where we
670: plot the instantaneous power law index $n$ (that is, the logarithmic time
671: derivative of the accretion rate) associated with the lightcurve for the cases
672: $\gamma=1.4$ (squares) and $\gamma=5/3$ (triangles) as a function of magnitude
673: drop from the peak (we only plot these two cases for simplicity: the two other
674: cases follow essentially the same behaviour). The dashed line at the bottom
675: indicates $n=-5/3$. This plot illustrates quite clearly that the $t^{-5/3}$
676: regime is only approached at late times, after the luminosity has dropped
677: $\sim$ 2 magnitudes from the peak for $\gamma=1.4$. In the case $\gamma=5/3$
678: the asymptotic regime is approached more quickly, after only a luminosity drop
679: of approximately 1 magnitude.
680:
681: \begin{figure*}
682: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=acc_time.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
683: \epsfig{figure=pl_mag.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
684: \caption{Left: accretion rate as a function of time for the four simulations.
685: Solid line: $\gamma=1.4$ (internal structure close to a solar-type star);
686: short-dashed line: $\gamma=1.5$; dot-dashed line: $\gamma=5/3$ (internal
687: structure appropriate for low-mass, fully convective stars); long-dashed
688: line: $\gamma=1.8$. The physical units refer to the case where the disrupted
689: star has $M_{\star}=M_{\odot}$ and $R_{\star}=R_{\odot}$ (note that if the
690: disrupted star is a giant, the time unit is increased by a factor $(R_{\rm
691: giant}/R_{\odot})^{3/2}$, which can be several hundreds, then suggesting
692: that the rise to peak might be observable, and the decay time prior to
693: reaching the asymptotic $t^{-5/3}$ behaviour can be very long). Right:
694: instantaneous power-law index $n=\de\log\dot{M}/\de\log t$ for $\gamma=1.4$
695: (squares) and $\gamma=5/3$ (triangles) as a function of magnitude drop from
696: the peak. The dashed line at the bottom indicates the commonly-invoked
697: power-law index $n = -5/3$ for the light curve.}
698: \label{fig:acc}
699: \end{figure*}
700:
701: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
702:
703: Candidate tidal disruption events of a star by a dormant black hole are
704: usually associated with luminous flares in the nucleus of an otherwise normal
705: galaxy. These can be detected in X-rays, for example with Chandra and ROSAT
706: \citep{halpern04} or with XMM \citep{esquej08}, or in the optical/UV
707: \citep{gezari08}. X-ray data generally observe the flare evolving down from
708: the peak by a few orders of magnitude, and in the best studied case, NGC 5905,
709: the decline appears to be consistent with a $t^{-5/3}$ fall-off
710: \citep{halpern04}. However, in some other cases \citep{gezari08} the
711: observations only span a relatively small drop in luminosity from the peak. In
712: these cases the lightcurve appears to be shallower than $t^{-5/3}$, and the
713: best fit of \citet{gezari08} to their optical data indicates a value of
714: $n\approx -1.1$ in one case and $n\approx -0.82$ in another. These results are
715: consistent with our prediction that initially the lightcurve should be
716: shallow, approaching a $t^{-5/3}$ profile only after the luminosity has
717: dropped by 2-3 magnitudes from the peak.
718:
719: To summarize, in this paper we have revisited the arguments at the basis of
720: the expected lightcurve produced by the tidal disruption of a star in a
721: parabolic orbit close to a supermassive black holes. The $t^{-5/3}$ profile
722: originally proposed by \citet{rees88} and \citet{phinney89b} only holds in the
723: case where the energy distribution $\mbox{d}m/\mbox{d}\epsilon$ of the remnant
724: is flat, which we have shown is not the case, in general. We have proposed a
725: simple analytical model that relates the resultant energy distribution to the
726: density structure of the star. This model predicts that more centrally
727: concentrated (solar--type) stars should produce flares with a lightcurve
728: shallower than $t^{-5/3}$, approaching it only at late stages. We have tested
729: the model with numerical simulations and found that it does reproduce the
730: simulated behaviour, with the following two corrections. Firstly, we have to
731: account for the inflation of the star from its initial structure due to the
732: effective reduction of gravity as it moves in the tidal field of the black
733: hole. This is well described by a homologous expansion by a factor which
734: becomes smaller as the polytropic index becomes larger. Secondly, for large
735: polytropic indices we see the appearance of wings in the tails of the energy
736: distribution, indicating that some material has been put further away from
737: parabolic orbits as a result of shocks in the tidal tails.
738:
739: In all cases, we do not obtain a $t^{-5/3}$ lightcurve, except at late times.
740: Close to the peak of the luminosity, the lightcurve is very sensitive to the
741: structure of the star, being shallower for stars with polytropic index close
742: to 4/3, expected for solar type stars. In this case, the $t^{-5/3}$ profile is
743: reached only after the luminosity has dropped by at least two magnitudes. For
744: stars with a relatively flat density profile, such as red giants and low mass
745: stars, the $t^{-5/3}$ profiles is reached earlier.
746:
747: In this paper we have only investigated a very simple setup, with a given mass
748: ratio between the star and the supermassive black hole, and one given set of
749: orbital parameters. It is expected that the results would be further dependent
750: on the such additional parameters, such as the ratio of tidal radius to
751: pericentre distance and the eccentricity of the orbit. We plan to consider
752: these effects in subsequent investigations.
753:
754: Finally, it should be further emphasised that all these results refer
755: essentially to the return time of the disrupted debris, and only correspond to
756: an actual luminosity under the further assumption that the subsequent
757: accretion is perfectly efficient and occurs on a much shorter timescale, which
758: may not be the case (see \citealt{ayal2000}).
759:
760: \section*{Acknowledgements}
761:
762: We thank Walter Dehnen for providing us with his setup routine for polytropic
763: spheres. We acknowledge several interesting discussions with Walter Dehnen,
764: Mark Wilkinson, Sergei Nayakshin and Paul O'Brien. We also thank the Referee,
765: Stephan Rosswog, for an insightful report. All the visualization of SPH
766: simulations have been obtained using the SPLASH visualization tool by Dan
767: Price \citep{splash}
768:
769:
770: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
771:
772: \bibliography{lodato}
773:
774: \end{document}
775: