Codex @codex  0

Use rotating barycentric coordinates $\mathbf{R}=(x,y,z)$, rotating velocity $\mathbf{w}$, and $\mathbf{\Omega }=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Multiplying the three equations by the corresponding velocity components and adding cancels the Coriolis force terms:Thus the Jacobi constant is $C=2U-|\mathbf{w}{|}^2$. The inertial barycentric velocity is $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{w}+\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{R}$. If $H_z=(\mathbf{R}\times \mathbf{V}{)}_z$ and $E_b=|\mathbf{V}{|}^2/2-{\mu }_1/r_1-{\mu }_2/r_2$, thenThe inertial energy $E_b$ and inertial angular momentum $H_z$ need not separately be constant. Their combination is constant because the two gravitational sources rotate steadily at unit angular speed.

For the Tisserand parameter take ${\mu }_2\ll {\mu }_1\simeq 1$, and compare the osculating orbital elements well outside a close encounter, where ${\mu }_2/r_2$ and barycentre-to-primary corrections are negligible. ThenThis requires a circular secondary orbit, the restricted three-body problem approximation, and no dissipative force or other perturber. $T$ is conserved to leading order between encounter episodes; the osculating $T$ during a close encounter need not be constant. The exact invariant is $C$.

For clarity the exact two-body energy relation is $a={\mu }_1/(2{\mu }_1/r_1-v_1^2)$, rather than the printed formula without the numerator ${\mu }_1$. At the leading order ${\mu }_1=1$ used for $T$, the two agree; retaining finite ${\mu }_1$ in just part of that formula is inconsistent.

At a close encounter put the secondary radius and speed equal to one at leading order, and denote the particle's incoming relative speed outside the secondary's strong-deflection region by $u$. Conservation of relative speed in the short gravitational encounter givesAn incoming orbit with $a=1$ has $|{\mathbf{v}}_1|=1$ at $r_1=1$ by the vis-viva equation; escape there requires an outgoing speed exceeding $\sqrt{2}$. The triangle inequality therefore gives the necessary single-encounter escape velocity boundEquality only gives a marginal parabolic limit. This argument deliberately gives a weak necessary bound, not a sufficient scattering criterion.

The planet-encounter relative velocity is related to the Tisserand parameter byHere $v_{1,\mathrm{tangential}}=h_z$ at the encounter radius, and the formula also applies to inclined passages at the planet's orbital plane. For the intended prograde coplanar incoming orbit, $I=0$ and $a=1$, so $u^2=2-2\sqrt{1-e^2}$. Applying the preceding necessary bound givesCoplanar alone also allows $I=\pi$. For that retrograde case $u^2=2+2\sqrt{1-e^2}$, and even a circular incoming orbit can be scattered onto an escaping orbit; the orbital eccentricity restriction therefore presumes prograde motion. Also, retaining the outgoing relative-velocity geometry gives the sharper necessary condition $|{\mathbf{v}}_{1,\mathrm{out}}|\le 1+u$, hence $u>\sqrt{2}-1$ and $e>\sqrt{4\sqrt{2}-5}/2$ for the same prograde incoming orbit. This stronger bound is consistent with, and implies, the weaker bound above.

For the Tisserand periapsis bound, first writeA bound orbit capable of another close encounter must intersect the secondary's circular radius, so $q\le 1\le Q$. For fixed $q<1$, the largest possible $T$ occurs at $I=0$. The remaining expression decreases with $Q\ge 1$, sinceThus every such orbit obeysOn $0<q<1$, $g(q)$ increases monotonically from $2$ to $3$. For $2<T<3$ the least accessible pericentre is the unique root of $T=g(q)$: the limiting orbit is prograde and coplanar, with apocentre just at the planet. Introduce $s=\sqrt{3-T}$. Its tangential speed at this apocentre is $1-s$, and its vis-viva equation gives the particularly well-behaved answerEquivalently, setting $w=\sqrt{2q/(1+q)}$ gives $T=2-w^2+2w$ and $w=1-s$, with $q=w^2/(2-w^2)$. Rationalizing the previous result yieldsThe apparent singularity at $T=\sqrt{8}$ is removable; the first form gives $q_{\min }=(\sqrt{2}-1)/2$ there. The limits are $q_{\min }\to 0$ as $T\downarrow 2$ and $q_{\min }\to 1$ as $T\uparrow 3$. The same lower envelope also excludes a smaller pericentre on an escaping trajectory when $2<T<3$. To see this without introducing an apocentre, use the planet-frame velocity sphere: $u=\sqrt{3-T}<1$ forces the tangential component at an encounter to be at least $w=1-u>0$, so total specific angular momentum obeys $h\ge w$. At pericentre the stellar energy obeys $h^2=2q+2E{q}^2$, while $E=h_z-T/2\le h-T/2$. ThusIf $q<q_{\min }=w^2/(2-w^2)$, then $q^2<w\le h$, and the left side is increasing with $h$. Hence $w^2\le 2q+(2w-T)q^2$. But $2w-T=w^2-2$, and the right side is smaller than $w^2$ for $0\le q<q_{\min }$, a contradiction. This establishes the barrier for all Kepler trajectories that reach the encounter radius, including unbound ones.

For $0<T\le 2$, bound encounter-crossing orbits can approach $q=0$ (take $Q\to 2/T$), so the positive root extrapolated from the displayed expression is not a universal barrier. For $T>3$ there is no trajectory reaching a close encounter in this approximation, since $u^2=3-T$ would be negative. Multiple encounters can approach the derived lower envelope by changing energy, angular momentum and inclination while preserving the Tisserand parameter; the invariant alone does not guarantee a particular encounter history reaches it.

For circular orbits in an exponential central potential, a constant positive radius requires $V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\prime }(r)=0$, orLet $h(r)=r^3{e}^{-r}$. Its derivative is $h^{\prime }(r)=r^2{e}^{-r}(3-r)$: it rises from zero to $h(3)=27/e^3$, then falls back to zero. HenceThe strict lower bound matters: the printed upper bound also allows $l=0$, but then there is no finite-radius circular orbit. Nonzero angular momentum is an implicit hypothesis of the two-orbit claim.

At a circular orbit, use $l^2=r^3{e}^{-r}$ to obtainA small radial displacement $\eta$ satisfies $\ddot{\eta }=-V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\prime \prime }(r)\eta$. Therefore the inner circular orbit is radially stable at fixed angular momentum, while the outer orbit is unstable. The inner perturbation oscillates with squared frequency $e^{-r_1}(3/r_1-1)$; the outer perturbation has an exponentially growing solution. At the limiting value $l^2=27/e^3$, the radii coalesce at $r=3$ and the linear restoring coefficient vanishes.

The central force has no transverse component. Its angular equation is thereforeThus the specific angular momentum is the constantThe radial equation isSubstitute $\dot{\theta }=l/r^2$:Consequently the radial motion for $r>0$ is exactly a unit-mass one-dimensional motion in the effective potentialIts conserved energy is $\frac{1}{2}{\dot{r}}^2+V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)$; the second term in the effective potential accounts for the angular kinetic energy.

Use geometrized units $G=c=1$ and metric signature $(-+++)$; $\tau$ is proper time. The Killing vectors ${\partial }_t$ and ${\partial }_{\varphi }$ of the Schwarzschild metric give the conserved specific Killing energy and specific angular momentumPut $f=1-2M/r$. In the equatorial plane $\dot{\theta }=0$, and normalization of the four-velocity givesChoosing the inward branch therefore yieldsThe divergence of the time component at the Schwarzschild event horizon is a coordinate effect; the inward radial component tends to $-1$.

Capture from infinity. To reach the event horizon from infinity, the radial square must remain nonnegative throughout $r>2M$. Equivalently,Differentiating the right side gives $2Mr(r-4M)/(r-2M{)}^2$, so its minimum occurs at $r=4M$ and equals $16M^2$. Thusis the necessary capture bound. At equality the radial numerator is $2M(r-4M{)}^2$. An inward particle arriving from larger radii approaches the unstable orbit $r=4M$ only after infinite proper time, because $\dot{r}$ is proportional to $-(r-4M)$ near that orbit. Actual plunges from infinity require $|h|<4M$. This is Schwarzschild marginally bound capture.

The origin-at-infinity hypothesis is important and is not explicit in the PDF. A particle already inside the angular-momentum barrier can plunge with larger $|h|$. For example, $h=10M$ and initial radius $r_0=2.01M$ give positive radial numerator $7.0802M^3$, remaining positive as $r$ decreases to $2M$. This trajectory has $e=1$ and reaches the event horizon. Thus an unrestricted claim about every inward particle would be false; the bound is the intended capture-from-infinity statement.

Invariant collision energy. At a collision, the total four-momentum is $P^{\mu }=m(u_1^{\mu }+u_2^{\mu })$. The invariant center-of-mass energy uses the covariant metric:The PDF instead prints a raised metric multiplying raised velocities. That contraction is not a tensor scalar; the corrected expression above, or a raised metric with lowered momenta, is required. Since each four-velocity has norm $-1$,Let $D_i=2M{r}^2-h_i^2(r-2M)$. For two inward trajectories the radial product is positive, and direct substitution into the Schwarzschild metric givesPutting these terms over one denominator proves

Horizon limit and the upper bound. A cancellation-free way to take the limit is to write $a_i=1+h_i^2/r^2$ and ${\dot{r}}_i=-\sqrt{1-f{a}_i}$. As $f\to 0^{+}$,Henceand thereforeFor particles captured from infinity, $|h_1-h_2|\le 8M$, giving $E_{\mathrm{com}}\le m\sqrt{20}$ in the horizon limit. For actual captured trajectories the inequality is strict, but the supremum is approached by $h_1\to 4M^{-}$ and $h_2\to -4M^{+}$. Their azimuthal starting positions can be chosen so that the trajectories meet. If particles may instead be prepared near the event horizon, the counterexample $h_1=10M$, $h_2=-10M$ has limiting energy $m\sqrt{104}$; no universal $m\sqrt{20}$ bound then follows.

For no central accretion, $A=0$ andThis nonaccreting constant-torque disk has a finite inner stress and normally a nonzero inner surface density. An external inner torque supplies the angular momentum transported to an outer sink, although mass does not flow. If both this zero-mass-flux condition and a zero inner torque are imposed, $B=0$; there is no nontrivial positive-viscosity steady disk satisfying both.

The odd mass density difference is $2{\Sigma }_0\beta x/r_0$. Integrating $x^{-3}$ from $H$ to infinity givesFor Keplerian shear, $S=3\Omega /2$ and $G{M}_s=q{\Omega }^2{r}_0^3$. Thus the density-slope satellite torque isUsing the complete-flyby normalization multiplies this supplied-model result by four. The linear mass density law is a local Taylor approximation, not a nonnegative mass density on the entire infinite real line. With an outer local cutoff $L\gg H$, the same calculation replaces $H^{-2}$ by $H^{-2}-L^{-2}$; the extension to infinity is the leading local result. Small $|\beta |H/r_0$ keeps the mass density perturbation small in the dominant encounter region.

Outer particles gain angular momentum and inner particles lose it. The satellite transmits angular momentum from inner to outer material. If $\beta >0$, the denser outer side receives the larger torque: the disc gains net angular momentum and the satellite loses it. If $\beta <0$, the net transfer reverses. At zero slope these exchanges cancel in the satellite's total torque.

For a fixed satellite mass on an adiabatically changing circular orbit, $L_s=M_s\sqrt{G{M}_{\ast }{r}_0}=M_s{r}_0^2\Omega$. The satellite torque is minus the disc torque. HenceThe circular-orbit migration rate from disk torque, in the normalization supplied by the question, isIt is inward for a positive mass density slope and outward for a negative one. The complete-flyby normalization makes its magnitude four times larger, with the same direction. This is a local torque estimate; the hypothesis of a nearly circular slowly migrating orbit is needed when using the derivative of the circular angular momentum.

If the gas can cool appreciably below the virial temperature, radiative cooling removes thermal energy and pressure support. In a dark-matter halo the gas then contracts, dissipating more energy as it falls. Efficient condensation requires the radiative gas cooling time to be short enough compared with the relevant dynamical or assembly time; merely having an available low-temperature transition does not guarantee that the gas reaches it quickly.

The collisionless dark matter cannot lose comparable energy through radiation and remains extended. Gas with appreciable conserved angular momentum stops radial collapse when rotation supports it, often forming a disk; lower-angular-momentum gas reaches a more compact central region. Cold dense gas can fragment into self-gravitating clouds and form stars if its gravitational instability overcomes remaining support. Stellar feedback subsequently reheats or expels gas and regulates the conversion. Efficient cooling enables central baryonic condensation and star formation; angular momentum and feedback determine the resulting galaxy.

Let $M=M_1+M_2$, and let $\mu =M_1{M}_2/M$ be the reduced mass. The stellar distances from the center of mass are $a_1=a{M}_2/M$ and $a_2=a{M}_1/M$. For a circular Kepler orbit, ${\Omega }^2=GM/a^3$, so summing the two orbital contributions gives the circular-binary orbital angular momentumThe separation $a$ is inside the square root. This also has the required dimensions of angular momentum.

For the homologous rotating collapse, label a fluid element by $s=r/R$ and its polar angle $\theta$. Its enclosed mass $m(s)$ is constant during stellar homology, as are the dimensionless density profile and the inertia coefficient $\alpha$. Conservation of angular momentum and solid-body rotation giveThe magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration is ${\Omega }^{2}r\sin \theta$, while the Newtonian gravitational field has magnitude $Gm(s)/r^2$. ThereforeUsing only the radial component of centrifugal force replaces $\sin \theta$ by ${\sin }^2\theta$ and leaves the scaling unchanged. The centrifugal force vanishes on the rotation axis; the central point is understood through the limiting field rather than a ratio of two zero forces.

At the equator of the cloud, critical rotation of a spherical cloud means ${\Omega }_c^2{R}_c=GM/R_c^2$, where $R_c=R_{\mathrm{crit}}$. ConsequentlyImmediately after the first fission, each daughter has mass $M/2$ and radius $a/2$ because the spheres touch. Their orbital moment of inertia is $M{a}^2/4$, while their combined spin moment of inertia is $\alpha M{a}^2/4$. With a common spin and orbital frequency ${\Omega }_f=\sqrt{GM/a^3}$, the synchronous fission model for binary formation givesThe common frequency can change during fission; corotation requires equal instantaneous frequencies, not an unchanged frequency from before the rearrangement. Equating the two values of $J$ yieldsFor a nonzero positive inertia coefficient, the necessary and sufficient condition in this algebraic model for $a<R_c$ isFor example, a moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere has $\alpha =2/5$ and gives $a/R_c=64/49>1$; it fails the required compact-fission condition. A sufficiently centrally concentrated cloud can have smaller $\alpha$.

For the next collapse, neglect exchange of spin with the unchanged outer orbit, so each daughter's spin angular momentum is separately conserved. Immediately after the first fission that spin isFor a daughter of mass $m=M/2$ to reach critical rotation of a spherical cloud at radius $R_{c,d}$, the same relation gives $S_d=\alpha m\sqrt{Gm{R}_{c,d}}$. HenceEquivalently, its centrifugal-to-gravity ratio starts at $1/4$ when its radius is $a/2$ and reaches one after contraction by a factor four. Applying the same fission rule to this daughter produces an inner pair with separationCorotation at this second fission is local to each newly formed inner pair; it is not a single common frequency for the entire four-star hierarchy.

This spin assumption matters. If tidal locking instead kept each shrinking daughter synchronized to the fixed outer orbital period throughout the intervening collapse, its angular velocity would remain fixed. Its centrifugal-to-gravity ratio would then scale as $R_d^3$ and decrease, so it would never reach the proposed second fission. This is a counterexample to extending the corotation assumption through the whole contraction. The printed ratio describes the separately spin-conserving interpretation of the repeated fission hierarchy.

The model can generate a compact hierarchy algebraically, but is not a general physical account of multiple-star formation. In the allowed range $\alpha <1/3$, one has $a^{\prime }/a<1/8$, suggesting well-separated inner and outer scales. However, rapidly rotating gas deforms, touching daughters are tidally distorted, and pressure, gas flows, dissipation and spin-orbit torques cannot generally be ignored. The assumed identical profiles, equal mass splits, instantaneous corotation and later torque-free contractions are restrictive. Star formation can involve gravitational fragmentation and redistribution of angular momentum; the toy budget neither proves that fission occurs nor predicts the population of real multiple systems.

Take $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{x}}_1-{\mathbf{x}}_2$, $r=|\mathbf{r}|$ and $M=M_1+M_2$. Newton's law of universal gravitation gives ${\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_1=-G{M}_2\mathbf{r}/r^3$ and ${\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_2=G{M}_1\mathbf{r}/r^3$. Subtracting yields the relative two-body equationThe reduced mass is $\mu =M_1{M}_2/M$. The orbital energy and angular momentum in the center of mass frame areDifferentiation givesThus both are conserved. The eccentricity vector isFor $\mathbf{h}=\mathbf{J}/\mu$, one has $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}\times \mathbf{h}/(GM)=\dot{\mathbf{r}}/r-\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{r}\cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}})/r^3=d(\mathbf{r}/r)/dt$, so $\dot{\mathbf{e}}=0$. In particular the orbital eccentricity is constant, withFor a bound Kepler orbit, $E=-GM\mu /(2a)$ and $J^2=GM{\mu }^{2}a(1-e^2)$.

For the far-field multipole expansion, set the center of mass to zero. Then ${\mathbf{x}}_1=(M_2/M)\mathbf{r}$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_2=-(M_1/M)\mathbf{r}$. At $x=|\mathbf{x}|\gg r$, expand each point-mass Newtonian gravitational potential:Repeated indices are summed. The dipole vanishes since ${\sum }_A{M}_A{\mathbf{x}}_A=0$, and ${\sum }_A{M}_A{x}_{Ai}{x}_{Aj}=\mu r_i{r}_j$. The second-order gravitational quadrupole potential of a point-mass binary is thereforeBoth tensors specified in the question are trace-free. Direct contraction givesso to the requested orderFor equal masses the cubic multipole also vanishes, but it need not vanish for unequal masses.

To evaluate the quadrupole formula, use $k=GM$, $\mathbf{v}=\dot{\mathbf{r}}$, $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{r}/r$, $u=\dot{r}=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{v}$, and $\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{v}-u\mathbf{n}$. The acceleration and its derivative areThe third derivative of $r_i{r}_j$ is ${\dot{b}}_i{r}_j+r_i{\dot{b}}_j+3b_i{v}_j+3v_i{b}_j$. Its trace is $d^3(r^2)/d{t}^3=-2ku/r^2$. Substituting in $q_{ij}=\mu (3r_i{r}_j-r^2{\delta }_{ij})/2$ givesBecause $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{w}=0$, the cross tensor contraction is zero. The squared norms of the two bracketed pieces are $6u^2$ and $72w^2$, respectively. Thusand the instantaneous energy loss isThe parenthesis is $w^2+u^2/12\ge 0$, as required for positive radiated power. This is the instantaneous quadrupole luminosity of a Kepler binary with loss sign for the orbital energy.

A slowly evolving initially circular binary is expected to follow a quasi-circular inspiral at leading radiation order. One needs angular-momentum loss as well as energy loss for this conclusion: the rotating quadrupole has frequency $2\Omega$ and azimuthal harmonic number two, so its fluxes satisfy the gravitational-wave energy and angular-momentum balance $\dot{E}=\Omega \dot{J}$. Along the circular family,The flux relation is precisely the tangent condition for remaining on that family; equivalently it keeps $e^2=1+2E{J}^2/(G^2{M}^2{\mu }^3)$ equal to zero at leading secular order. The shrinking orbit is not an exact fixed-radius circle: its small radial drift is neglected at this adiabatic order.

For a circular orbit of instantaneous separation $a$, $u=0$ and $v^2=GM/a$. ThereforeDifferentiating $E=-GM\mu /(2a)$ at fixed masses now givesWriting $C=64G^3{M}^2\mu /(5c^5)$, the circular gravitational-wave inspiral obeys $a^4=a_0^4-4Ct$. The formal point-mass coalescence time is $a_0^4/(4C)$, and $\dot{P}/P=(3/2)\dot{a}/a$ gives a decreasing orbital period and increasing gravitational-wave frequency.

Gravitational radiation tightens a detached close binary and becomes more effective at small separation. It can bring a stellar donor into Roche-lobe overflow or drive compact objects toward merger. Finite radii, tides and mass transfer can then alter the evolution; the fixed-mass inspiral law is not the entire evolution law once these matter. Near merger the weak-field, slow-motion quadrupole formula also ceases to be sufficient.

Let $f=0.46$. At Roche-lobe overflow contact, the supplied equilibrium radius relation givesKepler's third law then impliesThus the Roche-lobe period-mass relation for a linear donor radius law isHere $R_{\odot }$ and $M_{\odot }$ denote the solar radius and solar mass. Cancellation of the total mass is the special Roche-lobe-filling period-density relation combined with $R_2\propto M_2$.

Between eruptions the conservative binary mass transfer has $M$ constant and ${\dot{M}}_1=-{\dot{M}}_2$. Neglecting spin, writeIts logarithmic derivative givesDifferentiating the Roche lobe relation consequently givesFor $\dot{J}=0$, the Roche-lobe radius response exponent is ${\zeta }_L=2q-5/3$. If the donor follows its specified equilibrium radius sequence, ${\dot{R}}_2/R_2={\dot{M}}_2/M_2$. Its logarithmic overflow therefore changes bySince ${\dot{M}}_2<0$, $q<4/3$ gives negative feedback in this equilibrium-response model, whereas $q>4/3$ gives increasing overflow. For $q>4/3$, loss of donor mass shrinks its Roche lobe faster than its modeled stellar radius, increasing transfer and hence amplifying the original disturbance. The $q>4/3$ comparison is a formal extension; the initial system is specified to have $q<1$.

The word dynamically needs a qualification. Thermal equilibrium specifies ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{eq}}=1$, but actual dynamical stability of binary mass transfer depends on the adiabatic stellar radius response exponent ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, which need not equal one. Stability after a rapid small mass loss requires ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}>{\zeta }_L$, because $d\log M_2<0$. The equilibrium relation alone does not supply this adiabatic response. As a formal counterexample to deriving a universal dynamical threshold from it, a radius model with a dimensionless entropy label $S$, $R(M_2,S)=C{M}_2^2{e}^S$, can have equilibrium $S_{\mathrm{eq}}=S_0-\log (M_2/M_{\ast })$, giving $R_{\mathrm{eq}}\propto M_2$ but ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}=2$ at fixed $S$. At $q=3/2$, ${\zeta }_L=4/3<2$, so that model is dynamically stable despite the extrapolated $q>4/3$ condition. This shows the missing response hypothesis, not a claim that this toy radius law describes the given low-mass star.

A more relevant illustration is an ideal fully convective adiabatic stellar polytrope of index $3/2$. At fixed entropy its polytropic mass-radius relation is $R\propto M_2^{-1/3}$, giving ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}=-1/3$ and a dynamical critical ratio $q=2/3$ under the same Roche lobe approximation. For example, $q=0.9<4/3$ can be unstable dynamically even though the equilibrium comparison has negative feedback. The requested $4/3$ threshold is the intended result with instantaneous response $R_2\propto M_2$; it is not a universal dynamical criterion. The subsequent cycle calculation uses the supplied equilibrium sequence and presumes a physically stable, sufficiently slow transfer regime.

Two important angular-momentum-loss mechanisms are gravitational-wave emission from a binary system and magnetic braking of a binary star. Gravitational waves directly remove orbital energy and angular momentum. A magnetized stellar wind removes donor spin angular momentum with a large magnetic lever arm; tidal synchronization replenishes that spin from the orbit, so the net effect is orbital angular-momentum loss. Treating the wind mass loss as small compared with the Roche-transfer flow is consistent with the conservative approximation used here; otherwise the mass and angular-momentum equations must both be modified. Neglecting the stored spin does not eliminate the torque transmitted through it.

Such losses shrink the Roche lobe and offset the donor's tendency to move inside it. Maintaining contact on the equilibrium sequence requires ${\dot{R}}_L/R_L={\dot{M}}_2/M_2$, hence the binary mass-transfer contact equation becomesFor $q<4/3$ and $\dot{J}<0$, this drives ${\dot{M}}_2<0$ and maintains the modeled semi-detached binary.

Now take $\delta m>0$ for the mass expelled from the accretor in one classical nova. The white dwarf loses $\delta M_1=-\delta m$, while the donor has $\delta M_2=0$ and the total mass change is $\delta M=-\delta m$. Isotropic ejection in the accretor rest frame supplies no mean kick and carries the accretor's specific orbital angular momentum. Its orbital radius is $a_1=a{M}_2/M$, soThis is the angular-momentum budget for isotropic re-emission from a binary star, without an additional spin or frictional torque on the ejecta. The general logarithmic change of $J=M_1{M}_2\sqrt{Ga/M}$ isUsing $M/M_1=1+q$ gives the first-order nova changesThe donor mass and its assumed equilibrium radius are unchanged during the eruption. It is therefore left inside the enlarged Roche lobe, and Roche-lobe overflow ceases in this sharp-contact model. An extended atmosphere, irradiation-induced donor expansion or additional ejecta torques would require a different treatment.

The stipulated circular orbit is an important idealization. Isotropic loss that is slow compared with the orbital period can preserve circularity. If it is truly impulsive compared with that period, an initially circular point-mass orbit instead acquires eccentricity. With unchanged velocity and position, its new specific orbital energy is ${\epsilon }^{\prime }=GM/(2a)-G(M-\delta m)/a=-G(M-2\delta m)/(2a)$ and its squared specific angular momentum stays $h^2=GMa$. The Kepler orbit energy and eccentricity relations then give $a^{\prime }=a(M-\delta m)/(M-2\delta m)$ and $e^{\prime }=\delta m/(M-\delta m)$. The latter still has the same first-order separation increase. The question assumes circularity; its first-order circular budget is consistent with adiabatic orbital mass loss or with subsequent circularization that changes the separation only at second order. Work symbolically with $\delta m$, since the printed numerical layer mass has no explicit unit.

Finally put ${\mathcal{L}}_J=-\dot{J}>0$, constant over both intervals as specified, and let $J,M,q$ denote their leading-order values over one small cycle. While detached, masses and donor radius are fixed, so ${\dot{R}}_L/R_L=2\dot{J}/J=-2{\mathcal{L}}_J/J$. The fractional gap $4\delta m/(3M)$ closes afterOnce contact resumes, the contact equation gives $-{\dot{M}}_2=3M_2{\mathcal{L}}_J/[J(4-3q)]$. Accumulation of the next layer takesDividing yields the detached-to-semidetached time ratioBoth times are first-order in $\delta m/M$. Corrections to either time are second-order in that small mass fraction, so the displayed ratio has relative corrections of order $\delta m/M$. The positive denominator, negligible eruption duration relative to the cycle, fixed donor radius during detachment and common external loss rate are all essential to this idealized nova-induced binary detachment cycle.