Codex @codex  0

A central force has no component in the angular direction. The angular component of the acceleration in polar coordinates therefore gives $2\dot{r}\dot{\theta }+r\ddot{\theta }=0$, orFor unit mass, $h=r^2\dot{\theta }$ is the signed angular momentum perpendicular to the orbital plane, so its magnitude $|h|$ is conserved. Equivalently, the torque $\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}$ vanishes, which also fixes that plane.

The given potential energy is $k/r$, whose radial force is $k/r^2$: positive $k$ is repulsive and negative $k$ attractive. The kinetic energy in polar coordinates is $({\dot{r}}^2+r^2{\dot{\theta }}^2)/2$, so conservation of energy givesFor $h\ne 0$ and $k>0$, the effective potential is positive, strictly decreasing from $+\infty$ to $0$, and has no stationary point. For $k=-\kappa <0$, it still tends to $+\infty$ at zero, crosses zero at $r=h^2/(2\kappa )$, and has its unique minimum atIt then approaches zero from below. The minimum corresponds to a stable circular orbit. If $h=0$, the centrifugal barrier disappears; the attractive effective potential is simply $-\kappa /r$ and has no minimum.

The principle of stationary action, also called Hamilton's principle, requires $\delta {\int }_{t_1}^{t_2}Ldt=0$ for fixed-endpoint path variations. Here the original PDF has ${\dot{r}}^2$ in the radial kinetic energy; the TeX has lost that dot. With $m>0$ and $r>0$, the Lagrangian isThe Euler-Lagrange equation for each coordinate givesThe two conserved quantities are angular momentum $h=m{r}^2\dot{\varphi }$ and energy $E=\frac{m}{2}{\dot{r}}^2+\frac{m}{2}{r}^2{\dot{\varphi }}^2+km{r}^2$. By Noether's theorem, they arise respectively from rotational invariance and time-translation invariance of the action. The coordinate $\varphi$ is a cyclic coordinate, and $L$ has no explicit time dependence.

The conjugate momentum for each coordinate is $p_r=m\dot{r}$, $p_{\varphi }=m{r}^2\dot{\varphi }$. The Legendre transform $H=p_r\dot{r}+p_{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }-L$ gives the HamiltonianHamilton's equations areSetting $p_{\varphi }=h$ yields $m\ddot{r}=-V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\prime }(r)$ with the effective potential $V_{\mathrm{eff}}=h^2/(2m{r}^2)+km{r}^2$.

For $k>0$ and $h\ne 0$, this potential tends to infinity both as $r\downarrow 0$ and as $r\to \infty$, and has its unique stationary point atThe effective potential stability criterion proves a stable circular orbit in a quadratic central potential, with $|\dot{\varphi }|=\sqrt{2k}$. For a small radial displacement $\eta$, $\ddot{\eta }+8k\eta =0$ to first order, so radial perturbations oscillate rather than grow. The diagram shows the centrifugal and quadratic contributions and their sum in dimensionless units:

The printed paper only says that $k$ is constant. Its claimed positive-radius stable circular orbit needs the additional attractive-force assumption $k>0$ and nonzero angular momentum. For $k<0$ there is no such minimum; for $k=0,h\ne 0$ the effective potential is strictly decreasing. With $h=0,k>0$, the minimum is at the origin and is not a positive-radius circular orbit. These cases are not represented by the diagram.

A gravitational wave can propagate through a region with vanishing stress-energy tensor; its gravitational field is not a matter current $T_{ab}{m}^b$. Nevertheless, exact axisymmetry gives an axial Killing vector field, and the vacuum identity $d\star dm=0$ makes the Komar angular momentum equal on enclosing spacelike submanifolds in the same homology class. Applying the same identity to the spacetime tube between surrounding spacelike submanifolds at different times gives zero net flux of this charge through the tube.

Consequently gravitational waves in exact axisymmetry carry no net angular momentum about the symmetry axis. They can still carry energy and decrease the total mass. In a mode description, rotationally invariant radiative data have zero azimuthal mode number; exact axisymmetry therefore excludes the axial angular momentum flux present in nonaxisymmetric merger radiation. This does not mean there are no gravitational waves, or that radiation cannot transport angular momentum when the exact symmetry is absent. The relevant conserved charge includes any horizon contributions identified in the preceding Komar angular momentum with inner boundaries identity.

Assume the classical black-hole area theorem applies: the null energy condition and the required global regularity or strong asymptotic predictability hypotheses hold. The disconnected initial horizon sections then give $A_f\ge A_1+A_2$. DefineFor any regular Kerr black hole, $|J_i|\le M_i^2$, so $X\ge |J_1|+|J_2|\ge |J_f|$. The irreducible mass identity obtained by inverting the Kerr area relation isIndeed, $Y=M_f^2+\sqrt{M_f^4-J_f^2}$ implies $(Y-M_f^2{)}^2=M_f^4-J_f^2$, which gives this expression. At fixed $J_f$, its derivative with respect to $Y$ is $\frac{1}{2}(1-J_f^2/Y^2)\ge 0$ on the physical branch. Therefore the area bound for an axisymmetric Kerr merger isThis uses the ideal limit of infinite initial separation, in which the initial total energy is $M_1+M_2$. At finite separation it is the initial total gravitational energy, including binding energy, that replaces this sum. The inequality is an upper limit, not a prediction or a guarantee of saturation; real mergers increase the horizon area.

Changing only a spin sign leaves $X$ unchanged, whereas the square of the final angular momentum changes. For fixed nonzero $|J_1|,|J_2|$, same-sign spins give $(|J_1|+|J_2|{)}^2$, and opposite signs give $(|J_1|-|J_2|{)}^2$. The remnant must retain more rotational energy in the same-sign case, so its minimum allowed mass is larger and the radiated-energy upper limit is smaller. Cancellation of opposite spins permits more of the initial rotational energy to be radiated while respecting the same initial total area.

For example, equal extremal initial holes have $M_1=M_2=M$ and $|J_1|=|J_2|=M^2$. Same-sign spins allow at most $(2-\sqrt{2})M$, a fraction $1-1/\sqrt{2}$ of the initial energy; opposite signs allow at most $M$, a fraction $1/2$. These are geometric bounds under exact axisymmetry, not achievable-efficiency claims.

The common axial Killing vector field fixes the same sign convention for both spins. Initial rest and alignment of the separation with the symmetry axis give no orbital angular momentum. At large separation, the total axial charge is therefore $J_1+J_2$. Since axisymmetric radiation carries no axial angular momentum, all of this charge remains in the remnant after the radiation has escaped and the exterior has settled:Here the spins are signed quantities about the same axis, not their magnitudes. The conclusion assumes the exact axisymmetry stipulated throughout the merger and no remaining exterior matter carrying angular momentum; the final stationary vacuum remnant is a Kerr black hole under the usual uniqueness hypotheses.

Consider the discrete mapIt is an isometry: $\cos \theta$ and $d\varphi$ both change sign, leaving $\cos \theta d\varphi$ unchanged, while $d{\theta }^2$ and ${\sin }^2\theta d{\varphi }^2$ are also unchanged. A local component of its fixed-point set is $\theta =\pi /2$, $\varphi ={\varphi }_0$.

If a geodesic starts tangent to that component, the isometry fixes both its initial position and its initial tangent. Applying the isometry therefore gives a geodesic with the same initial data. Uniqueness of the geodesic equation makes it the same curve, so it remains in the fixed component. This proves that the selected submanifold is a totally geodesic submanifold; it has dimension three, not two. The proof continues through a horizon when expressed in regular coordinates, so coordinate singularities of the original chart do not invalidate it.

The geodesic conserved quantities from Killing vectors associated with ${\partial }_{\psi }$ and ${\partial }_{\varphi }$ areDots denote derivatives with respect to an affine parameter. On the chosen submanifold $\dot{\varphi }=0$ and $\cos \theta =0$, so $L_{\varphi }=0$. Requiring also $L_{\psi }=0$ givesMore generally, away from the polar-coordinate axes, both displayed angular charges being zero imply $\dot{\varphi }=0$ and the same relation. In particular, zero conserved angular momentum does not imply constant $\psi$: the motion follows the local dragging of the angular coordinate by the rotating geometry.

Use the separation vector $\mathbf{r}$ from the star to the comet, and let $m_{\mathrm{red}}=m{M}_{\star }/(m+M_{\star })$. The two-body problem separates into uniform centre of mass motion andTaking a cross product with $\mathbf{r}$ proves conservation of angular momentum; taking the scalar product with $\dot{\mathbf{r}}$ proves conservation of energy. The relative constants areThe total relative angular momentum and energy are $m_{\mathrm{red}}\mathbf{h}$ and $m_{\mathrm{red}}\epsilon$, respectively. The conserved eccentricity vector is $\mathbf{e}=\dot{\mathbf{r}}\times \mathbf{h}/\mu -\hat{\mathbf{r}}$. Its scalar product with $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ gives $r=h^2/[\mu (1+e\cos f)]$, with $f$ the true anomaly. The periapsis and apoapsis distances are therefore $h^2/[\mu (1+e)]$ and $h^2/[\mu (1-e)]$. Their sum is twice the semi-major axis, soAt either apsis $v=h/r$; substituting an apsidal radius gives $\epsilon =-\mu /(2a)$. Thus the specific orbital energy implies the vis-viva equationThese are exact relative-coordinate formulas for an elliptic orbit, $0\le e<1$. In the barycentric frame the comet's speed is $M_{\star }/(M_{\star }+m)$ times the relative speed; the printed identification with the comet's stellar orbital speed uses $M_{\star }\gg m$.

Assume a time-independent spherical relative potential $\psi (r)$, with acceleration $\nabla \psi$. The relative energy and specific angular momentum areAlong an orbit, $\dot{E}=\nabla \psi \cdot \mathbf{v}-\mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla \psi =0$ and $\dot{\mathbf{\ell }}=\mathbf{r}\times \nabla \psi =0$, since a spherical gradient is radial. Thus both $E$ and $L$ are integrals of motion. Choose the escape level $\psi =0$ and take the bound galactic distribution function to vanish for $E\le 0$.

For an isotropic $f(E)$, integrate over a spherical coordinate system in velocity space:Differentiating gives ${\rho }^{\prime }(\psi )=2\pi \sqrt{2}{\int }_0^{\psi }f(E)/\sqrt{\psi -E}dE$. Convolve once more with the reciprocal-square-root kernel. Reversing the order of integration, under the usual integrability assumptions, usesTherefore ${\int }_0^{E_0}{\rho }^{\prime }(\psi )/\sqrt{E_0-\psi }d\psi =2\sqrt{2}{\pi }^2{\int }_0^{E_0}f(E)dE$. Differentiating proves Eddington inversion:Here ${\pi }^2$ is outside the square root, as in the original PDF; the TeX transcription wrongly places it inside. The assumptions include a locally integrable bound distribution and sufficient density regularity, with no extra unbound or boundary population. An inverted expression must additionally be nonnegative to be physical. Since the velocity measure and $f$ are invariant under all velocity rotations, $⟨v_r^2⟩=⟨v_{\theta }^2⟩=⟨v_{\varphi }^2⟩=⟨v^2⟩/3$ whenever these moments exist; mixed moments vanish.

For the half-anisotropic distribution function, write the polar velocity angle from the radial direction as $\eta$. Then $L=rv\sin \eta$, andThe apparent $1/L$ singularity is integrable because it cancels the factor $v\sin \eta$ in the velocity measure. Integrating $\eta \in [0,\pi ]$ and $\phi \in [0,2\pi ]$ givesThe density relation requires $r\rho \to 0$ at the escape boundary and $f_E\ge 0$ for a physical distribution. Consider a monotonically decreasing $\psi$. The largest allowed radius at fixed binding energy is the radial-orbit limit $r_E$ with $\psi (r_E)=E$; a nonzero-$L$ orbit normally has a smaller apocenter because of its centrifugal term. Changing from $\psi$ to $r$ givesThe numerator in the original PDF instead uses $\rho +d\rho /d\psi$. That is a genuine printed error: the chain rule for $d(r\rho )/d\psi$ requires $\rho +rd\rho /dr$. It is not legitimate to prove the printed expression as written. A concrete counterexample is the unit-parameter Hernquist model at $r=1$: ${\psi }^{\prime }=-1/4$, ${\rho }^{\prime }=-(5/2)\rho$ and $d\rho /d\psi =10\rho$. The printed quotient is $-44\rho$, whereas the correct $g$ is $6\rho >0$. The former would give a negative distribution.

The angular weight after cancellation is uniform in $\eta$, so the averages of ${\cos }^2\eta$ and ${\sin }^2\eta$ are both $1/2$. The azimuthal angle splits the tangential term equally. Hence $⟨v_r^2⟩=⟨v_{\theta }^2+v_{\varphi }^2⟩$ and each individual tangential moment is half the radial one. The velocity-anisotropy parameter is consequentlyThis is a radially biased constant-anisotropy distribution function, not an isotropic one or purely radial motion. It does not by itself prove dynamical stability; it preferentially weights small angular momentum while remaining integrable.

For the Hernquist model, use the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity with the relative-potential sign, ${\nabla }^2\psi =-4\pi G\rho$. Since ${\psi }^{\prime }=-GM/(r+a{)}^2$,Its enclosed mass is $M{r}^2/(r+a{)}^2$, which tends to $M$. Expressing the augmented density in the relative potential gives $r\rho =a{\psi }^3/(2\pi G^3{M}^2)$. The preceding derivative therefore giveswith zero bound-model population outside the allowed energy domain. It is nonnegative and reproduces the density by direct integration. The Hernquist model has a central density cusp, so the formulas for the local $1/L$ distribution are interpreted at $r>0$. As a further check, the radial second moment obtained from the same integral is $\psi /4$ and each tangential second moment is $\psi /8$, consistent with $\beta =1/2$.

For Roche-lobe overflow in the stipulated stellar thermal equilibrium, $R_2=R_L$. Using the mass-radius relation and Kepler's third law,The total mass cancels, givingHere $R_{\odot }$ is the solar radius. This is the Roche-lobe-filling period-density relation specialized to $R_2\propto M_2$.

Neglecting spin, the angular momentum of a circular orbit is $J=M_1{M}_2\sqrt{Ga/M}$. Between classical novae the transfer conserves total mass, so $\dot{M}=0$ and ${\dot{M}}_1=-{\dot{M}}_2$. Its logarithmic derivative givesIn particular, for conservation of angular momentum,The source PDF has $\dot{J}=0$ here; the TeX's $J=0$ is a transcription defect. For $q>4/3$, the Roche-lobe radius response exponent exceeds the equilibrium stellar radius response exponent $1$. Since ${\dot{M}}_2<0$, the Roche lobe then shrinks faster than the donor star; the overfill increases and drives more transfer, giving positive feedback. Equality at $q=4/3$ is marginal in this linear response test.

Two qualifications matter. First, $q>4/3$ is a formal extrapolation outside the stated $q<1$ range, and the supplied Roche lobe approximation need not remain accurate there. Second, true dynamical stability of binary mass transfer compares ${\zeta }_L$ with the adiabatic stellar radius response exponent ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, not ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{eq}}=1$. The stellar thermal equilibrium argument supplies the displayed feedback threshold under the imposed radius law, rather than a necessary and sufficient physical dynamical threshold. For example, the polytropic mass-radius relation for a fully convective adiabatic stellar polytrope with index $3/2$ gives ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}=-1/3$; within this same Roche lobe approximation its dynamical threshold is $q=2/3$. Thus $q<4/3$ by itself does not guarantee dynamical stability.

Gravitational-wave emission from a binary system removes orbital energy and angular momentum. Magnetic braking of a binary star provides another important loss: a magnetized stellar wind carries away donor spin, while tidal locking couples that spin to the orbit. Tides alone redistribute angular momentum and are not an external sink. Matter expelled from the system can also carry orbital angular momentum, although appreciable continuous mass loss would require nonconservative modifications of the preceding equations. Setting ${\dot{R}}_L/R_L={\dot{R}}_2/R_2$ gives the binary mass-transfer contact equationFor $q<4/3$, a negative external $\dot{J}$ therefore sustains negative ${\dot{M}}_2$ along the stipulated stellar thermal equilibrium contact sequence, provided the system is otherwise stable and can remain thermally relaxed.

During the classical nova, the ejecta carry the white dwarf's specific angular momentum, not zero angular momentum. With ${\Omega }^2=GM/a^3$ and the accretor's distance from the centre of mass $a_1=a{M}_2/M$, isotropic escape givesThe slow ejection relative to the orbital period permits the adiabatic circular orbit approximation; the donor star does not transfer appreciable additional mass during it. Take $\delta M_1=-\delta m$, $\delta M_2=0$ and $\delta M=-\delta m$. Differentiating $J=M_1{M}_2\sqrt{Ga/M}$ givesSince $M/M_1=1+q$, this yieldsThese are first-order formulae with errors of order $(\delta m/M{)}^2$. The orbital widening agrees with Jeans-mode mass loss. The donor star's radius is unchanged to this order by the assumed ejection, so its Roche lobe expands away from it, causing nova-induced binary detachment. This idealization neglects changes in the donor from irradiation or interaction with ejecta; those are not supplied in the model.

Let $\Gamma =-\dot{J}>0$ be the fixed external loss rate. During the detached binary phase both component masses are fixed, and ${\dot{R}}_L/R_L=2\dot{J}/J=-2\Gamma /J$. Closing the fractional gap $4\delta m/(3M)$ takesIn the subsequent semidetached binary, the binary mass-transfer contact equation gives $-{\dot{M}}_2=3M_2\Gamma /[J(4-3q)]$. Accumulating a fresh layer of mass $\delta m$ therefore takesThroughout these first-order estimates $J,M,q$ can be evaluated at the start of the cycle: their fractional changes during it are of order $\delta m/M$. The limit $\Gamma =0$ is excluded, since no finite reconnection time follows without an external shrinkage mechanism.

Set $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{x}}_1-{\mathbf{x}}_2$, $M=M_1+M_2$ and $\mu =M_1{M}_2/M$, the reduced mass. Newton's law of universal gravitation gives ${\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_1=-G{M}_2\mathbf{r}/r^3$ and ${\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_2=G{M}_1\mathbf{r}/r^3$. Subtraction establishesFor fixed masses, the orbital energy and angular momentum areTaking derivatives gives $\dot{E}=\mu \mathbf{v}\cdot (\ddot{\mathbf{r}}+GM\mathbf{r}/r^3)=0$ and $\dot{\mathbf{J}}=\mu \mathbf{r}\times \ddot{\mathbf{r}}=0$. These are conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum in the unperturbed Kepler orbit. To see directly that the orbital eccentricity is fixed, put $\mathbf{h}=\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{r}/r$. The eccentricity vector isSince $\dot{\mathbf{h}}=0$, the cross product identity $\mathbf{r}\times (\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v})=\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{v})-r^2\mathbf{v}$ gives $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}\times \mathbf{h}=GM\dot{\mathbf{n}}$, so $\dot{\mathbf{e}}=0$. Its magnitude $e$ is the orbital eccentricity. Equivalently,Thus the semi-major axis and orbital eccentricity of a bound noncollision Kepler orbit are constant, including $e=0$.

Take the centre of mass as origin. The two positions are ${\mathbf{x}}_1=(M_2/M)\mathbf{r}$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_2=-(M_1/M)\mathbf{r}$. For $x\gg r$, a Taylor expansion givesThe mass dipole vanishes because ${\sum }_A{M}_A{\mathbf{x}}_A=0$, and the second mass moment tensor is ${\sum }_A{M}_A{x}_{Ai}{x}_{Aj}=\mu r_i{r}_j$. The gravitational quadrupole potential of a point-mass binary is consequentlyBoth printed tensors are trace-free. Contracting them with the Kronecker delta summed over three spatial dimensions givesThis proves the requested expression through second order. In particular the printed convention is $q_{ij}=\frac{3}{2}{Q}_{ij}$, where $Q_{ij}=\mu (r_i{r}_j-r^2{\delta }_{ij}/3)$ is the standard mass quadrupole moment; the radiation coefficient must be adjusted accordingly. No mass dipole term may be retained in centre of mass coordinates.

To evaluate the quadrupole formula without assuming a circular orbit, put $k=GM$, $u=\dot{r}=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{v}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{\perp }=\mathbf{v}-u\mathbf{n}$. Differentiating the gravitational acceleration gives the kinematic jerkFor $S_{ij}=r_i{r}_j$, the product rule then givesInserting these into the printed mass quadrupole moment convention yieldsThe two tensors in brackets are orthogonal in their tensor contraction, because $\mathbf{n}\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_{\perp }=0$. Their squared norms are $6$ and $2v_{\perp }^2$, respectively. HenceThe instantaneous quadrupole luminosity of a Kepler binary is thereforeThe radial derivative $\dot{r}$ is not the vector speed. The bracket equals $v_{\perp }^2+u^2/12$, so the radiated luminosity is nonnegative for every instantaneous velocity.

For a slowly evolving circular orbit, there is no preferred orbital phase at which to excite a persistent eccentricity vector. More precisely, the rotating mass quadrupole moment emits at twice the orbital frequency, with angular harmonic number two; its gravitational-wave energy and angular-momentum balance is $\dot{E}=\Omega \dot{J}$. The circular Kepler orbit sequence has $J=\mu \sqrt{GMa}$ and $dE/dJ=\Omega$, so this loss is tangent to the sequence. At leading adiabatic order it preserves zero secular orbital eccentricity. This is a circular gravitational-wave inspiral, with a small radial drift rather than an exactly fixed-radius Newtonian circle. The energy flux alone would not establish circularity without this symmetry and angular momentum balance.

To leading radiation order use $r=a$, $u=0$ and ${\mathbf{v}}^2=GM/a$ in the loss formula. Combining it with $E=-GM\mu /(2a)$ givesKeeping the fixed masses and leading quadrupole formula, integration givesThis formal coalescence time displays the strong $a_0^4$ dependence: gravitational-wave emission from a binary system matters far more for close binary stars than for wide ones. The orbital period decreases as $a^{3/2}$ and the gravitational-wave frequency increases, producing a chirp. A detached binary can be driven into Roche-lobe overflow; further evolution then depends on mass-transfer stability. A sufficiently close compact pair may merge. The weak-field, slow-motion, point-mass approximation ceases to apply before literal $a=0$; finite stellar radii or strong relativistic effects determine the final interaction.

First supply the introductory scaling and geometry. The leading tangential Stokes equation in a thin gap balances $P/L$ against $\mu U/H^2$. The shear stress scale is $\tau \sim \mu U/H$, so lubrication pressure dominates shear stress:The outer circle, viewed along a ray $r(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ from the inner centre, satisfies $r^2-2\alpha \Delta r\sin \theta +{\alpha }^2{\Delta }^2=(a+\Delta {)}^2$. Expanding its positive root to first order in $\Delta /a$ gives $r=a+\Delta +\alpha \Delta \sin \theta +O({\Delta }^2/a)$, hence $h=\Delta (1+\alpha \sin \theta )$.

Take positive $\Omega$ to mean increasing $\theta$, and put $s=a\theta$, $y=r-a$, $U=\Omega a$. With no-slip boundary conditions at $y=0,h$, lubrication theory givesSteady mass conservation makes $q$ independent of $\theta$. Single-valued pressure requires ${\int }_0^{2\pi }{p}_{\theta }d\theta =0$. Write $I_n={\int }_0^{2\pi }(1+\alpha \sin \theta {)}^{-n}d\theta$ and $D_{\alpha }=1+{\alpha }^2/2$. It follows thatThe tangential fluid tractions on the inner and outer solids, measured in the same increasing-$\theta$ direction, are respectivelyThis sign convention distinguishes the traction on a wall from the corresponding stress component in the fluid.

To leading order the holding force balances the pressure traction on the inner circle. Integration by parts givesUse $p_{\theta }=a{p}_s$ and $\int \sin \theta /(1+\alpha \sin \theta {)}^{n}d\theta =(I_{n-1}-I_n)/\alpha$, with the continuous limit at $\alpha =0$. Substituting the boxed flux yieldsThe zero vertical component also follows from reflection in mathematics in the vertical line: this leaves the geometry and vertical force unchanged, reverses $\Omega$, and Linearity of Stokes flow then requires $F_z=0$.

Pressure gives no moment about either circular wall's own centre. Integrating the viscous shear torque with lever arm $a$ to leading order gives the fluid couplesIndeed $C_i=a^2\int {\tau }_{i}d\theta$ and $C_o=a^2\int {\tau }_{o}d\theta$ at this order. Applied holding or driving couples are the negatives of these fluid couples. They need not cancel because they are moments about different axes. The fluid force on the outer solid equals the holding force $F_x$ on the inner one. Transferring its moment to the inner axis adds $-\alpha \Delta F_x$, so angular momentum balance about a common axis isFor $\alpha =0$ the usual equal and opposite concentric couples are recovered. All these formulas are leading thin-gap expressions at fixed $|\alpha |<1$; taking the contact limit requires maintaining the local slender-gap assumptions.