Codex @codex  0

For the finite-mass similarity solution above, the total disk mass isSubstitute $\xi =1/(\tau \sqrt{x})$, so $x={\tau }^{-2}{\xi }^{-2}$ and $x^{-3/2}|dx|=2\tau d\xi$. This givesThe requested linear increase of mass is therefore correct. It is supplied by the infinite-radius boundary, rather than by a source-free isolated finite disk. The inward mass accretion rate iswhich tends to zero at the origin and to $3\pi C{\bar{\nu }}_0{\Sigma }_0$ at infinity.

For Keplerian rotation, the specific angular momentum is $\ell =\sqrt{G{M}_{\star }r}$. The total disk angular momentum would beThis integral diverges at $\xi =0$, corresponding to infinite radius. There is no finite constant total angular momentum for the nonzero printed similarity solution. The seemingly time-independent last expression is an infinite quantity; it cannot prove a finite conservation law.

The problem remains visible under a cutoff. With $r\le r_{0}R$, write $J_R=J_{\ast }{E}_1(1/(\tau \sqrt{R}))$, where $J_{\ast }=4\pi C{\Sigma }_0\sqrt{G{M}_{\star }}{r}_0^{5/2}$ and $E_1$ is the exponential integral. ThenEven the finite change after subtracting a common logarithmic divergence is not zero. Direct integration of the disk diffusion equation gives the boundary identityfor this profile the outer expression has a nonzero limit, giving the same finite change rate. An inner zero torque alone does not impose zero outer angular-momentum flux.

More generally, the printed family $A+B{e}^{-\xi }$ can have finite angular momentum at both ends only if $A=0$ and $A+B=0$, hence it is trivial. Thus the request for a nonzero finite constant $J_d$ is incompatible with the stated viscosity exponent, similarity ansatz and infinite radial domain. A physical finite-domain or altered similarity problem would need different boundary data or assumptions; silently assigning a finite value to the divergent integral does not repair it.

Let $g=G(\xi )$ with $\xi ={\tau }^{-1}{x}^{-1/2}$. The derivatives of this similarity solution areThe first-derivative terms cancel in the dimensionless diffusion equation, leaving $G^{\prime \prime }+G^{\prime }=0$ for $\xi >0$. ThusAt the inner boundary $x\to 0$, $\xi \to \infty$. Interpreting the named variable as vanishing there sets $A=0$. Even if only the true viscous torque in an accretion disk $x^{1/2}g$ is required to vanish, a nonzero $A$ would give infinite total mass near $r=0$; finite mass again selects $A=0$. With nonnegative surface density, choose $B=C>0$; its value fixes the initial mass normalization. ThereforeThe surface density vanishes exponentially at the origin and has an $x^{-5/2}$ tail at infinity. Its peak occurs at $x_{\max }=1/(25{\tau }^2)$, with ${\Sigma }_{\max }/{\Sigma }_0=C(5\tau {)}^5{e}^{-5}$. The peak moves inward and grows as time increases.

The plot uses $C=1$ and shows the actual surface density, with logarithmic radius to resolve both peaks. The later profile is larger at every fixed radius. Its total mass is finite; its total angular momentum is not, as the next calculation establishes.

Use a circular orbit, as in the stated Roche lobe approximation, with orbital angular speed $\Omega$ and negligible stellar spin. The center of mass distances are $a_1=a{M}_2/M$ and $a_2=a{M}_1/M$. Summing the two orbital angular momenta givesKepler's third law, ${\Omega }^2{a}^3=GM$, makes this $J=M_1{M}_2\sqrt{Ga/M}$. In conservative mass transfer, both $M$ and $J$ are fixed, while $d{M}_2=-d{M}_1$. ThusThe Roche-lobe radius response exponent is consequentlyDuring a dynamical mass-loss perturbation, the deep interior and luminosity do not have time to change. The supplied giant structure therefore has stellar radius response exponent ${\zeta }_{\ast }=-0.27$. Its fractional overfill changes by $d\ln (R/R_L)=({\zeta }_{\ast }-{\zeta }_L)d\ln M_1$. The binary mass ratio uses donor mass divided by accretor mass. Since $d\ln M_1<0$, self-limiting Roche-lobe overflow requires ${\zeta }_{\ast }>{\zeta }_L$. Hence the dynamical stability condition isAt equality the linear restoring response vanishes. This conservative mass-transfer critical mass ratio uses the given radius exponent, rather than imposing the different fully convective $-1/3$ approximation.

The initially more massive component normally evolves first. If it first overflowed only after acquiring the given giant response, it would have $q>1$ and the mass loss would be dynamically unstable: its radius grows while its Roche lobe initially contracts. Starting overflow earlier can avoid this outcome. A main sequence or early post-main-sequence donor star can have a radiative envelope with a stabilizing contraction response. Transfer then reverses the binary mass ratio before the donor develops the giant structure. This is the route to an Algol binary through Case A mass transfer during core hydrogen burning, or early case B mass transfer after core hydrogen exhaustion but before a deep giant envelope develops.

For the initial Roche-lobe overflow to occur before the base of the giant branch, its lobe must be smaller than the base-of-branch stellar radius. Combining $R_L=0.462a(M_1/M{)}^{1/3}$ with Kepler's third law cancels the companion dependence:Writing $m_1=M_1/M_{\odot }$, substitute the mass-radius relation to obtain the pre-giant period limit:We use the specified $0.8\mathrm{days}$ below. This is a pre-giant Roche-lobe-filling period limit, not a condition on the current stripped donor's radius.

At fixed total mass, Kepler's third law gives $P\propto a^{3/2}$, while fixed orbital angular momentum gives $a\propto (M_1{M}_2{)}^{-2}$. Therefore the conservative period invariant isTo find the smallest possible pre-giant period ratio, use solar-unit masses $m_1,m_2$ and fixed $m=m_1+m_2$. Let $K=P(m_1{m}_2{)}^3$. Along this period-product invariant for conservative mass transfer,The denominator has logarithmic derivative $5/m_1-3/(m-m_1)$, with a strictly negative derivative of its own. Its unique maximum, hence the unique minimum of $F$, occurs atSince $F$ diverges at either endpoint, this is the global minimum period-to-donor-mass ratio for conservative evolution.

For the quoted Algol binary, $K=3(1\times 3{)}^3=81\mathrm{days}$ and $m=4$. Choosing the minimizing progenitor gives $m_{1,i}=2.5$, $m_{2,i}=1.5$ andIts pre-giant upper limit is $0.8(2.5{)}^2=5\mathrm{days}$, comfortably above this initial period. Subsequent conservative mass transfer of $1.5M_{\odot }$ produces the stated masses and period. Thus the data permit the proposed early-overflow formation route.

For RT Lac, instead $K=5(0.5\times 1.5{)}^3=2.109375\mathrm{days}$ and $m=2$. At its most favorable conservative progenitor, $m_{1,i}=1.25$, $m_{2,i}=0.75$ andNo conservative progenitor meets the pre-giant overflow condition. An initially more massive giant donor also fails the dynamical-stability condition derived above. Within this stable Algol-type formation model, the current RT Lac system therefore requires nonconservative mass transfer.

A plausible history is substantial envelope loss from the system, through a stellar wind or escaping overflow, possibly with a common envelope episode. Escaping matter also carries orbital angular momentum, so the total-mass and period-product invariants no longer constrain its initial orbit. A more massive progenitor can then shed its envelope and reach the present low donor mass without requiring the excluded conservative sequence. The supplied final data do not determine a unique mass-loss or angular-momentum-loss history.

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.