AG-2026.03-254·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: gr-qc
Unexpectedly Weak General Relativistic Effects in Strongly Relativistic Tidal Disruption Events
Authors
- Ho-Sang Chan
- Taeho Ryu
- Julian Krolik
- Tsvi Piran
Abstract
Tidal disruption events (TDEs) occur when stars are destroyed by supermassive black holes and are among the brightest nuclear transients. It has been thought that strong relativistic effects rapidly dissipate orbital energy and produce prompt disk formation when the stellar pericenter is smaller than $\sim 10$ gravitational radii. Using a general relativistic hydrodynamic simulation of a strongly relativistic TDE around a $10^{6}\,M_{\odot}$ black hole, we find instead that the overall evolution is similar to weakly relativistic TDEs: the debris remains highly eccentric, with most of the returned mass residing near the orbital apocenter ($\sim 250\times$ the initial pericenter distance), and shocks, rather than accretion, power the event. The simulation starts from the initial stellar approach and follows the debris evolution up to $35\,\text{days}$ after the peak mass-return time ($\simeq$ $23\,\text{days}$). Although early shocks driven by strong relativistic apsidal precession and pericenter nozzle compression dissipate orbital energy efficiently, they last only about a week ($\sim 0.3$ of the peak mass-return time). Stream self-interactions increase the incoming stream's angular momentum, thereby expanding its pericenter distance, weakening precession and shocks, and reducing dissipation. These results, along with previous work on weakly relativistic TDEs, suggest that circularization may be intrinsically slow regardless of the strength of relativistic effects, and the flow remains highly eccentric and extended during the peak of optical/UV luminosity.
Submitted
10 March 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.10208
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.