Content uploaded by Gagik H. Tovmassian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gagik H. Tovmassian on Jul 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1112
Testing the third-body hypothesis in the cataclysmic variables LU
Camelopardalis, QZ Serpentis, V1007 Herculis and BK Lyncis
Carlos E. Chavez,
1 ‹Nikolaos Georgakarakos,
2 , 3 Andres Aviles,
4 Hector Aceves,
5 Gagik Tovmassian ,
5
Serge y Zhariko v,
5 J. E. Perez–Leon
4 and Francisco Tamayo
4
1
Universidad Auton
´
oma de Nuevo Le
´
on, Facultad de Ingenier
´
ıa Mec
´
anica y El
´
ectrica, San Nicol
´
as de los Garza 66451, NL, Mexico
2
New Yor k University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi, UAE
3
Center for Astro, Particle and Planetary Physics (CAP3), New Yo rk University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi, UAE
4
Universidad Auton
´
oma de Nuevo Le
´
on, Facultad de Ciencias F
´
ısico–Matem
´
aticas, San Nicol
´
as de los Garza 66451, NL, Mexico
5
Universidad Nacional Aut
´
onoma de M
´
exico, Instituto de Astronom
´
ıa, Ensenada 22860, BC, Mexico
Accepted 2022 April 11. Received 2022 April 5; in original form 2022 January 5
A B S T R A C T
Some cataclysmic variables (CVs) exhibit a very long photometric period (VLPP). We calculate the properties of a hypothetical
third body, initially assumed to be on a circular–planar orbit, by matching the modelled VLPP to the observed one of four CVs
studied here: LU Camelopardalis, QZ Serpentis, V1007 Herculis and BK Lyncis. The eccentric and low inclination orbits for
a third body are considered using analytical results. The chosen parameters of the binary components are based on the orbital
period of each CV. We also calculate the smallest corresponding semimajor axis permitted before the third body’s orbit becomes
unstable. A first-order analytical post-Newtonian correction is applied, and the rate of precession of the pericentre is found,
but it cannot explain any of the observed VLPP. For the first time, we also estimate the effect of secular perturbations by this
hypothetical third body on the mass transfer rate of such CVs. We made sure that the observed and calculated amplitude of
variability was also comparable. The mass of the third body satisfying all constraints ranges from 0.63 to 97 Jupiter masses.
Our results show further evidence supporting the hypothesis of a third body in three of these CVs, but only marginally in V1007
Herculis.
Key words: planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability – stars: individual: LU Camelopardalis –stars: individual:
QZ Serpentis –stars: individual: V1007 Herculis – stars: individual: BK Lyncis –nov ae, cataclysmic v ariables.
1 INTRODUCTION
A cataclysmic variable (CV) is a semidetached binary star system that
is particularly stable (Frank, King & Raine 2002 ). A CV consists of
a white dwarf (WD) primary star and a lower-mass main-sequence
secondary star, mainly an M star, although the spectral class can
range from a K to an L type star. The condition that defines the
distance between the two components is that the main-sequence star
fills its corresponding Roche lobe and loses matter through the L
1
Lagrangian point. The matter accretes on to the WD via an accretion
disc, unless the WD has a strong enough magnetic field to prevent
the formation of the disc. If the system is disturbed for any reason, it
tends to restore to equilibrium.
Two mechanisms maintain the balance of a CV: the evolutionary
expansion of the secondary, and the decrease of the semimajor axis
of the binary due to the loss of angular momentum. The decrease
in angular momentum has two possible sources, depending on the
orbital period of the binary system. The first source is magnetic
braking, and it is the dominant effect for systems that have orbital
periods abo v e 3 h (Whyte & Eggleton 1985 ; Livio & Pringle
1994 ). The second source is the emission of gravitational waves, for
E-mail: Carlos.ChavezPch@uanl.edu.mx
systems that have orbital periods below 2 h (Faulkner 1976 ; Chau &
Lauterborn 1977 ). In the 2–3 h period range, neither mechanism is
efficient for the angular momentum removal. Hence, the number of
known systems in that range, called the period gap, is significantly
smaller.
The material that the secondary loses through the L
1
point cannot
fall straight to the primary; instead, it forms an accretion disc (Frank
et al. 2002 ; Ritter 2008 ). This accretion disc is so luminous that
it outshines both stars. The disc brightness is proportional to the
mass transfer rate. Therefore, if the mass transfer rate changes, the
luminosity of the system changes. In particular, a change in the
location of the L
1
point will change the mass transfer rate and, as a
consequence, the luminosity of the whole system will change.
CVs are notorious for variability on different time-scales and
magnitude scales. In this paper, we consider a specific case: a
relati vely lo w amplitude (0.07–0.97 mag) v ariability with periods
exceeding the orbital periods by hundreds to thousands of times. The
very long photometric period (VLPP) was first singled out in FS
Aurigae (Chavez et al. 2012 , 2020 ), although the object shows many
other variabilities. More VLPPs have been identified in other CVs
(e.g. Thomas et al. 2010 ; Kalomeni 2012 ; Chavez et al. 2012 ; Yan g
et al. 2017 ; Chavez et al. 2020 ).
Different mechanisms have been proposed to explain VLPPs.
Thomas et al. ( 2010 ) found a long-term modulation with a period
© 2022 The Author(s)
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
4630 C. E. Chavez et al.
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
of 4.43 d in the CV PX Andromedae, using eclipse analysis, and
proposed the disc precession period as the origin of the VLPP.
Another example is the DP Leonis system; for this, Beuermann et al.
( 2011 ) found a period of 2.8 yr, using eclipse time variations, and
concluded that a third body was the best explanation for the VLPP.
Honeycutt, Kafka & Robertson ( 2014 ) found a 25-d periodicity in
V794 Aquilae. Kalomeni ( 2012 ) disco v ered sev eral magnetic CVs
that have long-term variability, with a time-scale of hundreds of
days, and concluded that those VLPPs are likely to originate from
the modulation of mass transfer due to the magnetic cycles in the
companion star.
More recently, Chavez et al. ( 2012 , 2020 ), using dynamical
analysis, proposed that a third body can induce a VLPP by secular
perturbations on the inner binary. The third body can introduce
oscillations of the L
1 point of the close binary, and therefore the
mass transfer rate changes. This mechanism induces periods as long
as the VLPPs in the inner binary by means of secular perturbations
observed in the above-mentioned CVs. The VLPP was observed in
the long-term light curves of 10 CVs by Ya ng et al. ( 2017 ). As a
possible mechanism of the VLPP for five out of 10 systems, these
authors proposed a third body orbiting the close binary, with the
system being in Kozai–Lidov resonance (Kozai 1962 ; Lidov 1962 )
which requires an orbital inclination between the plane of the binary
and the orbit of the third object larger than 39 .
◦2. Thus, they were
able to estimate the possible orbital period of the third body.
Our main goal in this research is to investigate whether a third body
can explain the observed VLPP of four CVs, rather than obtaining a
precise value on the mass of the third body.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 , we provide
information about the CVs considered in this work, and their initial
parameters. In Section 3 , we give the properties of the third body that
result from our analysis, in order to explain the observed VLPPs. In
Section 4 , we briefly address the potential role of a post-Newtonian
correction on the VLPPs. In Section 5 , we address the effects of a
probable third body on the mass transfer rate and brightness of the
four CVs. In Section 6 , we present our results and a discussion, and
we provide final comments on this work in Section 7 .
2 THE CATACLYSMIC VARIABLES STUDIED
AND THEIR INITIAL PARAMETERS
Yang et al. ( 2017 ) matched 344 out of 1580 known CVs,
and extracted their data from the Palomar Transient Factory
(PTF) data repository. These images were combined with
the Catalina Real-Time Transit Surv e y (CRTS) light curves.
They found 10 systems with unknown VLPPs: BK Lyncis
(BK Lyn; 2MASS J09201119 + 3356423), CT Bootis, LU
Camelopardalis (LU Cam; 2MASS J05581789 + 6753459),
QZ Serpentis (QZ Ser; SDSS J15565447 + 210719.0), V825
Herculis (2MASS J17183699 + 4115511), V1007 Herculis
(V1007 Her; 1RXS J172405.7 + 411402), Ursa Majoris 01
(UMa 01; 2MASS J09193569 + 5028261), Coronae Borealis 06
(2MASS J15321369 + 3701046), Herculis 12 (Her 12; SDSS
J155037.27 + 405440.0) and VW Coronae Borealis (USNO-B1.0
1231 −00276740). They analyse each system and, depending on
the value of its VLPP, propose a most likely origin, such as the
precession of the accretion disc, hierarchical three-body systems and
magnetic field change of the companion star. They argue that if the
long-term period is less than several tens of days, the disc precession
explanation is preferred. Ho we ver, the hierarchical three-body
system or the variations in the magnetic field are fa v oured for longer
periods. Six out of those 10 systems they propose to be a hierarchical
triple: BK Lyn, LU Cam, QZ Ser, V1007 Her, Her 12 and UMa 01.
UMa 01 has a long orbital period of P
1 = 404.10 ±0.30 min
(6.735 h), which is long compared with other systems in the sample.
According to the orbital period distribution for CVs, the number of
systems with such a period or larger is very small and therefore most
of the statistical results cannot be applied to them (Knigge 2006 ;
Knigge, Baraffe & Patterson 2011 ). UMa 01 has been presumably
formed recently and there are no good enough estimates of its
parameters (e.g. mass, radius, temperature) of either component.
Additionally, Her 12 was identified as a CV by Adelman-McCarthy
et al. ( 2006 ), but we do not model it because its period is not well
constrained, possibly being in the range P
1 = 76–174 min (Yang
et al. 2017 ). We study each of the four systems remaining (i.e. LU
Cam, QZ Ser, V1007 Her and BK Lyn) to learn more about their
dynamical attributes.
The values reported by Knigge et al. ( 2011 ) are used for calculating
the mass of each member of the CV. We did so because Knigge et al.
give all the parameters that we later use in this research, such as mass,
radius and semimajor axis, for each component of the binary. In their
study, they used eclipsing CVs and theoretical restrictions to obtain
the semi-empirical donor sequence for CVs with orbital periods P
1
< 6 h. They estimate all key physical, photometric and spectral-type
parameters of the secondary and primary as a function of the orbital
period. We use the data from their tables 6 and 8 (Knigge et al. 2011 )
to obtain the parameters of the CVs in our selection. In practice, we
use the online version of those tables (which are far more complete)
to obtain the adequate values for the CVs studied here. If the systems
hav e an y peculiar features, we will point it out in the te xt and we will
state the reference used for such a value.
2.1 White dwarf mass
First, we briefly describe the mass value used by Knigge et al. ( 2011 ).
In their research, they explain that they used the mean value of
M
1
= 0 . 75 ±0 . 05 M
. In 2011, the new data pointed to a mean
value for the WD in CVs of M
1
= 0 . 79 ±0 . 05 M
. They stated
that because they had already begun to assemble the grid of donors
sequence and evolution tracks ‘we chose to retain M
1
= 0 . 75 ±
0 . 05 M
as a representative of WD mass’. More recently, in a re vie w
by Zorotovic & Schreiber ( 2020 ), it was reported that the mean
WD value could be even higher, M
1
= 0 . 82 –0 . 83 ±0 . 05 M
. We
decided to use the Knigge et al. ( 2011 ) values for all parameters
of the WD to be consistent throughout the paper, and also because
the y pro vide estimates for M
1 and R
1 (the WD’s mass and radius)
corresponding to the orbital period of each CV (both values are
necessary for the calculations in the following sections).
To understand how this affects the calculations, we w ould lik e to
point out that in Chavez et al. ( 2012 ), the calculations were done
with M
1
= 0 . 7 M
, which we then updated to M
1
= 0 . 75 M
(a
change of 7 per cent) in Chavez et al. ( 2020 ). The minimum in the
middle panel of fig. 8 of Chavez et al. ( 2012 ) –the semimajor axis
versus the mass of the third body –has a value of M
3
= 50 M
J
, while
when M
1
= 0 . 75 M
is used (see fig. 3 of Chavez et al. 2020 ) the
minimum corresponds to M
3
= 30 M
J
. This is a 40 per cent decrease
of the mass of the third body at the minimum.
2.2 LU Camelopardalis
LU Cam is a dwarf nova CV and the first spectrum of this system was
obtained by Jiang et al. ( 2000 ). Its orbital period was first reported by
Sheets et al. ( 2007 ) to be P
1
= 0.1499686(7) d = 3.599246 h. They
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
Testing the third-body hypothesis in four CVs 4631
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
Figure 1. Results for the LU Cam system. The numerical integrations
performed are represented by black points. To p panel: period of the long-term
modulation (secular period) as a function of the third-body mass. Each blue
curve joining black points correspond to different P
2
/ P
1
ratios. The black line
around 2.4 corresponds to the observed VLPP. Only numerical integrations
that can explain the observed VLPP are shown (middle panel). The blue curve
corresponds to the planar and circular planar analytical solution. The green
line represents the analytical planar systems with an eccentricity of 0.2 and the
red line represents the planar systems with an eccentricity of 0.5. The doted
line represents the inner stability limit calculated by Georgakarakos ( 2013 )
and the grey solid line denotes that of Holman & Wieger t ( 1999 ). Bottom
panel: similar quantities as in the middle panel, but for a circular orbit with
different inclinations. The third-body values consistent with observations
obtained here are M
3
= 97 M
J
and P
2
= 1.06 d.
point out that the averaged spectrum shows a strong blue continuum.
Yang et al. ( 2017 ) report a VLPP of 265.76 d and point out that
the hierarchical triple system explanation is their best candidate to
explain it.
Using data from Knigge et al. ( 2011 ), we obtain M
1
= 0 . 75 M
,
M
2
= 0 . 26 M
. We show all the parameters of the system in Ta ble 1 .
2.3 QZ Serpentis
QZ Ser is a system that has been classified as a dwarf nova. The
system has an orbital period of P
1
= 119.752(2) min = 1.99584 h,
according to Thorstensen et al. ( 2002a ). They found that the system
Figure 2. Results for the QZ Ser system. In this system, the third body is
found to have a mass M
3
= 0.63 M
J
and P
2
= 1.04 d.
is not a usual CV, as it is one of a few objects known with a short
orbital period and a secondary non-standard K-type star. This K-type
secondary has a much smaller mass than a usual K star because
of unstable thermal-scale mass transfer evolution. There are other
examples of this type of CV. For instance, Thorstensen et al. ( 2002b )
found a K4 in the dwarf nova 1RXS J232953.9 + 062814, while
Ashley et al. ( 2020 ) found a K5 around a CV with a period of
4.99 h.
Thorstensen et al. ( 2002a ) used evolutionary models to estimate
the parametersof QZ Ser, such as M
2
= 0 . 125 ±0 . 025 M
, which
yielded R
2
= 0 . 185 ±0 . 013 R
, where R
2
is the secondary’s radius.
They also used a typical WD mass value of M
1
= 0 . 7 M
, widely
used in 2002 (Jiang et al. 2000 ; Thorstensen et al. 2002a ).
Thorstensen et al. ( 2002a ) estimated from observations of the
ellipsoidal variations that the inclination (with respect to sky’s plane)
of the system must be i = 33 .
◦7 ±4
◦. They decided to use this estimate
to constrain the secondary’s mass, and then proceeded to check mass
ratios between the primary and the secondary between 0.1 and 0.4
for this system. Using the secondary’s velocity amplitude, they give a
mass function of f = 0 . 075(5) M
. The inclination can be calculated
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
4632 C. E. Chavez et al.
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
Figure 3. Results for the V1007 Her system. Integrations yield for the third
body a mass of M
3
= 148 M
J
and P
2
= 1.08 d.
from the masses and the mass function using the following equation:
i = arcsin
( M
1
+ M
2
)
2
f
M
3
1 1 / 3
. (1)
Taking M
2
= 0 . 125 M
and M
1
= 0 . 7 M
, Thorstensen et al.
( 2002a ) obtained a value of i = 32
◦.
If we calculate the statistical values obtained by Knigge et al.
( 2011 ), for the parameters of this CV (using the orbital period to do
so) we find that M
1
= 0 . 75 M
, R
1
= 0 . 0107 R
, M
2
= 0 . 15 M
and R
2
= 0 . 1923 R
. Therefore, these M
2
and R
2
estimates are both
well within the uncertainties of the estimates of Thorstensen et al.
( 2002a ). As we pointed out earlier, we decided to use the Knigge
et al. ( 2011 ) values to be consistent throughout the paper as we need
estimates for M
1
and R
1
; both values will be used in the following
sections.
Additionally, using these values in equation ( 1 ) we obtain a value
for the inclination i = 31 .
◦7, which is well within the observational
inclination uncertainty estimated by Thorstensen et al. ( 2002a ) and
very close to the value they provide.
Yang et al. ( 2017 ) found a VLPP of 277.72, which is the longest
among the four systems studied, and concluded that a hierarchical
triple system is the best scenario to explain this period. Ta ble 1 shows
the parameters used for this system in this work.
2.4 V1007 Herculis
This CV was disco v ered by Greiner et al. ( 1998 ), who found that it is
a polar system with an orbital period of P
1
= 404.10 ±0.30 min =
1.9988 h. Because it is a polar system, there is no disc around it,
and there are no periods associated with the disc. Using the orbital
period, Green et al. ( 1998 ) estimated the mass of the secondary to be
M
2
= 0 . 16 M
; to do so, they assumed a mass–radius relationship
for main-sequence stars using Patterson ( 1984 ).
Using the parameters of Knigge et al. ( 2011 ) for this CV, we find
that M
1
= 0 . 75 M
and M
2
= 0 . 15 M
, also shown in Table 1 along
with the rest of the parameters. The VLPP observed by Ya ng et al.
( 2017 ) is 170.59 d.
2.5 BK Lyn cis
BK Lyn is a nova-like CV, which was disco v ered by Green et al.
( 1998 ). The calculated orbital period is P
1
= 107.97 ±0.07 min =
1.7995 h, found by Ringwald et al. ( 1996 ). In addition, the secondary
was found to be an M5V star by Dhillon et al. ( 2000 ), using infrared
spectroscopy. The accretion rate was found to be in the range
˙
M
WD
≈
10
−8
–10
−9
M
yr
−1
, constraining the mass of the WD in a wide
range of values between 0.4 and 1.2 M
. Yan g et al. ( 2017 ) found
that the VLPP for this system is 42.05 d (the lowest among all CVs
studied here) and ruled out other possible e xplanations e xcept for a
hierarchical triple system.
Using Knigge et al. ( 2011 ), as pointed out in Section 2.1.4, we
obtain M
1
= 0 . 75 M
and M
2
= 0 . 13 M
, with all the parameters
of the system shown in Ta bl e 1
3 THREE-BODY CATACLYSMIC VARIABLE
As pointed out earlier, Ya ng et al. (
2017 ) proposed the hierarchical
triple system hypothesis for the four systems studied here after ruling
out other e xplanations. The y e xplored the Lido v–Kozai resonances as
a possible explanation for the VLPP observed, and found the possible
semimajor axis of the third body. The mutual inclination between the
inner binary orbital plane and the third-body orbital plane should be
greater than 39 .
◦2 for this mechanism to be ef fecti ve in disturbing the
inner binary ef fecti vely.
Here we explore a new possibility, namely that the secular
perturbation by a low eccentricity and low inclination third object
explains the VLPP and also the change of magnitude observed in
these four CVs.
3.1 Third body on a close near-circular planar orbit
While investigating the system FS Aurigae, Chavez et al. ( 2012 ) ruled
out that the VLPP could correspond directly to the period of a third
body, because the object would be too distant to have an important
effect on the inner binary. A series of numerical integrations were
performed and showed that indeed the effect is minimal and could
not explain the VLPP of the CV FS Aurigae.
It was concluded that a third body on a close near-circular planar
orbit could produce perturbations on the central binary eccentricity,
and these are modulated at three different scales: the period of the
binary P
1
, the period of the perturber P
2
and the much longer secular
period, the VLPP. Secular perturbations have been studied both
analytically and numerically by Georgakarakos ( 2002 , 2003 , 2004 ,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
Testing the third-body hypothesis in four CVs 4633
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
Tab l e 1. Initial parameters and magnitudes for all systems are calculated using data from Knigge et al. ( 2011 ). We show the observed minimum magnitude
( M
B min
), maximum ( M
B max
) and o v erall change ( M
B
) due to the VLPP (Yang et al. 2017 ).
Name of the CV Binary period M
1 M
2 R
1 VLPP M
2
/ M
1 a M
B max M
B min M
B log (
˙
M
2
)
(h) (M
) (M
) (R
) (d) (au) (M
yr
−1
)
LU Cam 3.5992 0.75 0.26 0.011 265.76 0.34 0.0055 15.55 16.10 0.55 −9.02
QZ Ser 1.99584 0.75 0.15 0.011 277.72 0.20 0.0036 17.43 17.50 0.07 −10.09
V1007 Her 1.99883 0.75 0.15 0.011 170.59 0.20 0.0036 17.83 18.80 0.97 −10.09
BK Lyn 1.7995 0.75 0.13 0.011 42.05 0.17 0.0033 14.40 15.08 0.68 −10.14
2006 , 2009 ). A third body prevents the complete circularization of the
orbit due to tides by producing a long-term eccentricity modulation
(e.g. Mazeh & Shaham 1979 ; Soderhjelm 1982 ; Soderhjelm 1984 ;
Chavez et al. 2012 , 2020 ). From Georgakarakos ( 2009 ), it is possible
to estimate the amplitude of such eccentricity by using
e
1
∝ q
3
P
1
P
2
8 / 3
e
2
1 −e
2
2
−5 / 2
, (2)
where P
2 is the period of the third body around the inner binary,
e
2 is the eccentricity of the orbit and q
3 = M
3
/( M
1 + M
2 + M
3
).
Therefore, any changes over time on the eccentricity e
2
, such as the
modulations studied in Chavez et al. ( 2012 ), will have an effect on
the eccentricity e
1
of the CV, modulating and changing the position
of the L
1 point and hence changing the brightness of the system.
The details of the numerical modelling are given in the following
subsection.
3.2 Numerical modelling for the circular case
We performed dynamical simulations of the CVs with a hypothetical
third body. The high-order Runge–Kutta–Nystrom RKN 12(10) 17M
integrator of Brankin et al. ( 1989 ) was used for the equations of
motion of the complete three-body problem in the barycentre inertial
reference frame. The total energy was conserved to 10
−5 or better
for all numerical experiments.
As in Chavez et al. ( 2012 ), tidal deformation of the stars in the close
binary is not important for CVs in general and the two objects can be
considered as point masses. Hence, all three bodies are considered as
point masses in our integrations. The binary is initially on a circular
orbit, and the third mass mo v es initially on its own circular orbit
around the inner binary in the same plane. The mass M
3
and its orbital
period P
2
are chosen across an ensemble of numerical experiments.
We proceed as follows. We fix the value of the period of the
third body P
2
, we change its mass M
3
, we perform the numerical
integrations, and then the eccentricity e
1 is calculated as a func-
tion of time. We obtain the secular period on each integration
from e
1 using a Lomb–Scargle periodogram (Lomb 1976 ; Scar-
gle 1982 ). All this shows the effect that the mass has on the secular
period.
In Figs 1 –4 , we show, as a function of mass, the VLPPs and
semimajor axis obtained from our numerical experiments for each
of the four CVs studied. Each curve represents a given P
2 period
that remains constant as we change the mass. We joined the points
by using an interpolated curve (spline method) on each case. A
black point that appears, for example, in Fig. 1 (middle panel)
represents a system that can explain the observed VLPP; that
is, an y giv en point represents a combination of semimajor axis
and mass that can produce, by secular perturbations, the observed
VLPP.
Figure 4. Results for the BK Lyn system. Here, the third body has a mass of
M
3
= 88 M
J
and period of P
2
= 0.44 d.
3.3 Analytical modelling of the third body on an eccentric and
inclined orbit
F ollowing Chav ez et al. ( 2020 ), we also inv estigate the effect that
eccentricity and inclination of the third body may have on the
resulting VLPP and the expected parameters of mass and semimajor
axis of the third body.
We decided to use pre viously deri ved analytical results to see
the effect of eccentricity and inclination. The orbital evolution of
hierarchical triple systems has been studied in a succession of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
4634 C. E. Chavez et al.
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
Tab l e 2. GR periods for all systems obtained using the first-order post-
Newtonian correction.
Name of the CV VLPP GR period GR period
(d) (d) (yr)
LU Cam 265.76 27851.13 76.25
QZ Ser 277.72 11445.08 31.33
V1007 Her 170.59 11245.42 30.79
BK Ly n 42.05 9626.77 26.36
papers (Georgakarakos
2002 , 2003 , 2004 , 2006 , 2009 , 2013 ; Geor-
gakarakos, Dobbs-Dixon & Way 2016 ). Some of these studies were
focused on the secular evolution of such systems. These analytical
results can give us estimates about the inner binary’s frequency and
period of motion. Hence, we can determine which mass values and
orbital configurations of a potential third-body companion can give
rise to the secular periods observed in each CV.
We use the results of Georgakarakos ( 2009 ) for a coplanar
perturber on a low eccentricity orbit, and for coplanar systems with
eccentric perturbers we make use of Georgakarakos ( 2003 ). Finally,
for systems with low eccentricity and low mutual inclinations (with
i
m
< 39 .
◦23) the results of Georgakarakos ( 2004 ) are used.
The analytical expressions for the frequencies and periods can be
found in the Appendix, while details of deri v ations can be found in
the papers mentioned abo v e.
In Figs 1 –4 , we show the analytical estimates as curves in
different colours depending on the third-body’s initial eccentricity
or inclination.
4 EFFECT OF POST-NEWTONIAN
CORRECTION
Here, we also consider other dynamical effects that may produce the
long-term signal we observe in the light curve of the stellar binaries.
We study the effect of a first-order post-Newtonian general relativity
(GR) correction to the orbit of the stellar binary.
For all stellar pairs under investigation, the small semimajor axis
of the orbit makes it an interesting case to include a post-Newtonian
correction to describe the system’s motion more accurately. Inclusion
of a post-Newtonian correction to our orbit produces an additional
precession of the pericentre at the following rate (e.g. Naoz et al.
2013 ; Georgakarakos & Eggl 2015 ):
˙ =
3 G
3 / 2
( M
1
+ M
2
)
3 / 2
c
2
a
5 / 2
1
(1 −e
2
1
)
. (3)
Here, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum,
a
1
is the semimajor axis of the inner binary and e
1
is the eccentricity
of the inner binary. Based on the precession rate given in the abo v e
equation, the post-Newtonian pericentre circulation period for all
systems is shown in Tab le 2 . The periods calculated are too long to
e xplain an y of the VLPPs.
5 EFFECT OF THE THIRD BODY ON THE
MASS TRANSFER RATE AND BRIGHTNESS
5.1 Non-magnetic cases
It is possible to estimate how the modulation of the inner binary, due
to the secular perturbation of the third body, affects the mass transfer
and the brightness of the system. First we focus our attention on
the non-magnetic cases: LU Cam, QZ Ser and BK Lyn. We follow
Chavez et al. ( 2020 ), and a brief re vie w is provided here.
To calculate the mass loss of the secondary, it is necessary to make
use of the definition of R
L
(2). It is difficult to calculate the volume of
the Roche lobe directly, so it is better to define an equi v alent radius
of the Roche lobe as the radius, R
L
(2), of a sphere with the same
volume as the Roche lobe. Sepinsky, Willems & Kalogera ( 2007 )
generalized the definition of R
L
(2) including eccentric binaries, as
R
L
(2) = r
12
( t)
0 . 49 q
2 / 3
0 . 6 q
2 / 3
+ ln (1 + q
1 / 3
)
, (4)
where r
12
is the distance between the two stars at any given time. We
can obtain r
12
from our numerical integrations for each system.
Now we want to know the change in magnitude that produces
this particular combination of parameters, and then we can compare
with the observed magnitude change in the light curve. Therefore,
we can find the system in each case that better explains observations
according to our calculations.
We proceed as follows to estimate the change in magnitude due to
the previous choice of parameters. We can calculate the maximum
R
L
(2)
max
, shown as a blue horizontal line in Fig. 5 and the minimum
R
L
(2)
min
, shown as a red horizontal line in Fig. 5 for each system
directly from our numerical results. From here, we can estimate the
mass transfer rate
˙
M (2) and hence the value of the luminosity of each
CV.
Assuming that the secondary is a polytrope of index 3/2 and that the
density around L
1
is decaying exponentially, it is possible to estimate
the mass transfer rate using equation (2.12) of Wa rn er ( 1995 ):
˙
M (2) = −C
M(2)
P
1 R
R(2)
3
. (5)
Here, C is a dimensionless constant ≈10 −20, R (2) is the secondary
stellar radius, R is the amount by which the secondary o v erfills its
Roche lobe, R = R (2) −R
L
(2), and P
1
is the inner binary period.
The R (2) distance needs to be calculated carefully as the equation for
˙
M (2) is very sensitive to the amount of o v erfill. We decided to adjust
R (2) to obtain the
˙
M (2) value that we report here in Tab le 1 ; in
Fig. 5 , the value of R (2) is represented by a purple horizontal line.
Because R
L
(2) is a function of time, we instead use its mean value,
R
L
(2)
mean
, shown as a green line in Fig. 5 . Hence, we adjust the value
R (2) for each integration (in Fig. 5 , the system is LU Cam), until
the difference given by R = R (2) −R
L
(2)
mean
is correct, such that
log
˙
M (2) is as in Table 1 .
We can calculate the maximum and minimum of the mass transfer
rate by using the values of R
L
(2)
max
and R
L
(2)
min
to obtain
˙
M (2)
max
and
˙
M (2)
min
.
There are two main sources of the luminosity of CVs: the hotspot
and the disc. The luminosity resulting from the so-called hotspot is
produced when a stream of stellar mass crosses the L
1 point and
collides with the disc. Its expression (Warner 1995 ) is given by
L ( SP ) ≈GM(1)
˙
M (2)
r
d
, (6)
where L ( SP ) is the luminosity due to the hotspot, and the radius of the
disc is typically r
d
≈0.40 ×a
1
with a
1
being the semimajor axis of
the inner binary (see Table 1 ). Applying this equation to our extreme
values on R
L
(2), we obtain the L ( SP )
max
and L ( SP )
min
values.
Alternatively, the luminosity due to the accretion disc using
equation (2.22a) of Warne r ( 1995 ) is
L ( d) ≈1
2
GM(1)
˙
M (2)
R
1
. (7)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022
Testing the third-body hypothesis in four CVs 4635
MNRAS 514, 4629–4638 (2022)
Figure 5. Method used to calculate the change of magnitude due to the third body. The time evolution of R
L
(2) for the CV LU Cam is shown as an example.
The blue horizontal line is the maximum value for the R
L
(2) that the system reaches, R
L
(2)
max
, the red line corresponds to the minimum value, R
L
(2)
min
, the
green line is the mean value, R
L
(2)
mean
, and the purple line is the R (2) value. See text for more details.
Using this equation we can obtain the extreme values of L ( d )
max
and L ( d )
min
for each system. The total luminosity for each extreme
is found by adding the estimated luminosity of the hotspot plus
the luminosity of the disc, obtaining L ( d)
T
max
and L ( d)
T
min
for each
system.
Then, it is possible to calculate the bolometric magnitude using
M
bol
= −2.5 log ( L / L
0
), with L
0
= 3.0128 ×10
28
W used as a standard
luminosity for comparison. From the extreme values, we obtained
M
B max
and M
B min
, leading to a magnitude difference M
B
.
5.2 Magnetic case
V1007 Her is the only magnetic system in our selection , which,
according to Wu & Kiss ( 2008 ), is a polar system. The accretion
luminosity of an accreting WD is given by
L
acc
= −GM (1)
˙
M (2)
R
1
. (8)
For polars in a high state, L
acc is much higher than the intrinsic
luminosity of the two stars. Thus, we have L
bol ≈L
acc
. Polars are
Roche lobe filling systems, with the mass transfer rate given by
equation ( 5 ), again using Sepinsky et al. ( 2007 ) to calculate R
L
(2)
directly from the integration. Therefore, from equations ( 5 ) and ( 8 ),
it is possible to estimate the change in brightness for V1007 Her from
L
acc max
and L
acc min
.
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We studied an ensemble of initial conditions for a hypothetical third
body in each system, and the way it affects both the VLPP and the
change of brightness. All the results of the numerical integrations are
shown as black points in Figs 1 –4 , which correspond to LU Cam,
QZ Ser, V1007 Her and BK Lyn, respectively.
The upper panel of each figure shows the resulting secular periods
of the binary eccentricity as a function of the mass of the perturber.
Each curve corresponds to different P
2
/ P
1
ratios. The thick horizontal
line corresponds to the VLPP value of each system.
For a given P
2
/ P
1
ratio (i.e. a given curve), as we change the mass
of the system, some of our integrations produce secular perturbations
that never reach the VLPP line. We argue that only systems that cross
the VLPP line can explain the long-term change in the light curve.
The middle panel is a plot of the perturber’s semimajor axis
against its mass. The black points denote the results of the numerical
integrations, while the solid curves are analytical solutions from
Georgakarakos ( 2009 ) ( e
2 = 0, blue curve) and Georgakarakos
Tab l e 3. Summary of values used to estimate the integration that best fits the
VLPP and the change of magnitude for each system.
Variable LU Cam QZ Ser V1007 Her BK Lyn
P
2
/ P
1 7.1 12.5 13.0 5.9
M
3
(M
J
) 97 0.63 148 88
a
2
(au) 0.021 0.019 0.021 0.011
M
B 0.55 0.07 0.73 0.68
(
2003 ) (eccentric cases, green and red curves). The straight line
denotes the orbital stability limit as given in Holman & Wiegert
( 1999 ), while the dotted line is the stability limit based on the results
of Georgakarakos ( 2013 ). In contrast to Holman & Wi egert ( 1999 ),
Georgakarakos ( 2013 ) does not assume a massless particle for any
of the three bodies. Hence, two branches of the dotted line are due
to the dependence of the stability limit on the mass of the perturber.
The lower panels in Figs 1 –4 are similar to what we present
in the middle panels, but the inclination is varied here. For the
coplanar case (blue curve), we use Georgakarakos ( 2009 ), while
for the three-dimensional cases (green and red curves), we make use
of Georgakarakos ( 2004 ).
Tab le 3 lists the ratio between the period of the third body
compared with the period of the inner binary (i.e. P
2
/ P
1
), the mass
of the third body (in Jupiter masses M
J
), and the semimajor axis of
the third body ( a
2
in au) and the change of magnitude of each system
( M
B
). We can compare the magnitude change for each system to
the observed change of magnitude, as given in Ta bl e 1 .
Now we discuss some details of the results for each CV. We
searched for all the numerical integrations whose secular period
matched the observed period of the system, and then made all the
required calculations in order to estimate the change in magnitude
that arises from the perturbations of the third body. A search was
done until a system was found that matched the observed change of
magnitude of the system. This led to a system that can simultaneously
explain the VLPP and the change in magnitude.
6.1 LU Camelopardis
This CV has an observed VLPP of 265.76 d, with M
2
/ M
1 = 0.34,
which is the largest ratio among the CVs studied here. Fig. 1 shows
our numerical results for this system.
The stability limits given by Holman & Wiegert ( 1999 ) and
Georgakarakos ( 2013 ) are also shown. Holman & Wiegert rule out
any a < 0.013 au (grey horizontal line), while Georgakarakos rules
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/514/3/4629/6628650 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico user on 27 July 2022