the study of collisional relaxation in stellar nuclei around massive black holes and the associated rates of capture has a long history .
the pioneering work of @xcite established a quasi - steady - state solution for the stellar distribution , now known as a bahcall - wolf cusp , which has a density @xmath6 inside the radius of influence @xmath7 , defined roughly as the radius enclosing a mass in stars equal to the mass @xmath8 of the hole .
their solution was obtained from the steady - state , one - dimensional fokker - planck equation describing two - body relaxation and energy exchange between stars in the ( newtonian ) gravitational field of the massive object , and is characterized by zero ( or very small ) flux of stars with respect to energy into the central hole .
a more refined treatment requires the concept of a `` loss cone '' , the region of phase space corresponding to stars with sufficienly low angular momenta to be captured by the black hole : @xmath9 , where the capture boundary @xmath10 is determined either by tidal disruption or by direct capture , at some radius @xmath11 @xcite .
the latter paper also introduced the important distinction between empty- and full - loss - cone regimes , with the boundary between them defined as the energy at which the typical change of angular momentum in one radial period , @xmath12 , is equal to @xmath13 .
@xcite derived the quasi - steady - state rate of consumption of stars as a function of energy and showed that the distribution function depends logarithmically on angular momentum near the loss cone .
these authors , and subsequently @xcite , included capture from the loss cone via an energy - dependent sink term in the one - dimensional fokker - planck equation for @xmath14 .
while the addition of such a term greatly increases the capture rate , it was found to have little effect on the form of the density profile at radii @xmath15 .
@xcite solved two - dimensional fokker - planck equation in @xmath16 space and confirmed the results of the more approximate one - dimensional studies .
these early studies were targeted toward massive black holes in globular clusters .
the theory was subsequently applied to determine capture rates in galactic nuclei @xcite .
studies based on the fokker - planck equation were also verified by other methods such as monte - carlo models @xcite , gaseous models @xcite and direct @xmath5-body simulation @xcite .    relaxation times in galactic nuclei are much longer than in globular clusters , and in many cases much longer than galaxy lifetimes .
partly as a consequence , galactic nuclei need not be spherically symmetric , and they may contain a substantial population of `` centrophilic '' orbits ( saucers , pyramids ) that dominate the capture rate , even in the absence of gravitational encounters @xcite . in the context of collisional loss - cone repopulation , by
far the majority of studies have assumed spherical symmetry .
this assumption is not crucial for @xmath5-body integrations ( except insofar as it can be difficult to construct nonspherical initial conditions ) , but it is an important ingredient of fokker - planck studies , because it ensures the conservation of angular momentum in the unperturbed motion . to date ,
all fokker - planck treatments that allowed for non - sphericity @xcite have assumed axisymmetry and have further restricted the allowed form of @xmath17 by writing @xmath18 , with @xmath2 the component of angular momentum parallel to the symmetry axis .
two integrals of motion are not sufficient to specify regular motion in the axisymmetric geometry however , and numerical integrations in axisymmetric potentials typically reveal a third integral , @xmath19 ( with some orbits chaotic ) . of course , the reason for the neglect of @xmath19 is the absence of knowledge about its functional form . for mildly flattened systems ,
@xmath19 can be approximated by @xmath20 @xcite , and this approximation has been used as a basis for constructing steady - state models ( e.g. * ? ? ?
the neglect of the third integral in the axisymmetric problem has several important consequences . instead of individual orbits populated by stars having the same values of their integrals of motion
, one effectively considers ensembles of orbits composed of stars with different @xmath19 .
moreover , by setting @xmath18 , the phase space density is forced to be uniform within this ensemble , which may lead to unphysical constraints on the possible evolution of the system .
the diffusion coefficients must also be evaluated as if they did not depend on @xmath19 , or , more correctly , are averaged over all possible values of @xmath19 .
finally , ignoring the third integral precludes the detailed study of regular orbits such as saucers , which might be expected to dominate the loss rate @xcite .
however , sufficiently close to the black hole , the unperturbed motion is nearly keplerian , and standard `` planetary '' perturbation theory implies the existence of a third integral , which can sometimes even be expressed in terms of simple functions @xcite . in this approximation , the unperturbed stellar orbits are regular ( integrable ) and respect three independent integrals of the motion : @xmath0 , @xmath2 and @xmath3 , where @xmath3 is the `` secular , '' i.e. averaged , hamiltonian .    given an analytic expression for the third integral in the vicinity of the black hole , fully three - dimensional fokker - planck studies become feasible , describing the time evolution of @xmath21 .
for the present study , however , we choose to concentrate on evolution in the two - dimensional subspace @xmath22 with the gravitational potential , and the orbital energy @xmath0 , fixed .
our justification for ignoring changes in @xmath0 is the same as in many previous studies of the loss - cone problem in galactic nuclei @xcite : energy relaxation time scales are typically very long in nuclei , too long for steady - state configurations like the bahcall - wolf cusp to be reached . instead
, the dependence of @xmath17 on @xmath0 is inferred from the observed , radial density profile via eddington s formula .
our goal is to generalize the well - known , one - dimensional solutions for @xmath23 in the spherical geometry to the two - dimensional case @xmath24 in the axisymmetric geometry .
the paper is organized as follows . in  [ sec_orbital_structure ]
we use the averaging method to demonstrate the existence of a third integral of motion inside the supermassive black hole ( sbh ) sphere of influence and we use it to elucidate the behavior of orbits : the tube orbits that are generic to the axisymmetric geometry , and the saucer orbits that inhabit the low - angular - momentum parts of phase space .
the fokker - planck equation is written down in  [ sec_fp_definition ] , and a scheme for calculating diffusion coefficients is presented in the case of three integrals of motion . following this general treatment ,
we then restrict our attention to weakly flattened systems , which allows some simplification in the computations .
we also concentrate on the case @xmath25 , which is both physically reasonable , and which results in analytic expressions for many of the diffusion coefficients .  [ sec_boundary_cond ] discusses the proper boundary conditions for the fokker - planck equation , and  [ sec_fp_solution ]
is devoted to the solution of the two - dimensional equation and comparison with the one - dimensional ( spherical ) case .
it turns out that the flux of stars into the sbh  is enhanced with respect to the spherical case , but by a modest factor : at most a factor of a few . in  [ sec_nbody ]
we describe direct @xmath5-body simulations designed to test the predictions of the fokker - planck models ; sections  [ sec_chaos ] and [ sec_triaxiality ] briefly discuss the role of chaotic orbits beyond the sbh  influence sphere , and triaxiality of the stellar potential , respectively . finally , in  [ sec_estimates ]
we estimate capture rates in realistic galaxy models , using the fokker - planck models to access the range of parameters not presently accessible to @xmath5-body simulations .
consider a stellar nucleus in which the density varies as a power of radius , @xmath26 , and in which the equidensity contours are flattened in the direction of the short ( @xmath1 ) axis ; in other words , an oblate system .
let @xmath27 be the axis ratio , i.e. the ratio of radii along the minor and major axes at which densities are equal .
in the first approximation , the stellar density and potential of a flattened system are described by the spherical part modified by an @xmath28 legendre polynomial :    [ eq_modelrhophi ] @xmath29 \right ) ,   \label{eq_rho_cusp } \\
\phi_\star(\boldsymbol{x } ) & = & \phi_0 \left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{2-\gamma}\ ,    \left(1 + { \epsilon_p}\left[\frac{z^2}{r^2}-\frac{1}{3}\right ] \right ) ,   \label{eq_phi_cusp } \\
\phi_0 & = & \frac{4\pi\,g\rho_0\,r_0 ^ 2}{(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma ) } \ ; ,   \label{eq_phi0 } \\ { \epsilon_p}&= & { \epsilon_d}\,\frac{(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)}{\gamma\,(\gamma-5 ) } \ ; ,   \label{eq_epsilonp}\\ { \epsilon_d}&= & -\frac{3 ( p^{-\gamma}-1)}{2p^{-\gamma}+1 }    \label{eq_epsilond}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath30 .
the total gravitational potential is @xmath31 where @xmath32 is the mass of the supermassive black hole ( sbh ) located at @xmath33 .    throughout this section ,
we restrict attention to motion that satisfies @xmath34^{1/(3-\gamma ) } , \ ] ] where @xmath35 is the gravitational radius of the sbhand @xmath7 its radius of influence ; the latter is conventionally defined as the radius of a sphere containing a mass in stars equal to @xmath36 .
the first inequality permits us to ignore relativistic corrections to the equations of motion , and the second allows us to treat the force from the stars as a small perturbation to the inverse - square force from the sbh .
the effects of relativity are discussed briefly in appendix  [ sec_appendix_relativity ] , where more precise conditions for the validity of the newtonian approximation are derived .    under these conditions ,
one expects the motion to be nearly keplerian on time scales comparable with the radial period , and we can employ the method of averaging @xcite : the forces acting on a star are averaged over the unperturbed motion , with the orbital elements  the `` osculating elements ''  fixed during the averaging .
it is convenient to describe the motion using the delaunay variables which are action - angle variables in the unperturbed problem : @xmath37 ( actions ) and @xmath38 ( angles ) . here
@xmath39 is the angular momentum of a circular orbit with given semimajor axis @xmath40 or total energy @xmath0 , @xmath41 is the magnitude and @xmath2 is the @xmath42component of the angular momentum ( so that @xmath43 gives the inclination of orbital plane with respect to the @xmath44 plane ) ; @xmath45 is the radial phase ( mean anomaly ) , @xmath46 is the argument of periastron ( @xmath47 corresponds to periapsis in @xmath44 plane ) , and @xmath48 is the longitude of ascending node . we further define dimensionless angular momentum variables as @xmath49 $ ] and @xmath50 $ ] .
we will also have occasion to refer to their squared values , denoted , following @xcite , as @xmath51 and @xmath52 .
these three pairs of canonically - conjugate variables evolve according to hamilton s equations of motion , with the hamiltonian given by @xmath53 and with @xmath54 expressed in terms of the delaunay variables .
we assume that these variables  with the exception of the radial phase @xmath45  are nearly constant over one radial period : @xmath55 the averaged equations of motion can then be defined as the equations of motion corresponding to the averaged hamiltonian @xmath56 where the variables @xmath57 are fixed in the averaging of @xmath54 over @xmath45 .
after the averaging , @xmath58 is independent of @xmath45 and therefore @xmath59 is conserved , as is the semimajor axis @xmath40 and the energy @xmath0 . on the other hand , @xmath58 itself is a ( new ) integral of the motion .
finally , @xmath2 is conserved due to axial symmetry , from which it follows that the motion is integrable .
remarkably , even in the ( weakly ) triaxial case there can exist three integrals of motion , @xmath2 being replaced by another conserved quantity @xcite .
exact expressions for the averaged hamiltonian are given in appendix  [ sec_appendix_hamiltonian ] .
a good approximation to the averaged perturbing potential is    [ eq_happrox ] @xmath60    which is exact for @xmath61 ( for which @xmath62 ) and approximates the true value to within a few percent in other cases . this hamiltonian is very similar to the averaged hamiltonian of the hierarchical restricted three - body problem @xcite ; a detailed comparison is presented in appendix  [ sec_appendix_kozai ]
.    expressed in terms of a dimensionless time @xmath63 , the equations of motion read @xmath64 the equations for @xmath65 and @xmath48 are not needed because @xmath65 is conserved and because nothing important depends on @xmath48 .
the time @xmath66 is differs by a factor @xmath67 from @xmath68 defined in @xcite . ]
@xmath69 where @xmath70 is approximately the mass in stars within radius @xmath71 .
@xmath66 is the time associated with precession of the argument of periastron due to the spherically - distributed mass ( the `` mass - precession time '' ) .
@xmath72{fig1_rminmax.eps}\ ] ]    in what follows , it will be convenient to replace @xmath73 by @xmath74 , a linear combination of @xmath73 and @xmath75 :    [ eq_calh ] @xmath76    to obtain the solution , we express @xmath46 from ( [ eq_calh ] ) and substitute it into the first of equations ( [ eq_motion ] ) :    @xmath77 .
\nonumber \\ { { \mathcal r}_\mathrm{max}}&\equiv & { \mathcal r}_1 , \label{eq_rminmax } \\ { { \mathcal r}_\mathrm{min}}&\equiv & \mathrm{max}({\mathcal r}_2,{\mathcal r}_3 ) , \nonumber \\ { { \mathcal r}_\mathrm{low}}&\equiv & \mathrm{min}({\mathcal r}_2,{\mathcal r}_3 ) .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    it is clear that @xmath78 is allowed to oscillate between @xmath79 and @xmath80
. we thus have two classes of orbit , depending on the relation between @xmath81 and @xmath82 . if @xmath83 , which occurs when @xmath84 , the orbit is an ordinary short - axis tube ( sat ) ; in the opposite case ( @xmath85 ) the orbit is a saucer , with @xmath86 .
( a similar class of orbits was described by @xcite for a @xmath87 scale - free potential ; see appendix  [ sec_appendix_saucers ] for more discussion ) .
the main distinction is that for saucer orbits the angle @xmath46 librates around @xmath88 , which means the apoapsis always lies above ( or below ) the @xmath44 plane ; the orbit resembles a conical saucer with inner hole ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* figure 7 ) . for tubes ,
conversely , @xmath46 steadily decreases .
saucer orbits only exist in the oblate , not prolate case ; the condition that the expression under the radical in ( [ eq_r12 ] ) is nonnegative requires that @xmath89 , hence the label `` separatrix '' .    the solution to equation ( [ eq_dcalrdtau ] ) can be expressed exactly in terms of the elliptic cosine ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* chapter 16 ; their parameter @xmath90 , where @xmath91 is the elliptic modulus used as the second parameter in our notation ) : @xmath92 we call the period of full oscillation in @xmath78 the `` precession time . ''
it is given by the complete elliptic integral : @xmath93 for orbits not too close to the separatrix , @xmath94 .
it is also useful to write down expressions relating @xmath79 and @xmath80 . for tube orbits ,
@xmath95 it is clear that if @xmath96 and @xmath97 , these two values are quite close to each other , justifying the practice of approximating the third integral as @xmath20 .    for saucer orbits ,
the relation is simpler : @xmath98 in particular , the condition @xmath99 gives the fixed - point orbit , for which @xmath100 always .
figure  [ fig_rminmax ] shows the properties of a series of orbits with the same @xmath101 which start with @xmath100 and with different initial angular momenta @xmath102 ( left panel ) , and the time evolution of @xmath78 for several saucer orbits with different values of @xmath74 ( right panel ) .
equation ( [ eq_calh ] ) can be inverted to express @xmath78 as a function of @xmath46 ( figure  [ fig_poincare ] ) , which is more convenient for the averaging procedure in the next section :    [ eq_r_of_omega ] @xmath103    for tubes only the upper root has physical meaning , while for saucers both roots are valid as long as @xmath104 is greater than the following threshold : @xmath105 this condition arises from nonnegativity of the expression under the radical in ( [ eq_r_of_omega_a ] ) .
therefore , in a time @xmath106 , @xmath46 varies by @xmath107 for tube orbits and by an amount @xmath108 for saucers .    @xmath72{fig_poincare.eps}\ ] ]    finally , we outline the complete phase space in ( @xmath109 ) coordinates ( figure  [ fig_phaseplane ] ) .
the boundary between tubes and saucers is @xmath110 , and the other important boundaries are    @xmath111    the location of circular orbits ( @xmath112 ) , and @xmath113 is the line of fixed - point saucer orbits , for which @xmath114 .
a star is captured if it passes near periapsis while having @xmath115 , where @xmath116 is the absorption boundary ( @xmath11 is the distance to sbh  at which a star is either tidally disrupted or captured directly , and @xmath40 is the semimajor axis ) . in the axisymmetric system
, this condition corresponds to @xmath117 , although not every star satisfying this condition is immediately lost ( see  [ sec_boundary_cond ] ) .
the lines of constant @xmath118 , which mark the sbh  capture boundary , are straight lines satisfying @xmath119 this boundary in the saucer region touches the fixed - point orbit curve ( [ eq_fpo ] ) at @xmath120    in what follows , we will often assume that @xmath121 ( or at least not too large ) , equivalent to assuming that the nuclear flattening is modest .
an isotropic distribution of stars in velocity space corresponds to a distribution function which does nt depend on @xmath122 ; in these canonical action - angle variables , the phase - space volume element is constant and we can compute the proportion of phase space occupied by saucer orbits by sampling initial conditions from a uniform distribution in these variables and recording the fraction of cases for which @xmath85 . for small @xmath123 ,
the fraction of saucer orbits turns out to be approximately @xmath124 , i.e. proportional to the degree of flattening measured by @xmath125 ( [ eq_epsilonp ] , [ eq_calhb ] ) .
@xmath72{fig2_phaseplane.eps}\ ] ]
we begin by outlining the general method for deriving the covariant fokker - planck equation in arbitrary coordinates @xcite .
the local ( position - dependent ) fokker - planck equation can be expressed in terms of generalized position- and velocity - space coordinates @xmath126 , @xmath127 as @xmath128}{{\partial}t } & = &   - \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}j^\alpha } ( \langle \delta j^\alpha\rangle { \mathcal g}f ) \;+ \\    & + & \frac{1}{2 } \frac{{\partial}^2}{{\partial}j^\alpha { \partial}j^\beta }     ( \langle \delta j^\alpha\delta j^\beta \rangle { \mathcal g}f )   \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] ( * ? ? ? * equation ( 5.121 ) ) .
the position and velocity coordinates need not be related to each other in any particular way ( e.g. they need not be canonically conjugate ) : for instance , one can adopt the integrals of motion as the velocity - space coordinates . in equation ( [ eq_fplocal ] ) , coefficients in angled brackets represent average and mean square changes of the corresponding velocity variables per unit time . equation  ( [ eq_fplocal ] ) is valid under the assumptions of ( i ) local encounters that change only the velocity but not the position of a star ; ( ii ) weak interactions , which allows the collision term to be expanded in powers of @xmath129 up to second order . later in this section
we will use the orbit - averaged form of this equation , which additionally requires that the significant changes in @xmath130 occur on a time scale much longer than the orbital period .
the quantity @xmath131 is the density of states , with @xmath40 the determinant of the velocity - space metric tensor @xmath132 , so that the squared distance between two points whose coordinates differ by @xmath133 is given by @xmath134 , and the number of stars in the phase - space volume @xmath135 is @xmath136 ( generalization to an arbitrary , non - trivial metric in coordinate space is straightforward ) . under a change of coordinates @xmath137 , the coefficients in equation  ( [ eq_fplocal ] )
transform as    [ eq_transform_angled_coefs ] @xmath138    ( * ? ? ?
* equation ( 5.120 ) ) and @xmath139    to compute the diffusion coefficients @xmath140 , @xmath141 , one needs to know the distribution function describing the field stars .
here we assume that the test and field stars are drawn from the same @xmath17 , but as is often done , we replace the exact @xmath17 by an approximation when computing the diffusion coefficients .
namely , we neglect changes in the diffusion coefficients caused by the evolution , and compute them assuming a field star distribution of the form @xmath142 , where @xmath143 is the binding energy per unit mass . in other words
, we neglect the anisotropy of the field star distribution .
consistency with the ( spherically - symmetric part of the ) mass model ( [ eq_rho_cusp ] ) requires that @xmath144 the assumption of isotropy in the field - star distribution is obviously inconsistent with the density model being flattened ; however , for a small degree of flattening it is a reasonable approximation .
the flattening may be due to streaming motions , to an elongated velocity ellipsoid or to both ; deviations from isotropy due to nuclear flattening are of order @xmath96 .
for an isotropic field - star population , the diffusion coefficients expressed in terms of @xmath145 are well known ( e.g. * ? ? ? * equations  5.23 , 5.55 ) and may be transformed to any other coordinates using ( [ eq_transform_angled_coefs ] ) .
we first adopt the velocity - space variables @xmath146 , then later replace @xmath78 by @xmath74 which is a true integral of the motion .
the expressions for the local diffusion coefficients in these coordinates are given in appendix [ sec_appendix_difcoefs ] , equations  ( [ eq_dif_coefs_local ] )
.    the orbit - averaged fokker - planck equation is obtained by ( i ) selecting integrals of motion as the velocity - space coordinates ; ( ii ) integrating the local fokker - planck equation over the phase - space volume filled by an orbit , assuming that @xmath147 is a constant in this region ( jeans s theorem ) ; ( iii ) using the leibnitz - reynolds transport theorem to exchange the order of integration and differentiation .
the result is @xmath148}{{\partial}t } & = &   - \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}j^\alpha } ( \langle \delta j^\alpha\rangle_\mathrm{av } { \mathcal g_\mathrm{av}}f ) \;+ \\    & + & \frac{1}{2 } \frac{{\partial}^2}{{\partial}j^\alpha { \partial}j^\beta }     ( \langle \delta j^\alpha\delta j^\beta \rangle_\mathrm{av } { \mathcal g_\mathrm{av}}f )   \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] ( * ? ? ?
* equation ( 5.153 ) ) , which has the same form as the local equation ( [ eq_fplocal ] ) , but now @xmath17 is understood to be a function of the @xmath130 and of @xmath149 only , and the diffusion coefficients are averaged according to @xmath150 setting @xmath151 in this expression gives the `` density of states '' @xmath152 , which relates @xmath17 to the number of stars in a velocity space volume element @xmath153 : @xmath154 .    in the spherically - symmetric case , orbit averaging reduces to a one - dimensional integration with respect to radius , @xmath155 , where @xmath156 and @xmath157 are peri- and apoapsis radii for a given @xmath0 and @xmath41 ; in other words , averaging reduces to weighting @xmath158 in proportion to the time an orbit spends near @xmath71 . in the axisymmetric case , what is traditionally done @xcite is to assume that the orbit fills the configuration - space region defined by the condition @xmath159 where ( @xmath160 ) are cylindrical coordinates ; in other words , existence of a third integral is ignored .
then the average turns out to be proportional simply to @xmath161 , the integral being taken over this region .    in our case ,
the distinction between saucer and tube orbits is critical for the loss - cone problem and we do not want to mix orbits having different values of the third integral
. we must perform the averaging taking into account the shapes of the orbits as described in the previous section .
this is most easily done by adopting delaunay angular variables ( @xmath38 ) as configuration - space coordinates @xmath162 .
if the corresponding actions ( @xmath37 ) were taken as velocity - space coordinates @xmath130 , the jacobian @xmath163 of this coordinate system would be unity ; but since we are using a different set of @xmath130 , @xmath163 is determined by equation ( [ eq_transform_jacobian ] ) for the coordinates of choice .
we split this transformation , and the averaging procedure , into two steps .
initially we adopt ( @xmath164 ) as generalized velocities @xmath130 and carry out the averaging over the radial phase angle ( mean anomaly ) @xmath45 , obtaining the coefficients for the spherical problem .
since these do not depend on @xmath46 or @xmath48 , averaging over these two angles means simply multiplying by @xmath165 : @xmath166    here all coefficients , including the jacobian ( explicitly written as a determinant ) , are understood to be functions of ( @xmath164 ) . in the case of a keplerian potential @xmath167 ( i.e. neglecting the contribution of the stars ) , and assuming a power - law density profile for the stars with index @xmath168 , the field star distribution function ( in our isotropic approximation ) is a constant @xmath169 ( equation [ eq_distr_function ] ) , and the diffusion coefficients can be expressed in terms of elementary functions as    [ eq_difcoefsrrz ] @xmath170\big\}\qquad \phantom{. } \\
\langle(\delta{\mathcal e})^2\rangle_\mathrm{sph } & = &    { \mathcal a}\,{\mathcal e}^2\;\frac{32 - 4\sqrt{{\mathcal r}}}{15\sqrt{{\mathcal r } } } , \\
\langle(\delta{\mathcal r})^2\rangle_\mathrm{sph } & = &    { \mathcal a}\,{\mathcal r}\,\frac{58 + 32\sqrt{{\mathcal r}}-90{\mathcal r}}{15 } , \\ \langle(\delta{\mathcal r}_z)^2\rangle_\mathrm{sph}&= &    \langle(\delta{\mathcal r})^2\rangle_\mathrm{sph } \left(\frac{{\mathcal r}_z}{{\mathcal r}}\right)^2     + \frac{2{\mathcal a}}{15 } ( { \mathcal r}-{\mathcal r}_z ) \nonumber \\    & \times & \frac{{\mathcal r}_z}{{\mathcal r } } \big [ 9{\mathcal r}+ 29(1-{\mathcal r } ) \cos^2\omega\big ] ,     \label{eq_difcoefrz2 } \ ] ] @xmath171    where @xmath172 here @xmath173 is the mass of a field star ( scatterer ) and @xmath174 is the mass of a test star ( whose evolution is described by the fokker - planck equation ) .
we set @xmath175 in what follows .
the density of states @xmath176 is split into two factors : @xmath177 so that @xmath178 is the phase space volume element that transforms @xmath17 to the number density of stars @xmath179 in the spherical geometry : @xmath180    these coefficients are based on the usual approximation of uncorrelated two - body encounters .
the effect of resonant relaxation @xcite would be to enhance the diffusion coefficients for @xmath78 and @xmath75 ; we defer a discussion of this until
[ sec_nbody ] .
finally , the diffusion coefficients are expressed in terms of @xmath181 by substituting @xmath182 from equation ( [ eq_calh ] ) , transforming the above coefficients under this substitution according to equation ( [ eq_transform_angled_coefs ] ) , and averaging over the argument of periastron ( i.e. the precession phase ) @xmath46 : @xmath183 we have explicitly written the jacobian of transformation ( [ eq_transform_jacobian ] ) , and the coefficients with tildes are transformed from @xmath184 using ( [ eq_transform_angled_coefs ] ) .
this is possible because the last transformation does not depend on @xmath45 or @xmath48 .
the limits of integration in ( [ eq_coef_avg_omega ] ) are between 0 and @xmath107 for tubes and between @xmath185 and @xmath186 for saucers ( equation  [ eq_omega_min ] ) . from here on , we omit the subscript for the averaged coefficients .    the averaging must be done numerically , however , we can derive asymptotic expressions for the diffusion coefficients in the large- and small-@xmath78 regimes . in the former case , when @xmath187 , @xmath188 , so we trivially get @xmath189 , @xmath190 .    in the limit of small @xmath78 , i.e. close to the capture boundary , the asymptotic behavior of the coefficients is different in the tube and saucer regions . in the case of tube orbits with @xmath191 ,
the asymptotic expressions are @xmath192 where @xmath193 ; the other two diffusion coefficients are smaller that @xmath194 by a factor @xmath195 . for saucer orbits with @xmath196 and not too close to either the separatrix or the fixed - point orbit , the asymptotic expressions for the diffusion coefficients are estimated to within @xmath197 as @xmath198 @xmath199    finally , it is convenient to cast the orbit - averaged fokker - planck equation ( [ eq_fporbitavg ] ) into flux - conservative form : @xmath200 the drift and diffusion coefficients are    [ eq_difcoefs_definition ] @xmath201    this form is convenient from both from a computational and a physical point of view , since ( i ) it manifestly conserves the total number of stars , and ( ii ) drift coefficients @xmath202 and @xmath203 must be zero , which may be demonstrated explicitly , or inferred from the natural requirement that ( in the absence of capture ) collisions tend to isotropize @xmath17 , i.e. in the steady state @xmath17 should not depend on @xmath78 or @xmath75 .
as is well known , the steady - state loss rate in the spherical geometry can only be inferred from the orbit - averaged fokker - planck equation if a certain condition is satisfied : the change in angular momentum over one radial period due to encounters must be small for orbits near the loss cone .
far enough from the sbh , this condition is violated ( the `` pinhole '' or `` full - loss - cone '' regime ) and the orbit - averaged approximation is not valid .
this problem is dealt with by returning to the local @xmath204 fokker - planck equation and allowing the phase - space density to vary along orbits , from zero at the edge of the capture sphere to some finite value at apoapsis @xcite .
the result is a boundary condition for the fokker - planck equation that specifies the value and slope of @xmath205 at @xmath206 in terms of its average value at the ( fixed ) energy @xmath207 .
no such exact analysis has ever been carried out in nonspherical ( axisymmetric , triaxial ) geometries , nor will we do so here . instead we will be satisfied with a more heuristic derivation of the relation between @xmath17 and @xmath208 at the loss cone boundary . our analysis will be similar in spirit to that of @xcite , but , as we will see , with some important differences .
we begin by reviewing the boundary conditions in the spherical geometry .
the evolution equation in terms of @xmath207 and @xmath78 can be derived by integrating equation ( [ eq_fpflux ] ) over @xmath75 from 0 to @xmath78 .
we introduce two , two - dimensional quantities : the number density of stars , @xmath209 and the flux per unit energy in the @xmath78-direction : @xmath210 the relation between @xmath211 and the fluxes appearing in equation  ( [ eq_fpflux ] ) is that the former is the integral , over the entire loss cone boundary , of the component of @xmath212 normal to that boundary , in the subspace @xmath213 . in the spherical case ,
the capture boundary in the @xmath214 plane is defined by @xmath206 , and so @xmath215 .    as emphasized by @xcite , in the spherical geometry ,
changes in angular momentum are expected to dominate the capture rate .
setting @xmath216 constant , we consider one - dimensional diffusion in @xmath78 , which obeys @xmath217 the final expression uses the result that for small @xmath78 , @xmath218 . also in this limit , @xmath219 , and we can write @xmath220 an inverse , orbit - averaged relaxation time .    if we adopt the approximation @xmath221 over the entire range of @xmath78 , then equation ( [ eq_dif_1d ] ) is mathemathically equivalent to the heat conduction equation in a circular domain @xcite .
the steady - state solution is @xmath222 .
the natural boundary condition at @xmath112 is @xmath223 , which in this approximation translates to @xmath224 ( in the more exact treatment , @xmath225 itself tends to zero at @xmath112 ) .
the boundary at @xmath206 is responsible for capture , however , simply setting @xmath226 is not always appropriate .
as discussed by @xcite , there are two regimes characterizing the behavior of @xmath179 near loss cone boundary , depending on the ratio @xmath227 between the radial period and the time to random - walk out of the loss cone ( that is , to change @xmath78 by order of @xmath228 ) : @xmath229 the case @xmath230 is the `` empty loss cone '' regime , since a star scattered into the region @xmath231 is swallowed much faster than encounters can scatter it back out .
the opposite situation , @xmath232 , is the `` full - loss - cone '' regime , because diffusion is so rapid that even capture of stars ( near periapsis ) does not substantially diminish the population of loss cone orbits away from periapsis .
it turns out that much of the flux into the sbh  comes from stars at energies where @xmath233 , so the behavior of the solution at the transition between the two regimes is important .
let @xmath234 , and define @xmath235 , the flux through the boundary ( i.e. the number of stars captured per unit time per unit energy ) . in a steady state ,
equation ( [ eq_dif_1d ] ) implies that @xmath211 is independent of @xmath78 near @xmath228 .
we can express the inner boundary condition in a general way as @xmath236 where all quantities are understood to be functions of @xmath207 , or equivalently of @xmath237 .
after usinq equations ( [ equation : nofer ] ) and ( [ equation : fluxrofe ] ) to express @xmath179 and @xmath211 in terms of @xmath17 and @xmath238 , equation ( [ eq_boundary_cond_spher ] ) is seen to be a boundary condition of the robin type ( linear combination of function and its derivative ) @xcite .
the dimensionless coefficient @xmath239 can be derived by returning to the local ( non - orbit - averaged ) fokker - planck equation and determining how @xmath17 varies with radial phase assuming @xmath240 at periapsis @xcite .
@xcite produced a numerical solution in the spherical geometry and proposed the approximation @xmath241 for @xmath242 and @xmath243 for @xmath244 .
an exact solution exists to the same set of equations solved by cohn & kulsrud : @xmath245 @xcite , where @xmath246 are consecutive zeros of the bessel function @xmath247 .
equation ( [ equation : besselalpha ] ) is unwieldy ; a good approximation is @xmath248 which has the asymptotic forms @xmath249 these expressions differ most strongly near @xmath250 , where the exact solution ( [ equation : besselalpha ] ) gives @xmath251 .
cohn & kulsrud s approximation is @xmath252 while equation ( [ eq_alpha_q ] ) gives @xmath253 .    in terms of @xmath239 , the variation of @xmath179 with @xmath78 near the loss cone boundary
is    [ eq_f_near_lc_spher ] @xmath254    here @xmath255 plays the role of the effective absorbing boundary at which @xmath256 .
it is convenient to introduce the `` draining rate '' of a uniformly - populated loss cone : @xmath257 this is the capture rate that results if the following two conditions are satisfied : ( i ) the distribution function is constant inside the loss cone , with value @xmath258 ; ( ii ) the volume of the loss cone ( per unit energy ) , @xmath259 , is emptied every radial period . as is apparent from its definition , @xmath260
does not depend on the diffusion coefficient @xmath261 .
we can rewrite the boundary condition ( [ eq_boundary_cond_spher ] ) in terms of @xmath260 as @xmath262 in the full - loss - cone regime , @xmath263 and the capture rate is @xmath264 ; otherwise @xmath265 , reflecting the fact that the phase space density decreases to zero at some @xmath266 ( [ eq_r0 ] ) .
define @xmath267 to be the integral of @xmath268 over angular momenta : @xmath269 roughly speaking , @xmath270 is the quantity that would be inferred from an observed radial density profile , for instance , via eddington s formula ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* equation  3.47 ) .
if we extrapolate the logarithmic solution ( [ eq_f_near_lc_spher ] ) to all @xmath78 , we can relate @xmath271 and the capture rate @xmath272 to @xmath273 :    @xmath274    in the full - loss - cone regime , @xmath232 , the distribution function is almost isotropic ( @xmath275 ) , and @xmath276 that is : the full volume of the loss cone is consumed every radial period , and @xmath260 and @xmath272 are equivalent .
this also means that the exact value of the diffusion coefficient or even the very process responsible for shuffling orbits in @xmath78 does not affect the capture rate , as long as it is efficient enough to keep the loss cone full . in the opposite limit of @xmath277 , @xmath278 now the capture rate is limited by diffusion from larger @xmath78 , that is , by the gradient of @xmath179 near @xmath228 .
the distribution function is depleted at small @xmath78 .    here
we note a distinction that will be important when discussing the axisymmetric problem .
equation ( [ eq_fdrain ] ) expresses @xmath260 in terms of the value of @xmath179 at the loss cone boundary . in the spherical case
, the full - loss - cone boundary condition ( @xmath279 ) implies @xmath280 ( equation [ eq_f_global_spher ] ) .
this is because the same process
gravitational scattering  is responsible both for populating loss - cone orbits uniformly with respect to radial phase and for driving the global shape of @xmath205 towards isotropy .
as we will see , the same is not necessarily true in the axisymmetric geometry , because these two actions are driven by different processes : the latter is always attributed to two - body relaxation ( scattering ) , but the former may also be driven by regular precession . in
what follows , we use the terms `` empty '' and `` full '' loss - cone regimes to distinguish between the cases when the flux @xmath281 and @xmath282 , respectively , whatever the global shape of the solution .    in the spherical problem ,
the transition between the two regimes is naturally defined as @xmath283 ( so that expressions ( [ eq_fflc ] ) and ( [ eq_felc ] ) are equal ) .
sometimes another definition is used , based on the requirement that the draining rate equals the repopulation rate from nearby regions in phase space , implying @xmath250 . in  [ sec_nbody ]
we denote the energy of the former transition as @xmath284 and the latter as @xmath285 , in reference to the fact that these conditions are based either on the global shape of the solution or on its local properties near the capture boundary .
returning to the time - dependent equation ( [ eq_dif_1d ] ) , if @xmath286 , an analytic solution exists in terms of bessel functions @xcite . if we take @xmath287 as the initial condition , where @xmath288 is the heaviside step function , then the logarithmic profile is established after @xmath289 , and the flux @xmath272 , after the initial transient , is well described by the quasi - steady - state value ( [ eq_capt_rate_spher ] ) .
numerical solutions to equation ( [ eq_dif_1d ] ) without the simplifying assumption @xmath290 are found to match the analytical solution very well ( to within a few percent ) . in
  [ sec_nbody ] we will refer to both the quasi - stationary flux value and the time - dependent solution .
one should keep in mind that the capture rate in the time - dependent case may be substantially higher than the stationary flux for @xmath291 , at least in the empty - loss - cone regime ; sometimes the ratio can be more than an order of magnitude ( e.g. * ? ? ? * ) .
this , however , depends critically on the details of the initial distribution .
if instead of a step - function at @xmath228 one starts from a profile with a larger area @xmath292 where the distribution function has been depleted , for example , as a result of a binary smbh scattering away stars with periapsides smaller than the binary separation , then initially the capture rate is , conversely , much lower than the stationary flux @xcite .
we first summarize the various time scales in the axisymmetric geometry .
the three times defined above that characterize motion in the smooth potential satisfy @xmath293 where @xmath294 ( equation [ eq_trad ] ) is the radial ( keplerian ) period , @xmath66 ( equation [ eq_tprec ] ) is the approximate time for @xmath46 to change by @xmath295 due to the spherically - distributed mass , and @xmath106 ( equation [ eq_tosc ] ) is the oscillation time for @xmath78 due to torquing from the axisymmetric component of the potential .
the latter inequality is strongest for saucer orbits that are near the separatrix and which precess very slowly ( figure [ fig_rminmax ] ) .
the two - body relaxation time can be estimated from the diffusion coefficients by taking the inverse of the common dimensional factor @xmath296 , equation ( [ eq_difcoefa ] ) : @xmath297 this time is smaller by a factor 0.87 than the more standard definition of the relaxation time in terms of local density and velocity dispersion ( cf .
@xcite , equation  5.61 ) .
clearly @xmath298 .
@xcite used the term `` loss wedge '' to describe the set of orbits which can be captured by the sbh  in the absense of relaxation , i.e. if their angular momentum falls below @xmath228 at some phase of the precession cycle , or , equivalently , if @xmath299 .
the name reflects the fact that this region is elongated in the @xmath74 direction much more than in @xmath75 ( figure  [ fig_phaseplane ] ) : its boundary is defined by setting @xmath300 in equation ( [ eq_capture_boundary ] ) . in what follows , we define @xmath301 as the value of the distribution function at the loss wedge boundary , which we approximate to be constant throughout the loss wedge , and @xmath302 as the capture rate of stars per unit energy : @xmath303 here @xmath304 and @xmath305 are fluxes defined in equation ( [ eq_fpflux ] ) , @xmath306 is the lowest possible value of @xmath74 ( [ eq_hlcfpo ] ) for orbits outside the loss wedge , and the two terms in the last integral give the contributions to the capture rate from the `` downward '' flux in the @xmath74 direction in the tube region of phase plane and the `` upward '' flux in the saucer region ( see figure  [ fig_phaseplane ] ) .
signs are chosen so that @xmath302 is the positive rate of capture .
we now argue that it is the flux in the @xmath75 direction in the saucer region that provides the main contribution to the total capture rate , in the case @xmath307 . from equations ( [ eq_coef_asympt_sau ] ) , ( [ eq_difcoefs_definition_b ] )
we see that @xmath308 .
the capture boundary ( [ eq_capture_boundary ] ) is almost parallel to the vertical ( @xmath74 ) axis in this region , with the slope @xmath309 .
if we assume that @xmath310 has a certain gradient perpendicular to the capture boundary line , then its derivatives are in a similar relation : @xmath311 .
the fluxes @xmath305 and @xmath304 in ( [ eq_fpflux ] ) are then comparable in magnitude ; however , in equation ( [ eq_capt_rate_total_flux ] ) the former flux is integrated in @xmath312 on an interval of length @xmath313 , while the latter is integrated in @xmath314 on an interval of @xmath228 .
therefore , the contribution from the flux in the @xmath75 direction is the largest in the saucer region . from similar arguments we estimate that in the tube region the flux in the @xmath74 direction is dominant .
finally , if @xmath315 , most of the loss wedge lies in the saucer orbit region , so it gives the largest overall contribution to the total capture rate @xmath302 .
( this is true only asymptotically ; as shown in the next section , even for @xmath316 the tube and saucer regions give roughly equal contribution ) .
the number of stars ( per unit energy ) inside the loss wedge is given by denotes the _ integral _ of the distribution function over the loss region , not its _ value _ at the boundary as in ( [ equation : nofer ] ) . ]
@xmath317 where the boundaries of the region of integration are given by @xmath318 and equation ( [ eq_capture_boundary ] ) , and we have taken @xmath17 to be constant ( @xmath301 ) within this region and used the asymptotic expression ( [ eq_coef_asympt_sau ] ) for @xmath152 in the saucer region ( which gives the main contribution to the integral in the case @xmath315 ) . the number of stars which are instantaneously inside the loss cone ( @xmath115 ) is essentially the same as in the spherical case : @xmath319 .
this is an expected result : in the axisymmetric case , the effective volume of the loss region increases by a factor @xmath320 , but the probability for any star inside this loss region having an angular momentum less than the capture threshold decreases by the same factor .
we are now in a position to derive the boundary condition , i.e. , to relate the capture rate @xmath302 to the value of @xmath17 at the boundary of the loss wedge , @xmath301 .
an orbit inside the loss _ wedge _ is captured if its instantaneous value of @xmath78 is less than @xmath228 , i.e. , if it is in the loss _ cone _
, during periapsis passage . here ,
as in the spherical case , there are two possible regimes . if the radial period is short compared with the time required for an orbit to pass the minimum of its precession cycle while having @xmath115 , then every orbit in the loss wedge will be captured in a time no longer than one precession period .
we call this the `` empty loss wedge '' regime
. the rate of consumption of stars per unit energy , @xmath302 , is then given by the number of stars inside the loss wedge , @xmath321 , divided by their lifetime on these orbits , @xmath106 : @xmath322    in the opposite limit , a star that achieves @xmath115 while being far from the sbh  may precess out of the loss cone before reaching periapsis , similar to what happens in the full - loss - cone case of the spherical problem . then the capture rate is less than given by the above equation , because not all stars in the loss wedge are captured after one precession period .
it is easy to see that in this case , which can be called the `` full loss wedge regime '' , the rate of consumption is equivalent to the draining rate of the full loss cone ( [ eq_fdrain ] ) . in other words ,
the precession is fast and shuffles stars in angular momentum quickly enough that the loss cone stays full , hence the capture rate is just the instantaneous number of stars inside the loss cone divided by their radial period . by ignoring the effects of a finite precessional time , @xcite were essentially in this regime .    by analogy with the spherical case ,
we introduce the quantity @xmath323 separating the two regimes : @xmath324 it is easy to see that @xmath325 at the radius of influence , where @xmath326 , as long as the flattening is not too small ( @xmath327 ) . unlike the spherical problem , the transition from empty- to full - loss - wedge regimes always occurs well within the radius of influence , and therefore the main contribution to the total capture rate comes from the full - loss - wedge regime .
moreover , for most realistic cases @xmath328 for the entire range of radii . indeed ,
combining expresssions ( [ eq_tprec ] , [ eq_q_spher ] , [ eq_trel ] , [ eq_q_axi ] ) and substituting @xmath329 , where @xmath40 is the orbit semimajor axis , we obtain    @xmath330    this ratio decreases with radius ; evaluating it at @xmath331 and substituting @xmath332 ( see   [ sec_estimates ] ) , @xmath333 , where @xmath334 is the velocity dispersion of stars outside @xmath7 , and @xmath335 , we may rewrite the above expression as @xmath336    which is likely to be @xmath337 if the flattening is not too small . in other words : changes in angular momentum near the loss cone boundary are determined by the regular precession ( @xmath323 ) , and not by relaxation ( @xmath227 ) .
to summarize , the boundary condition in the axisymmetric problem is @xmath338 and the relation between the flux and the value of @xmath17 at the boundary , expressed in the same way as in the spherical problem ( [ eq_boundary_cond_spher ] ) , reads    @xmath339    the derivation above only gives this relation in `` integrated '' form , that is , one coefficient @xmath340 for the entire @xmath341 plane at a given energy . while this is certainly an oversimplification , we argue below that it does not greatly affect the capture rate .
the distinction between empty and full loss cones in the spherical problem depends on whether @xmath281 ( equation [ eq_flux_sph ] ) or not , or equivalently whether @xmath342 . in the spherical case , @xmath343 , and
the transition occurs at @xmath233 . in the axisymmetric problem ,
the distinction between empty and full loss _ wedges _ is whether @xmath281 or not , and the transition is at @xmath344 . in most realistic cases , @xmath328 , although it is not necessarily true that @xmath345 . therefore , the coefficient @xmath340 in the boundary condition ( [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] ) can be both greater or less than its spherical counterpart @xmath239 ( equation [ eq_alpha_q ] ) for the same @xmath207 and @xmath228 . in the case
@xmath346 ( full loss cone of the spherical problem ) there is essentially no difference in boundary conditions since @xmath323 is also greater than @xmath347 . in the opposite case ( @xmath348 ) , @xmath349 regardless of the value of @xmath323 , and the capture rate turns out to depend only weakly on it , as argued in the next section . in this latter case @xmath323
may be both greater or less than unity , i.e. the loss wedge may be either empty or full .
however , as we noted above , the relation between the capture rate and @xmath350 in the axisymmetric problem depends not only on the boundary condition , but also on the structure of the entire solution , as addressed in the next section .
we are primarily interested here in the capture rate , i.e. the flux of stars into the sbh , and not in the evolution of the mass distribution ( density profile , flattening ) which we assume to be fixed .
the flux is determined mainly by diffusion in angular momentum .
accordingly , we consider the two - dimensional fokker - planck equation describing evolution in ( @xmath109 ) and neglect diffusion in energy .
we note that most of our results are quoted for a density profile @xmath351 which is reasonably close to the bahcall - wolf stationary solution , @xmath352 , further justifying the neglect of energy evolution .      to date
, all studies of axisymmetric systems assumed that the distribution function depends only on the two classical integrals of motion , @xmath207 and @xmath75 .
then it is easy to show that @xmath353 for @xmath354 .
indeed , from ( [ eq_difcoefrz2 ] ) we see that @xmath355 for small @xmath75 , and from ( [ eq_densityofstates ] ) that the density of states @xmath356 .
then the total capture rate per unit energy is @xmath357 , and should be independent of @xmath75 , which leads to the square - root profile of @xmath358 .
@xcite used this argument to derive the relation between the capture rate @xmath208 and the average value of the distribution function at a given energy @xmath350 , as follows .
start by writing the relation between @xmath208 and the value of @xmath17 at the loss wedge boundary @xmath359 , which corresponds essentially to the full loss wedge regime ( equation  [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] with @xmath360 ) . then express the integrated flux in the @xmath75 direction as @xmath361 independent of @xmath75 .
the numerical factor @xmath362 is related to the `` area of the loss wedge '' , @xmath363 , where @xmath364 is the peak angular momentum of saucer orbits and may be associated with our definition of @xmath123 .
the distribution function is then @xmath365 the average distribution function is @xmath366 where @xmath367 is the fraction of the phase space volume at a given @xmath75 .
@xcite took @xmath368 ; a more correct value is @xmath369 . using their value , one finds @xmath370 the correct expression would contain @xmath371 instead of @xmath372 in the brackets .
the relation between the steady - state capture rate per unit energy and the average ( isotropized ) value of the distribution function is @xmath373 where @xmath374 .
comparing of this expression with the analogous one in the spherical case ( [ eq_capt_rate_spher ] ) , we see that when @xmath375 , the capture rate is essentially the same as in the spherical case ( full - loss - cone regime ) , while in the opposite limit it is determined by the diffusion coefficient @xmath261 and the value of @xmath123 , rather than by the size of the loss cone @xmath228 .
this is a consequence of the geometry of loss wedge boundary , which stretches in one direction to a fixed fraction @xmath123 of the phase space .
@xmath376    @xmath72{fig4_f_r.eps}\ ] ]    @xmath72{fig5_reff.eps}\ ] ]    we set up an initially uniform ( isotropic ) distribution ( @xmath377 ) in the @xmath341 plane outside the capture boundary , defined by equating @xmath228 and @xmath79 found from equation([eq_rminmax ] ) ( @xmath81 for saucers and @xmath82 for tubes ) ; a series of isolines of constant @xmath79 is plotted in figure  [ fig_phaseplane ] .
we studied a range of values for both @xmath123 and @xmath315 , as well as various parameters @xmath340 in the boundary condition ( [ eq_alpha_axi ] ) .
the numerical solution of equation ( [ eq_fpflux ] ) was obtained on a non - uniform rectangular grid using two different sets of coordinates , defined such that the capture boundaries are parallel to the coordinate axes ( see appendix [ sec_appendix_coords ] for details ) ; grid sizes were typically @xmath378 in each dimension and the loss region was resolved by 10 - 20% of the grid cells .
we advanced the solutions until time @xmath379 to achieve a steady - state profile , from which we could extract the relation between the capture rate and the average value of @xmath17 .    in the spherical case ,
the solution is controlled by two parameters ( aside from @xmath261 which scales the time ) : the capture boundary @xmath228 and the boundary coefficient @xmath239 ( or @xmath227 ) .
as regards the steady - state profile , these two parameters are not independent , since one can always transform the problem to another ( primed ) one with @xmath380 and @xmath381 ( equation  [ eq_r0 ] ) , so the family of solution is effectively one - parametric . to compare the time - dependent solution of the axisymmetric problem to the spherical case
, we introduce the concept of `` equivalent spherical problem '' , that is , the one - dimensional problem with the same coefficient @xmath239 in the boundary condition as @xmath340 in equation  ( [ eq_alpha_axi ] ) , and with some effective capture boundary @xmath382 chosen such that the time - dependend capture rate closely follows that of the axisymmetric problem .
our goal is then to find @xmath382 as a function of the loss cone size @xmath228 and degree of flattening , the latter parametrized by @xmath123 .    in the remainder of this section we present simple analytical arguments that give a qualitatively correct description of the two - dimensional numerical solution of the axisymmetric problem , and provide a fitting formula for @xmath382 .
figure  [ fig_streamlines ] shows stream lines of flux and isocontours of @xmath17 in a quasi - stationary 2d solution for a rather exaggerated value of @xmath383 . even in this case , most of the stream lines end inside the saucer region , and that is definitely so for more realistic ( smaller ) values of @xmath228 .
it is also clear that in the saucer region , @xmath17 depends mainly on @xmath75 and is almost independent of the second coordinate , which justifies the square - root profile of @xmath358 as in equation  ( [ eq_f_rz ] ) , but only in this region . in the tube region , for the greater part of the phase space ( @xmath384 ) , the solution is close to that of the spherical problem , that is , @xmath385 , with @xmath386 experiencing only small oscillations .
we can build an approximate solution by joining the two asymptotic forms at @xmath123 .
a better description for the saucer region accounts for the fact that the flux in the @xmath75 direction gradually decreases from @xmath208 at the capture boundary to zero at @xmath123 : @xmath387 @xmath388 is the minimum value of @xmath74 , corresponding to the fixed - point saucer orbit ( [ eq_fpo ] ) .
the second , approximate equality in equation ( [ eq_fluxrz_corr ] ) is an empirical fit to the numerical 2d solution . using the asymptotic expressions ( [ eq_coef_asympt_sau ] ) , it is easy to show that for @xmath389 the flux has the form ( [ eq_fluxrz ] ) , with the numerical coefficient @xmath390 ( which is @xmath391 larger than the value used by @xcite ) .
the solution in the saucer region is obtained by solving the differential equation ( [ eq_fluxrz_corr ] ) : @xmath392 which is a somewhat improved form of equation  ( [ eq_f_rz ] ) .
the solution in the tube region outside @xmath123 is approximated by @xmath393 the coefficient of the logarithmic term gives the same flux in the @xmath78 direction as in the spherical problem , and @xmath394 .
figure  [ fig_rprofile ] shows the two asymptotic expressions along with the actual numerical solution .
we compute the isotropized value @xmath350 taking into account only the contribution from @xmath395 , which introduces a fractional error of at most @xmath123 : @xmath396    putting all this together and expressing the relation between @xmath208 and @xmath273 in terms of the coefficient @xmath340 ( [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] ) , we obtain @xmath397 equation  ( [ eq_capt_rate_axi_approx ] ) can be compared with equation  ( [ eq_fluxmt ] ) of @xcite : both share the property of being independent of @xmath228 , replacing it with some effective capture boundary @xmath382 for the empty - loss - cone regime , although this effective value is different . by comparing ( [ eq_capt_rate_axi_approx ] ) with the spherical analog ( [ eq_capt_rate_spher ] ) , we see that in our approximation , @xmath398 .
figure  [ fig_reff ] shows that equation  ( [ eq_capt_rate_axi_approx ] ) predicts well the flux in the numerical steady - state solutions ; a better approximation to the effective capture boundary and the capture rate is @xmath399
overall , the capture rates in the axisymmetric geometry are higher than in the spherical case with the same boundary condition @xmath400 , but not by a large factor : in the full - loss - cone regime ( @xmath401 ) they are essentially the same , while in the empty - loss - cone regime the effective boundary @xmath382 is higher than @xmath228 , but since the flux depends on it only logarithmically , the difference is not likely to be more than a factor of a few .    of course , more relevant is a comparison that takes into account that @xmath239 in the spherical case may be different from @xmath340 for the same values of @xmath207 and @xmath228 , as noted near the end of the previous section . for the least bound stars which are in the full - loss - cone regime ( @xmath402 ) , @xmath325 and @xmath403 . in this case
, the capture rate does not depend on the diffusion coefficient @xmath404 but only on the value of @xmath228 .
the boundary condition ( [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] ) states that the flux @xmath302 is proportional to the average , isotropized value @xmath405 , and @xmath261 cancels out .    in the opposite case @xmath406 ,
the capture rate is limited by diffusion , and @xmath407 is no longer close to isotropic . if @xmath408 , @xmath340 is also @xmath409 , and the denominator in the expression for the capture rate ( [ eq_capt_rate_axi ] ) tends to some constant value which depends only on @xmath123 , but not on @xmath227 or @xmath228 ( provided that @xmath315 ) .
it is largely irrelevant whether the boundary condition itself corresponds to the empty ( @xmath410 ) or full - loss - wedge regime . in other words , in this _ diffusion - limited regime _ ( both in spherical and axisymmetric cases ) the boundary conditions ( [ eq_boundary_cond_spher ] ) or ( [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] ) determine @xmath258 for a given flux @xmath272 , which itself is set by the gradient of the overall steady - state profile of solution . by comparison , in the spherical case the denominator in the expression for the capture rate ( [ eq_capt_rate_spher ] ) also depends only weakly ( logarithmically ) on @xmath228 and is almost independent of @xmath239 .
therefore , the difference in capture rates between the axisymmetric and spherical problems , which results from the difference between @xmath411 and @xmath412 , is at most a factor of few in the case @xmath406 .
the fokker - planck formalism developed in the previous sections relied on the existence of three integrals of motion deep inside the sbh  influence region . apart from some special , fully integrable cases ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* ) , most axisymmetric potentials containing central point masses are characterized by chaotic motion in the low - angular - momentum parts of phase space beyond the influence radius .
chaotic orbits still respect two integrals of the motion , @xmath207 and @xmath75 , but in the absence of a third integral , they can in principle fill the accessible region in the meridional plane , allowing them to be captured as long as @xmath413 .
we estimate the capture rate from these orbits by the following argument , similar to an argument of @xcite .
first we introduce the concept of draining of the loss region , arising from non - conservaton of angular momentum without any relaxation effects , then estimate the role of relaxation , and finally discuss the combined effects of draining and relaxation .
assume that the chaotic orbits occupy a region in the @xmath214 plane with @xmath414 .
the value of @xmath415 plays the same role as @xmath123 inside the radius of influence , and is comparable to it for the same degree of flattening .
furthermore , we assume that every chaotic orbit with a given @xmath75 can attain values of @xmath416 $ ] with equal probability ( numerical tests verify that this is a reasonable assumption ) .
recall that the number of stars with given @xmath417 , which may be identified with the probability of finding a star in a given interval of @xmath418 , is @xmath419 , with @xmath420 given by equation  ( [ eq_densityofstates ] ) .
then the fraction of time such an orbit spends below the capture boundary is @xmath421 , and this is essentially the probability of being captured during one radial period ( assuming the full - loss - cone boundary condition , i.e. that the change in angular momentum during one period is much larger than the capture boundary , which is reasonable for chaotic orbits ) .
next we evaluate the time - dependent rate of capture of stars from chaotic orbits . from the above argument
it follows that we need to consider @xmath358 decaying exponentially at every value of @xmath75 from its initial value @xmath422 , but with a different rate : @xmath423 .\ ] ] the total number of chaotic orbits with @xmath413 and their capture rate is then given by    @xmath424    where @xmath425 from here it is clear that if we identify @xmath422 with the initial value of the distribution function in the loss cone @xmath258 , then the capture rate is initially equal to the draining rate of a uniformly populated loss cone ( [ eq_fdrain ] ) . in particular , when @xmath426 , we recover the standard , full - loss - cone draining rate , regardless of the value of @xmath415 . on the other hand , the draining time does depend on @xmath415 , since the number of stars in the chaotic region to be drained is @xmath427 times larger than the number of stars in the loss cone , therefore the draining time is longer than the radial period by the same factor . at times much longer than the draining time , the capture rate declines as @xmath428 , not exponentially , since it is dominated by the draining of chaotic orbits with @xmath429 .
there is a great deal of similarity between the capture rates from the loss wedge of the saucer region of phase space for regular orbits within the radius of influence , and the chaotic region outside it .
the details of draining are somewhat different ( in particular , for the regular orbits the draining rate declines as @xmath430 , as noted by @xcite ) , but since the draining time for saucer orbits is usually much shorter than a hubble time , we ignore that distinction and adopt the same expressions for them as for chaotic orbits . in both cases ,
the _ local _ boundary condition for the loss region corresponds to the full loss cone ( [ eq_boundary_cond_axi ] ) , at least for the case @xmath431 relevant for all but the most tightly bound orbits .
however , the _ global _ shape of the steady - state solution depends on whether the overall flux into the low angular momentum region is limited by diffusion ( @xmath432 ) or not . in the first case
, the steady - state solution will still have a logarithmic form for @xmath433 or @xmath123 , corresponding to some effective capture boundary @xmath382 , and the capture rate depends on this effective boundary only logarithmically .
in the latter case , the capture rate is essentially the full loss cone rate for an isotropic distribution function .
the latter case , however , is rarely attained because @xmath237 rapidly drops with decreasing binding energy . on the other hand ,
if the draining time for chaotic orbits is comparable to the hubble time , then their capture rate may still be quite high even in the absence of relaxation , provided that the initial value @xmath422 of the distribution function inside the chaotic region was not much different from the isotropic value @xmath350 .
the combined effect of draining and relaxation may be approximately accounted for by the following recipe .
let @xmath434 be the capture rate per unit energy from the fokker - planck equation with initial conditions corresponding to the loss region being initially empty ( i.e. the solution considered in   [ sec_fp_solution ] ) .
since the loss region initially may have some nonzero value of @xmath17 , @xmath435 , the phase - space gradient of @xmath17 near the loss region boundary will be less than arising in the fokker - planck solution , and the capture rate from relaxation alone may also be lower .
we approximate the total capture rate by the sum of the draining rate @xmath436 and the collisional flux @xmath437 multiplied by @xmath438 , where @xmath439 is the number of chaotic orbits at @xmath440 with @xmath426 .
this expression is used to compare fokker - planck models against @xmath5-body simulations in  [ sec_nbody ] and to compute the capture rates for real galaxies in  [ sec_estimates ] .
it is important to note that the effective capture boundary @xmath382 defined in ( [ eq_reff_axi ] ) , as the parameter controlling the overall shape of the steady - state solution and the gradient of the distribution function ( and hence the capture rate due to diffusion ) , is not the same as the size of the loss region ( @xmath441 for saucer orbits , @xmath442 for chaotic orbits ) which determines the draining time .
the former , being a fixed fraction of @xmath123 ( @xmath415 ) , is usually much larger than the latter .
these results will be used in  [ sec_nbody ] when we compare the model predictions with the results of @xmath5-body simulations .
for completeness , and to put our results in a broader context , we briefly discuss the case when the stellar cusp around the sbh  is triaxial .
triaxial potentials support two distinct familes of tube orbits , circulating about the long and short axes of the triaxial figure @xcite .
in addition , there is a new class of centrophilic regular orbits , the pyramids ( * ? ? ? * figure 11 ) .
the defining feature of pyramids is that @xmath443 for all of them , and a star on such an orbit will eventually find its way into the sbh  even without the assistance of collisional relaxation .
the fraction of phase space occupied by pyramids is comparable to that of saucer orbits , i.e. @xmath313 . outside the radius of influence , the regular pyramid orbits are mostly replaced by chaotic orbits , which are however still centrophilic @xcite .
.comparison of three geometries[tab_geoms ] [ cols="<,^,^,^ " , ]     we scale the velocity unit of the dehnen model by identifying the line - of - sight velocity dispersion , @xmath444 , at the influence radius with the quantity @xmath334 in equation  ( [ eq_mbhsigma ] ) ; this is reasonable given that @xmath445 is a weak function of projected radius @xmath446 for @xmath447 , with @xmath448 the half - light radius .
( in the case @xmath87 the central @xmath445 in the model lacking a sbhwas used . )
our models are thus defined by the two parameters @xmath449 .
setting @xmath450 , we have @xmath451  pc for @xmath452 .    the radius @xmath11 that defines the loss sphere around the sbhis the larger of the radius of tidal disruption , @xmath453 , and the ( newtonian ) periapsis of an orbit that just continues inside the event horizon . for the eccentric orbits that dominate the flux into the sbh ,
the latter quantity is @xmath454 for a schwarzschild ( nonrotating ) sbh  @xcite ; this is the radius of periapsis of a keplerian orbit having the critical angular momentum .
a star is tidally disrupted if the periapsis radius is less than @xmath455 ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* equation 6.3 ) .
here @xmath456 depends on the stellar equation of state and is @xmath457 for a solar - type main - sequence star .
these disruption events , as opposed to direct captures , may be observed as optical and x - ray flares in otherwise quiescent galactic nuclei @xcite . from the condition
@xmath458 we find that solar - type stars on eccentric orbits are disrupted ( not swallowed ) if @xmath459 ; disruption can occur for any @xmath460 if the star is on a less eccentric orbit , or for kerr sbhs  even more massive than @xmath461 @xcite .
red giants or agb stars can also be disrupted ( or at least tidally limited ) by sbhs  more massive than @xmath461 @xcite . in what follows , we compute the total number of events associated with a given @xmath11 ; the ratio of number of tidal disruption flares to the total number of capture events is well studied in the literature and we do not consider it separately here .
we used fokker - planck models to evaluate steady - state and time - dependent capture rates @xmath462 for galaxies after @xmath463 years starting from an initially isotropic distribution function , in both the spherical and axisymmetric geometries ( using our one - dimensional approximation of section  [ sec_fp_solution ] ) , for @xmath464 .
the latter value is meant to represent a `` typical , '' moderately - flattened system ; the results do not strongly depend on @xmath123 . in the time - dependent calculations , the initial conditions consisted of the isotropic models with loss - cone orbits removed ; as a result , these initial models are characterized by strong gradients of @xmath17 with respect to @xmath41 near the loss cone .
overall , the calculation of total capture rate is done in the same way as in the previous section .
the left panel of figure  [ fig_rates ] shows results for two series of models : models with a steep ( @xmath465 ) central cusp and @xmath466 ; and models with shallow ( @xmath467 ) cores and @xmath468 . over the entire range of @xmath32 ,
the steady - state capture rates differ by only a factor of @xmath469 between spherical and axisymmetric geometries , consistent with the discussion near the end of  [ sec_fp_solution ] .
this result holds for any galactic model and depends only weakly on @xmath123 .
the time - dependent rates are generally higher than in the steady state , due to the strong gradients in the initial conditions . especially for massive galaxies with long relaxation times ,
the approach to a steady state is slow and the flux at early stages is much higher than in equilibrium .    for the most massive sbhs  ( @xmath470 ) the draining time of the loss region becomes comparable to the hubble time and the capture rate is dominated by draining of chaotic orbits ( double - dashed line ) , reaching values up to @xmath471 yr@xmath472 at the upper end of the @xmath32 range .
however , this should be regarded as a strong upper limit since we do not know the initial state : for instance , if the sbh  formed as the result of a merger of a binary sbh , it is very likely that the low angular momentum region of phase space will have been depleted in the course of the binary s evolution , and the capture rates could initially be much _ lower _ than the steady - state values @xcite .
the dependence of @xmath462 on @xmath32 for massive sbhscan be simply estimated as follows ( e.g. * ? ? ?
the nuclei of massive galaxies are in the empty - loss - cone regime , so the flux per unit energy is roughly @xmath473 $ ] .
the capture rate peaks at @xmath474 @xcite so the total flux is estimated as @xmath475 . assuming the @xmath476 relation , we obtain @xmath477 , and even the normalization constant evaluates to a reasonable @xmath478 yr@xmath472 for @xmath479 , despite the crudeness of the estimate .
the right panel of figure  [ fig_rates ] shows the uncertainties in the capture rate associated with the parameters @xmath239 and @xmath480 in the @xmath476 relation ( [ eq_mbhsigma ] ) and the slope of the density cusp @xmath481 .
plotted are stationary capture rates for the spherical case ; other values scale roughly in the same proportion .
the capture rates evaluated for a selection of individual galaxies from several previous studies are also plotted for comparison .
it is clear that the scatter in the derived values is fairly large , about two orders of magnitude , although a general trend of decreasing rate with increasing @xmath32 is clear . comparing the inverted triangles in figure  [ fig_rates]b with the double - dashed curve in figure  [ fig_rates]a
, we see that our estimates for the capture rate due to draining of chaotic orbits are substantially higher than those of @xcite .
as argued above , this is most likely an overestimate resulting from simplistic initial conditions .
it is also due partly to our selection of a different relation between the capture rate and the isotropized distribution function ; had we used their equation ( [ eq_fluxmt ] ) instead of our equation ( [ eq_capt_rate_axi_approx ] ) , the steady - state flux in the axisymmetric case would be factor of a few lower , although it should not affect the draining rate of centrophilic orbits which starts to dominate the capture rate at @xmath470 .
overall , it is fair to say that our estimates predict capture rates in the range @xmath482 yr@xmath472 for less massive galaxies , and a few@xmath483 yr@xmath472 for giant galaxies with sbh   masses in excess of @xmath461 .
this is roughly consistent with the observationally derived estimates of rates of tidal disruption flares @xcite .
( axisymmetric ) nuclear flattening may increase these numbers by a factor of few , and triaxiality may have a more dramatic effect on the consumption rate of the most massive sbhs   provided there are enough stars on centrophilic orbits .
one potentially important feature of axisymmetric ( and triaxial ) systems is that most stars are consumed in the full - loss - cone regime of boundary conditions ( in spite of the fact that the angular momentum need not be isotropic ) .
this means that stars approach the sbh  with a wide distribution in periapsis radii , as opposed to `` barely touching '' the disruption sphere in the empty - loss - cone regime . as a consequence
, many stars will be strongly tidally distorted before disruption , which may result in a distinct observational signature @xcite , although more recent studies show that the difference may not be so pronounced @xcite .
we have considered collisional ( gravitational - encounter - drive ) relaxation processes near supermassive black holes ( sbhs ) in spherical and axisymmetric models of galactic nuclei .
we derived a fokker - planck formalism and compared its predictions with direct @xmath5-body simulations of capture .
inside the sbh  radius of influence , the unperturbed motion of stars is regular , admitting three integrals of motion ( energy , @xmath1-component of the angular momentum @xmath2 , and secular hamiltonian @xmath74 ) .
there are two families of orbits , tubes and saucers ; the latter exhibit large angular momentum variations and stars on saucer orbits approach much more closely to the sbh  than would be expected based on their average angular momentum .
regularity of the motion allowed us to write down the orbit - averaged fokker - planck equation and to calculate the diffusion coefficients based on the standard formalism .
we discussed the appropriate boundary conditions for capture by the sbh , and numerically solved the two - dimensional ( @xmath484 ) fokker - planck equation .
we showed that its solution can be well approximated by an equivalent one - dimensional solution for diffusion in angular momentum , given appropriate boundary conditions .
an important difference with the spherical case is that the boundary condition at the loss region typically corresponds to the full - loss - cone regime , in the sense that a change in angular momentum per one orbital period is larger than the size of the loss cone .
nevertheless , the global shape of the solution , and , consequently , the capture rate of stars , is determined by the diffusion coefficient ( inversely proportional to the relaxation time ) , and depends only weakly on the effective size of the loss region .
this treatment was not entirely self - consistent , as it did not account for resonant relaxation or for the breakdown of the orbit - averaged approximation near or beyond the radius of influence , but it nevertheless suggests a conclusion which turns out to be robust : compared with the spherical case having the same _ real _ ( not _ effective _ ) capture boundary , the flux into the loss cone is higher in the axisymmetric case , but not by a large factor , and only in the regime where the loss cone would be empty in the spherical system . in the axisymmetric case ,
most of the stars find their way into the sbh  while on saucer orbits .
we also carried out a number of @xmath5-body integrations which were found to agree remarkably well with the corresponding fokker - planck models .
the agreement was not limited to the number of captured stars ; other quantities like the distribution of energy of the captured stars , the loss cone population , the diffusion coefficients , and the change in angular momentum during one radial period prior to capture were also found to be well reproduced .
we note , however , that the angular momentum diffusion is larger in @xmath5-body models for stars with high binding energies ( close to the sbh ) , which may be an indication of resonant relaxation not accounted for in the fokker - planck models ; nevertheless , its influence on the capture rate is likely to be small .
we applied our fokker - planck formalism to realistic galaxies with sbh  masses @xmath485 .
we found that stationary capture rates are in the range @xmath486 yr@xmath472 in spherical galaxies and a factor @xmath469 higher in flattened systems , with an overall trend of decreasing event rate with increasing @xmath32 .
time - dependent solutions were found to give generally higher estimated capture rates ; however , that result is likely to depend strongly on the assumed initial conditions @xcite .
in particular , for massive ( @xmath470 ) sbhs  in axisymmetric nuclei , the draining time of chaotic orbits just outside the radius of influence can be comparable to the hubble time ; if such orbits were not depleted by ( for instance ) the binary sbh  that preceded the single sbh , capture rates might reach @xmath471yr@xmath472 .
such high rates may be more relevant to triaxial galaxies in which the number of centrophilic orbits is likely to be large enough to maintain a full - loss - cone capture rate for a hubble time .
the work was supported by the national science foundation via grant no .
ast 1211602 and by the national aeronautics and space administration via grant no .
nnx10af84 g .
ev acknowledges the hospitality of the aspen center for physics .
codes for computing capture rates in the spherical and axisymmetric geometries can be downloaded at http:@xmath487td.lpi.ru@xmath488@xmath489eugvas@xmath488losscone@xmath488 .
abramovitz , m. & stegun , i.  1972 , handbook of mathematical functions ( new york : dover publications )    amaro - seoane p. , freitag m. , & spurzem r.  2004 , mnras , 352 , 655    bahcall , j. & wolf , r.  1976 , apj , 209 , 214    bahcall , j. & wolf , r.  1977 , apj , 216 , 883    baldwin , d. e. , cordey , j. g. , & watson , c. j. h.  1972 , nucl .
fusion , 12 , 307    bar - or , b. , kupi , g. , alexander , t.  2013 , apj , 764 , 52    baumgardt h. , makino j. , ebisuzaki t.  2004 , apj , 613 , 1133    brockamp , m. , baumgardt , h. , & kroupa , p.  2011 , mnras , 418 , 1308    cohn , h. , & kulsrud , r.  1978 , apj , 226 , 1087    dehnen , w.  1993 , mnras , 265 , 250    dehnen , w. , & gerhard , o.  1993 , mnras , 261 , 311    donley , j. , brandt , w. , eracleous , m. , & boller , th .
2002 , aj , 124 , 1308    eilon , e. , kupi , g. & alexander , t.  2009 , apj , 698 , 641    einsel , ch . , & spurzem , r.  1999 , mnras , 302 , 81    eriksson , k. , estep , d. , hansbo , p. , & johnson , c. , 1996 , `` computational differential equations '' , cambridge university press , cambridge , uk    evans , n.  1994 , mnras , 267 , 333    ferrarese , l. , & merritt , d.  2000 , apj , 539 , l9    fiestas , j. , spurzem , r. , & kim , e.  2006 , mnras , 373 , 677    fiestas , j. , & spurzem , r.  2010 , mnras , 405 , 194    fiestas , j. , porth , o. , berczik , p. , & spurzem , r.  2012 , mnras , 419 , 57    frank , j. , & rees , m.  1976 , mnras , 176 , 633    freitag , m. , benz , w.  2002 , a&a , 394 , 345    gaburov , e. , harfst , s. , portegies zwart , s.  2009 , new astron .
, 14 , 630    gebhardt , k. , bender , r. , bower , g. , et al .
2000 , apj , 539 , l13    gerhard , o. , & binney , j.  1985 , mnras , 216 , 467    gezari , s. , basa , s. , martin , d. , et al .
2008 , apj , 676 , 944    goodman , j.  1983 , phd thesis , princeton univ .
graham , a. , onken , c. , athanassoula , e. , & combes , f.  2011 , mnras , 412 , 2211    gltekin , k. , richstone , d. , gebhardt , k. , et al .
2009 , apj , 698 , 198    harfst , s. , gualandris , a. , merritt , d. , & mikkola , s.  2008 , mnras , 389 , 2    holley - bockelmann , k. , & sigurdsson , s.  2006 , arxiv : astro - ph/0601520    hopman , c. , & alexander , t.  2006 , apj , 645 , 1152    hunter , c. , & qian , e.  1993 , mnras , 262 , 401    kesden , m.  2012 , phys.rev.d , 85 , 024037    komossa , s. , & merritt , d.  2008 , apjl , 683 , l21    kozai , y.  1962 , aj , 67 , 591    lees , j.  f. , & schwarzschild , m.  1992 , apj , 384 , 491    lidov , m.  1962 , planetary and space science , 9 , 719    lightman , a. , & shapiro , s.  1977 , apj , 211 , 244    lupton , r. , & gunn , j.  1987 , aj , 93 , 1106    lynden - bell , d.  1962 , mnras , 123 , 447    macleod , m. , guillochon , j. , & ramirez - ruiz , e. ,  2012 , apj , 757 , 134    magorrian j. , & tremaine s.  1999 , mnras , 309 , 447    marconi , a. , & hunt , l.  k.  2003 , , 589 , l21    mcconnell , n. , ma , c .- p . , gebhardt , k. , et al .
2011 , nature , 480 , 215    merritt , d.  1999 , in asp conf .
197 , dynamics of galaxies : from the early universe to the present , ed .
f. combes , g. a. mamon , & v. charmandaris ( san francisco : asp ) , 221    merritt , d. , 2013 , dynamics and evolution of galactic nuclei , ( princeton : princeton university press )    merritt , d. , berczik , p. , & laun , f.  2007 ,
aj , 133 , 553    merritt , d. , & ferrarese , l.  2001 , apj , 547 , 140    merritt , d. , & poon , m.  2004 , apj , 606 , 788    merritt , d. , & quinlan , g.  d.  1998 , apj , 498 , 625    merritt , d. , & valluri , m.  1999 , aj , 118 , 1177    merritt , d. , & vasiliev , e.  2011 , apj , 726 , 61    merritt , d. , & wang , j.  2005 , apjl , 621 , l101    mikkola , s. , & merritt , d.  2006 , mnras , 372 , 219    mikkola , s. , & merritt , d.  2008 , aj , 135 , 2398    milosavljevi , m. & merritt , d.  2003 , apj , 596 , 860    norman c. , & silk j.  1983 , apj , 266 , 502    zisik , m.  n.  1993 , heat conduction ( new york : wiley )    poon , m.  y. , & merritt , d.  2001 , apj , 549 , 192    preto , m. , merritt , d. , & spurzem , r.  2004 , apjl , 613 , l109    rauch , k. & tremaine , s.  1996 , new astron .
, 1 , 149    richstone , d.  1982 , apj , 252 , 496    rosenbluth , m. , macdonald , w. , & judd , d.  1957 , phys.rev . , 107 , 1    saaf , a.  f.  1968 , apj , 154 , 483    sambhus , n. & sridhar , s.  2000 , apj , 542 , 143    schwarzschild , m.  1979 , apj , 232 , 236    shapiro , s. , & marchant , a.  1978 , apj , 225 , 603    sirota , v. , ilyin , a. , zybin , k. , & gurevich , a.  2005 , jetp , 100 , 294    sridhar , s. & touma , j.  1997 , mnras , 287 , l1    sridhar , s. & touma , j.  1999 , mnras , 303 , 483    stone , n. , sari , r. , & loeb , a. ,  2013 , mnras ( in press )    strubbe , l. & quataert , e.  2009 , mnras , 400 , 2070    syer , d. , & ulmer , a.  1999 , mnras , 306 , 35    tremaine , s. , gebhardt , k. , bender , r. , et al .  2002 , apj , 574 , 740    van velzen , s. , farrar , g.  2012 , epj web of conferences , 39 , 08002    vasiliev , e.  2013 , mnras , accepted    wang , j. , & merritt , d.  2004 , apj , 600 , 149    will , c.  2012 , classical and quantum gravity , 29 , 217001
we discuss briefly the character of the motion in axisymmetric nuclei when the lowest - order post - newtonian ( pn ) corrections are included in the equations of motion .
the 1pn accelerations imply an orbit - averaged rate of of periapsis advance @xmath490 ( * ? ? ?
* equation  ( 4.205 ) ) .
the other elements of the osculating orbit exibit no secular variations at this pn order , and we ignore rotation of the sbh . expressed in terms of the dimensionless time variable @xmath63 defined in equation  ( [ eq_motion ] ) , the relativistic precession rate becomes @xmath491 which can be added to the orbit - averaged equation of motion for @xmath46 , equation  ( [ eq_motion ] ) . setting @xmath467 ( @xmath492 ) in the hamiltonian ( [ eq_happrox ] ) ,
the two nontrivial equations of motion become    [ eq : dwdldtgr ] @xmath493 .
\label{eq_dwdldtgrb}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    if there is a fixed point , its angular momentum can be found by setting @xmath494 when @xmath100 , or @xmath495 as @xmath496 is increased from zero , the value of @xmath497 at the fixed point increases , reaching @xmath498 when @xmath499 for @xmath500 all orbits are tubes . for @xmath501 , where @xmath502 there is one family of tubes , passing below the fixed point in the @xmath503 plane , and a family of saucer - like orbits that librate around the fixed point . for @xmath504 , the separatrix encloses the fixed point and there are two families of tubes , at low and high angular momenta . in the latter case ,
the angular momentum associated with the separatrix at @xmath47 can be found by setting @xmath494 in equation  ( [ eq_dwdldtgrb ] ) : @xmath505    @xmath506{fig_grorbits.eps}\ ] ]    since @xmath507 , saucer - like orbits are present only when @xmath508    even when saucers are present , their angular momentum variations are limited by the relativistic term
. a rough lower limit on the attainable angular momentum for saucers can be derived by equating the change in @xmath497 due to the torques over one gr precessional period to @xmath497 : @xmath509 which yields @xmath510    figure  [ fig_grorbits ] shows numerical solutions of the equations of motion ( [ eq : dwdldtgr ] ) for @xmath511 and @xmath512 ; the nuclear flattening parameter has the same value as in figure 2 .
the neglect of gr precession on the evolution of saucer orbits is justified if @xmath513 where the latter inequality expresses the fact that @xmath514 for direct captures and larger than that for tidal disruptions . requiring that @xmath515 and using equations ( [ eq_rinfl ] , [ eq_kappa ] , [ eq_ellmingr ] )
, we obtain    [ eq_grcondition2 ] @xmath516    where the second line approximates @xmath333 .
this is essentially the same condition that was obtained in @xcite for capture of pyramid orbits . since the quantity in the brackets is likely to be small ( unless @xmath517 is tiny ) , and because most of the flux into the sbh  comes from orbits with @xmath518 , equation ( [ eq_grcondition2 ] ) suggests that relativity is not likely to be important for the total capture rate .
here we give the exact expression for the orbit - averaged hamiltonian corresponding to the potential of equation  ( [ eq_modelrhophi ] ) .
it is convenient to express @xmath71 and @xmath1 in terms of eccentric anomaly @xmath456 rather than mean anomaly @xmath45 ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* eq.1 ) : @xmath519 \;,\;\ ; e \equiv \sqrt{1-\ell^2 } .\ ] ] then @xmath520 where @xmath521 is expressed in terms of gauss hypergeometric function : @xmath522 @xmath523 \frac{\ell^2}{2 } \right\ }      \left(1-\frac{\ell_z^2}{\ell^2}\right ) .\ ] ]
motion in the hierarchical three - body problem is often derived from a doubly - averaged hamiltonian after expressing the equations of motion in jacobi coordinates and retaining only the lowest - order ( quadrupole ) term in the perturbation potential .
the `` inner restricted problem '' @xcite assumes furthermore that the test mass orbits well inside the perturber mass .
the averaged hamiltonian describing the test particle , with an appropriately chosen unit of time , is @xmath524\ ] ] ( merritt 2013 , equation 4.315 ) which may be obtained from equation  [ eq_hamiltonian_approx ] by setting @xmath525 and eliminating unity in the first bracket of the first term ( equivalent to taking the limit @xmath526 , eliminating terms that do not contain @xmath125 and normalizing the unit of time to @xmath125 ) .
equation  ( [ eq_calhb ] ) then yields a value of @xmath527 for the parameter @xmath123 . as in the axisymmetric problem , motion in the lidov - kozai problem
also exhibits two regimes : circulation in @xmath46 ( corresponding to tube orbits ) or libration about @xmath100 ( analogous to saucers ) , the latter appearing for @xmath528 .
the equation of motion for @xmath78 ( [ eq_dcalrdtau ] ) is @xmath529 with the same relation between @xmath530 as in equation  ( [ eq_rminmax ] ) :    @xmath531    the case of circulation corresponds to @xmath532 , and libration to @xmath533 ; in the latter case the relation between minimum and maximum values of @xmath78 is the same as in equation  ( [ eq_rminmax_saucer ] ) , from which it follows that the librating regime exists for @xmath534 .
the separatrix between `` tubes '' and `` saucers '' is at @xmath535 and the fixed - point saucer has @xmath536 . for comparison , in the oblate axisymmetric potential
considered throughout this paper , the first regime ( tube orbits ) has @xmath537 and the second ( saucers ) has @xmath538 .
beyond the influence sphere , orbits similar to the saucers can still exist in axisymmetric potentials @xcite , but they are not describable in terms of osculating keplerian elements . typically such orbits are described as tube orbits that lie close to a resonance between the radial and vertical motions . to make the correspondence with our work more clear , we recast the fixed - point saucer orbit near a sbh  in terms of the cartesian variables ( @xmath539 ) , i.e. cylindrical coordinates in the meridional plane .
setting @xmath100 in equation ( a1 ) yields for the fixed - point orbit that generates the saucers @xmath540 where it is understood that @xmath541 and @xmath542 have their fixed - point values : @xmath543 equation ( [ eq_meridional_fp ] ) is a hyperbola in the ( @xmath160 ) plane , between the points @xmath544 the curve crosses the equatorial plane at @xmath545 , the semi - latus rectum .
when the fixed - point saucer orbit first appears , at @xmath546 , it lies in the equatorial plane ( @xmath547 ) and has zero vertical thickness . for @xmath75 values smaller than this maximum
, the trajectory ( [ eq_meridional_fp ] ) can be interpreted as a @xmath548 resonance between motions in the @xmath446 and @xmath1 directions .    described in this way
, saucer orbits near a sbh  are seen to have very similar properties to orbits described by other authors in more general axisymmetric potentials .
@xcite studied orbits in scale - free axisymmetric models with logarithmic potentials , @xmath549 and no central sbh . for models with density axis ratio @xmath550 , they found that saucers first appear at @xmath551 ; for smaller @xmath75 the fixed - point orbit ( which they called a `` reflected banana '' ) traces a path in the ( @xmath160 ) plane similar to equation ( [ eq_meridional_fp ] ) .
they noted that motion near the fixed - point orbit is regular , i.e. non - chaotic .
similar orbits were described by @xcite ( who called them `` pipe orbits '' ) and @xcite in surveys of orbits in other scale - free families of oblate models .
here we present the local ( position - dependent ) diffusion coefficients appearing in equation  ( [ eq_fplocal ] ) , expressed in the spherical coordinates @xmath552 and generalized velocities @xmath553 , @xmath554 , @xmath555 .
we denote @xmath556 , @xmath557 , @xmath558 .
@xmath559    these coefficients have been expressed in terms of velocity diffusion coefficients for @xmath145 via integrals of the distribution function @xmath560 describing the field stars ( of mass @xmath173 ) using the relative potential @xmath561 : @xmath562 where @xmath563 when making comparisons with the relaxation rates measured from @xmath5-body simulations we averaged the diffusion coefficients over the subspace @xmath564 : @xmath565
although we discuss the two - dimensional fokker - planck equation in the @xmath341 plane throughout the paper , it is more convenient to obtain the numerical solution using a different set of coordinates , for which we have implemented two variants : @xmath566 and @xmath567 , where @xmath568 the lines of constant @xmath569 are diagonal lines in the @xmath341 plane , parallel to the capture boundary in the tube ( @xmath570 ) region , and lines of constant @xmath571 or @xmath572 are also straight lines in that plane , designed in such a way that the capture boundary in the saucer region ( @xmath570 ) has @xmath573 or @xmath574 .
this facilitates setting boundary conditions on these capture boundaries which are parallel to coordinate axes .
we used both coordinate sets to cross - check the results .