Appendix/Ramblings/BiPolytrope51AnalyticStability

From jetwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Marginally Unstable (nc,ne) = (5,1) Bipolytropes

This Ramblings Appendix chapter provides some detailed trial derivations — mostly blind alleyways — in support of the accompanying, thorough discussion of this topic.

Fundamental Modes

We decided to examine, first, whether any model along each sequence marks a transition from dynamically stable to dynamically unstable configurations. We accomplished this by setting σc2 = 0, then integrating the relevant LAWE from the center toward the surface for many different guesses of the core-envelope interface radius until an eigenfunction with no radial nodes — i.e., an eigenfunction associated with the fundamental mode of radial oscillation — was found whose behavior at the surface matched with high precision the physically desired surface boundary condition. We were successful in this endeavor. A marginally unstable model was identified on each of the six separate equilibrium sequences.

Equilibrium Properties of Marginally Unstable Models

Table 2 summarizes some of the equilibrium properties of these six models. For example, the second column of the table gives the value of the core-envelope interface radius, ξi, associated with each marginally unstable model. The table also lists: the value of the model's dimensionless radius, Rsurf*, the key structural parameters, q & ν, and the central-to-mean density associated with each model; and in each case the dimensionless thermal energy (𝔰) and dimensionless gravitational potential energy (𝔴) associated, separately, with the core and the envelope. Note that, once the pair of parameters, (μe/μc,ξi), has been specified, we can legitimately assign high-precision values to all of the other model parameters because they are analytically prescribed.

Table 2: Properties of Marginally Unstable Bipolytropes Having

(nc,ne)=(5,1) and (γc,γe)=(65,2)

Determined from Integration of the LAWE

μeμc ξi Rsurf* q≡rcoreRsurf ν≡McoreMtot ρcρ¯ 𝔰core 𝔴core 𝔰env 𝔴env
1 1.6686460157 2.139737 0.53885819 0.497747626 8.51704656 3.021916335 -3.356583022 1.47780476 -5.642859167
12 2.27925811317 5.146499 0.306021732 0.401776274 63.29514949 4.241287117 -6.074241035 4.284931508 -10.97819621
0.345 2.560146865247 9.554041 0.185160563 0.234302525 209.7739052 4.639705843 -7.125754184 11.72861751 -25.61089252
13 2.582007485476 10.120558 0.176288391 0.218241608 230.4125398 4.667042505 -7.200966267 13.15887139 -28.45086152
0.309 2.6274239687695 11.464303 0.158362807 0.184796947 279.0788798 4.722277318 -7.354156963 17.1374434 -36.36528446
14 2.7357711469398 15.895632 0.118924863 0.11071211 430.0444648 4.84592201 -7.70305421 37.84289623 -77.67458196


As was expected from our above discussion of virial equilibrium conditions, we found that to high precision for each of these equilibrium models,

(𝔴core+𝔴env)+2(𝔰core+𝔰env)

=

0.

However, contrary to expectations, in no case did we find that 𝔰core/𝔰env=5. That is to say, we found that none of the models lies on the (red-dashed) curve in the q−ν parameter space that separates stable from unstable models as defined by our above free-energy-based stability analysis. The left-hand panel of Figure 4 shows this (red-dashed) demarcation curve; for all intents and purposes, it is a reproduction of the right-hand panel of Figure 3, above — turning-point markers have been removed to minimize clutter, the equilibrium sequences have been labeled, and the horizontal axis has been extended to unity in order to include a longer portion of the μe/μc=1 sequence. The orange triangular markers that appear in the right-hand panel of Figure 4 pinpoint where each of the Table 2 "marginally unstable" models resides in this q−ν plane. Clearly, all six of the orange triangles lie well off of — and to the stable side of — the red-dashed demarcation curve. This discrepancy, which has resulted from our use of two separate approaches to stability analysis, will be discussed further and gratifyingly resolved, below.

Figure 4
Marginally unstable models

Eigenfunction Details

Here we examine some of the properties of the fundamental-mode eigenfunctions that we have found are associated with marginally unstable, (nc,ne)=(5,1) bipolytropes.

Figure 5

Example eigenvector

Consider the model on the μe/μc=1 sequence for which σc2=0; key properties of this specific equilibrium model are enumerated in the first row of numbers provided in Table 2, above. Figure 5 shows how our numerically derived, fundamental-mode eigenfunction, x=δr/r0, varies with the fractional radius over the entire range, 0≤r/R≤1. By prescription, the eigenfunction has a value of unity and a slope of zero at the center (r/R=0). Integrating the LAWE outward from the center, through the model's core (blue curve segment), x drops smoothly to the value xi=0.81437 at the interface (ξi=1.6686460157⇒q=rcore/Rsurf=0.53885819). Our numerical integration of the LAWE showed that, at the interface, the logarithmic slope of the core (blue) segment of the eigenfunction is,

{dln⁡xdln⁡r|i}core={dln⁡xdln⁡ξ|i}core

=

−0.455872.

Next, following the above discussion of matching conditions at the interface, we determined that, from the perspective of the envelope, the slope of the eigenfunction at the interface must therefore be,

{dln⁡xdln⁡r|i}env={dln⁡xdln⁡η|i}env

=

3(γcγe−1)+γcγe{dln⁡xdln⁡ξ|i}core=−1.47352.

Adopting this "env" slope along with the amplitude, xi=0.81437, as the appropriate interface boundary conditions, we integrated the LAWE from the interface to the surface, obtaining the green-colored segment of the eigenfunction that is shown in Figure 5. The amplitude continued to steadily decrease, reaching a value of xs=0.38203, at the model's surface (r/R=1). At the surface, this envelope (green) segment of the eigenfunction exhibits a logarithmic slope that matches to eight significant digits the value that is expected from astrophysical arguments for this marginally unstable (σc2=0) model, namely,

dln⁡xdln⁡η|s=[(ρcρ¯)σc202γe−(3−4γe)]=−1.


Key Reminder: We were able to find an eigenfunction whose surface boundary condition matched the desired value — in this particular case, a logarithmic slope of negative one — to this high level of precision only by iterating many times and, at each step, fine-tuning our choice of the equilibrium model's radial interface location, ξi before performing a numerical integration of the LAWE.


The discontinuous jump that occurs in the slope of the eigenfunction at the interface results from our assumption that the effective adiabatic index of material in the core (γc=6/5) is different from the effective adiabatic index of the envelope material (γe=2). In an effort to emphasize and more clearly illustrate the behavior of this fundamental-mode eigenfunction as it crosses the core/envelope interface, we have added a pair of dashed line segments to the Figure 5 plot. The red-dashed line segment touches, and is tangent to, the blue segment of the eigenfunction at the location of the core/envelope interface; it has a slope,

dxd(r/R)|i=xi(ri/R){dln⁡xdln⁡r|i}core

=

−0.455872(0.814370.53885819)=−0.68895.

On the other hand, the purple-dashed line segment touches, and is tangent to, the green segment of the eigenfunction at the location of the core/envelope interface; it has a slope,

dxd(r/R)|i=xi(ri/R){dln⁡xdln⁡r|i}env

=

−1.47352(0.814370.53885819)=−2.22691.

For comparison purposes, the eigenfunction shown in Figure 5 has been presented again in Figure 6, along with several other of our numerically derived eigenfunctions, but in Figure 6 the plotted amplitude has been renormalized to give a surface value — rather than a central value — of unity.


In Figure 6 we show the behavior of the fundamental-mode eigenfunction for each of the marginally unstable models identified in Table 2. In the top figure panel, each curve shows — on a linear-linear plot — how the amplitude varies with radius; in the bottom figure panel, the amplitude is plotted on a logarithmic scale. On each curve, the black plus sign marks the radial location of the core-envelope interface; in the bottom panel, these markers are accompanied by the values of ξi that are associated with each corresponding model (see also the second column of Table 2). Each eigenfunction has been normalized such that the surface amplitude is unity. In the top panel, the value of the central amplitude of the eigenfunction that results from this normalization is recorded near the point where each eigenfunction touches the vertical axis. (In each case, the value provided on the plot is simply the inverse of the value of xs given in Table 3, below.)

Figure 6: Eigenfunctions Associated with the Fundamental-Mode of Radial Oscillation
in Marginally Unstable Models having Various μe/μc

Eigenfunctions for Marginally Unstable Models

Notice that, especially as they approach the surface, the "envelope" segments of these six marginally unstable eigenfunction appear to merge into the same curve, irrespective of their value of the ratio of mean molecular weights. Note as well that the discontinuous jump that occurs in the slope of each eigenfunction at the radial location of the core/envelope interface — resulting from our choice to adopt a different adiabatic index, γg, in the core from the one in the envelope — becomes less and less noticeable for smaller and smaller values of the ratio of mean molecular weights.

Is There an Analytic Expression for the Eigenfunction?

After noticing that, in Figure 6, the envelope segments of all of the marginally unstable eigenfunctions merge into the same curve, we began to wonder whether a single expression — and, even better, an analytically defined expression — would perfectly describe the eigenfunction. We had reason to believe that this might actually be possible because, in pressure-truncated polytropic configurations, we have derived analytic expressions for the marginally unstable, fundamental-mode eigenfunctions of both n=5 and n=1 systems.

Very quickly, we convinced ourselves that a parabolic function does indeed perfectly match the "core" segment of each displayed eigenfunction. Specifically, throughout the core (0≤ξ≤ξi),

xP|core

≡

1−ξ215

⇒dxPdξ|core

≡

−2ξ15

⇒dln⁡xPdln⁡ξ|core

≡

−2ξ215[(15−ξ2)15]−1=−2ξ2(15−ξ2).


The envelope segment posed a much greater challenge.


Attempt 1

Building on our accompanying discussion of Pressure-Truncated Configurations Having a Polytropic Index less than Three — see, for example, a relevant succinct demonstration — a promising analytic expression is,

xP|env

=

bη2[1−ηcot⁡(η−C)],

where the values of the pair of coefficients, b and C, is to be determined. Most likely, we should set C=B.

Focusing on the case of μe/μc=1, γc=6/5, and γe=2, here are some parameters that we think we know.

Relevant Parameters for
Marginally Unstable Model (Ω2=0)
with μe/μc=1 and (γc,γe)=(65,2)
ξi   numerically
determined
≈ 1.6686460157
xi ≡ 1−ξi215 = 0.814374699
[dln⁡xdln⁡ξ]i ≡ −2ξi2(15−ξi2) = -0.455871976
ηi ≡ (μeμc)3ξi[1+ξi23]−1 = 1.498957494
B ≡ ηi−π2+tan−1[1ηi−ξi3] = - 0.359863579
ηs ≡ π+B = 2.781729075
[dln⁡xdln⁡η]i ≡ 3(γcγe−1)+γcγe[dln⁡xdln⁡ξ]i = -1.473523186
αe ≡ 3−4γe = + 1
[dln⁡xdln⁡η]surf ≡ Ω20γe−αe = - 1
b ≡ 35(μeμc)[15−ξi23+ξi2] = 1.26097406

Notice that,

cot⁡(ηi−B)

=

tan⁡[π2−(ηi−B)]

=

[1ηi−ξi3]

⇒ηicot⁡(ηi−B)

=

[1−ξiηi3]

 

=

1−ξi2(μeμc)[1+ξi23]−1

 

=

1−(μeμc)[3ξi23+ξi2].

So if we adopt the expression for xP as given above (with C = B), then we can evaluate the leading b factor by examining the function at the interface, that is,

b

=

xiηi2[1−ηicot⁡(ηi−B)]−1

 

=

xiηi2[ξiηi3]−1

 

=

ηi[3ξi]xi

 

=

(μeμc)3ξi[1+ξi23]−1[3ξi][1−ξi215]

 

=

3(μeμc)[33+ξi2][15−ξi215]

 

=

35(μeμc)[15−ξi23+ξi2].

Figure 7: Analytic Trial
First Analytic Trial

An even clearer way of looking at this is to realize that, quite generally,

(η−B)

=

η−ηi+π2−tan−1f,

where,

f

≡

1ηi−ξi3.

Hence, we can write,

cot⁡(η−B)

=

tan⁡[π2−(η−B)]

 

=

tan⁡[(ηi−η)+tan⁡−1f]

 

=

tan⁡(ηi−η)+f1−ftan⁡(ηi−η).

As a result, we can rewrite the expression for our guess of the envelope segment of the eigenfunction in the form,

xP|env

=

bη2{1−η[tan⁡(ηi−η)+f1−ftan⁡(ηi−η)]}.

This blows up when η→ηs because, as it turns out, f=1/tan⁡(ηi−ηs). We should point out, as well, that the expression for b can be rewritten in the form,

b

=

ηi2(xP)i(1−ηif).

In Figure7 we have reprinted the numerically determined fundamental-mode eigenfunction that was first displayed in Figure 5, above. We have added to this plot the eigenfunction segments that are defined by our trial analytic functions: The core segment, xP|core, matches the numerically determined segment with sufficient precision that the two curve segments are indiscernible from one another. However, our analytically defined "env" segment, xP|env — identified in Figure 7 by the solid black, small circular markers — does not match the numerically determined envelope segment at all. We therefore have more work to do!

Attempt 2

Using an Excel spreadsheet as a sandbox, we employed crude, brute force iterations in an effort to fit the numerically constructed envelope eigenfunction. Here is a trial function that works pretty well. Using ηF to represent the envelope's dimensionless radial coordinate, over the range,

ηi≤ηF≤ηs,

and defining the parameter,

gF

≡

π8(ηs−ηi),

Limiting Parameter Values
  min max α=αs
ηF ηi ηs 8π(ηs−ηi)2+2ηs−ηi
α −π2 −5π8 ηi−ηs−3π4
Λ ηi−π4 ηi−π8 ηs

we propose,

xtrial

=

b0Λ2{1−Λ[tan⁡(α)+fα1−fα⋅tan⁡(α)]}−a0,

where,

1fα=tan⁡(αs)

≡

tan⁡[−(ηs−ηi+3π4)],

α(ηF)

≡

gF[5ηi−4ηs−ηF],

Λ(ηF)

≡

ηi+gF[ηi−2ηs+ηF].

Figure 8: Another Analytic Trial
Second Analytic Trial

This function, xtrial, is displayed as the black-dotted curve segment in Figure 8 with the tuning/scaling parameters set to the values, (a0,b0)=(0.31,0.96). We should point out that, when plotting this curve segment in Figure 8, the dimensionless radial coordinate has been defined by the relation, r*/R*=ηF/ηs.

[16 February 2019: Comment by Tohline] When assessed visually, this trial function appears to match pretty well the numerically derived eigenfunction for the envelope. We have not yet critically assessed whether or not the function satisfies the LAWE or whether it satisfies either one (or both) of the required boundary values. This work is still to be done.

A couple of days after inserting this Comment, we recognized for the first time that, quite generally,

α

=

ηi−(Λ+3π4).

Hence, the parameter, α, can be straightforwardly removed from the expression for the trial eigenfunction to give,

xtrial

=

b0Λ2{1−Λ[tan⁡(ηi−Λ−3π/4)+fα1−fα⋅tan⁡(ηi−Λ−3π/4)]}−a0.


Drawing from our accompanying discussion of pressure-truncated polytropes, we need the eigenfunction to satisfy the,

Polytropic LAWE (linear adiabatic wave equation)

0=d2xdξ2+[4−(n+1)Q]1ξ⋅dxdξ+(n+1)[(σc26γg)ξ2θ−αQ]xξ2

where:    Q(ξ)≡−dln⁡θdln⁡ξ,    σc2≡3ω22πGρc,     and,     α≡(3−4γg)

(Note that, in order to bring the notation of this Key Equation in line with the notation used elsewhere in this chapter, we will hereafter adopt the variable mapping ξ→η and θ→ϕ.) Here we are especially focused on finding a solution in the case where σc2=0 and n=1, that is — see also our above discussion — the relevant envelope LAWE is,

0

=

d2xdη2+[2−Q]2η⋅dxdη−2αgQ⋅xη2,

where, drawing from our discussion of the n = 1 envelope's equilibrium structure,

Q

=

[−dln⁡ϕdln⁡η]n=1=−ηϕ[dϕdη]n=1

=

−[1sin⁡(η−B)][ηcos⁡(η−B)−sin⁡(η−B)]

=

[1−ηcot⁡(η−B)].

In an accompanying discussion — see also a short summary of the same — we have shown that an analytically specified displacement function that precisely satisfies this LAWE for pressure-truncated configurations (i.e., when B = 0) is,

xP|n=1

=

3η2[1−ηcot⁡η].

In still another related discussion, we have attempted to construct an analytic eigenfunction expression that satisfies the LAWE when B≠0.

Attempt 3
Straightforward Trial

Let's adopt a trial eigenfunction of the form

xtrial

=

b0Λ2[1−Λcot⁡(Λ−E)]−a0,

where,

Λ

=

Λ0+gFη.

NOTE:  We can retrieve the empirical expression for xtrial obtained above in Attempt 2 if we eventually set,

Λ0

=

ηi+gF(ηi−2ηs)

gF

=

π8(ηs−ηi),       and,

E

=

ηi−5π4+tan−1fα.

The last of these expressions arises because,

cot⁡(Λ−E)

=

tan⁡[π2−(Λ−E)]

 

=

tan⁡[π2−Λ+ηi−5π4+tan⁡−1fα]

 

=

tan⁡[(ηi−Λ−3π4)+tan⁡−1fα]

 

=

tan⁡(ηi−Λ−3π4)+fα1−fαtan⁡(ηi−Λ−3π4).


Because the LAWE requires derivatives of xtrial with respect to η, we will often need to recognize that,

ddη

=

dΛdη⋅ddΛ=gF⋅ddΛ.

Hence, in particular,

ddη[cot⁡(Λ−E)]

=

−gF[1+cot2(Λ−E)].

The first derivative gives,

ddη[xtrial]

=

ddη{b0Λ2[1−Λcot⁡(Λ−E)]−a0}

 

=

−2b0gFΛ3[1−Λcot⁡(Λ−E)]+b0Λ2[−gFcot⁡(Λ−E)]+b0Λ2[gFΛ[1+cot⁡2(Λ−E)]]

 

=

gFb0{−2Λ3[1−Λcot⁡(Λ−E)]−1Λ2[cot⁡(Λ−E)]+1Λ[1+cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}

 

=

gFb0{1Λ−2Λ3+1Λ2[cot⁡(Λ−E)]+1Λ[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}.

The second derivative gives,

1gFb0⋅d2dη2[xtrial]

=

ddη{1Λ−2Λ3+1Λ2[cot⁡(Λ−E)]+1Λ[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}

 

=

−gFΛ2+6gFΛ4−2gFΛ3[cot⁡(Λ−E)]−gFΛ2[1+cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−gFΛ2[cot2(Λ−E)]−2gFΛ[cot⁡(Λ−E)][1+cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

⇒1gF2b0⋅d2dη2[xtrial]

=

−1Λ2+6Λ4−2Λ3[cot⁡(Λ−E)]−1Λ2−1Λ2[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−1Λ2[cot2(Λ−E)]−2Λ[cot⁡(Λ−E)+cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

=

−1Λ2−1Λ2+6Λ4−2Λ3[cot⁡(Λ−E)]−2Λ[cot⁡(Λ−E)]

 

 

−1Λ2[cot2(Λ−E)]−1Λ2[cot2(Λ−E)]−2Λ[cot3(Λ−E)]

 

=

−2Λ2+6Λ4−[2Λ3+2Λ][cot⁡(Λ−E)]−2Λ2[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]−2Λ[cot⁡3(Λ−E)].

So, appreciating that, η=(Λ−Λ0)/gF, and dividing the relevant LAWE through by b0gF2, we have,

1b0gF2⋅0

=

1b0gF2⋅d2xtrialdη2+1b0gF2[2−Q]2gF(Λ−Λ0)⋅dxtrialdη−2Qb0gF2⋅gF2xtrial(Λ−Λ0)2

 

=

1(Λ−Λ0)2{(Λ−Λ0)2b0gF2⋅d2xdη2+(Λ−Λ0)b0gF[2−Q]dxdη−2Qb0⋅x}

⇒(Λ−Λ0)2b0gF2⋅0

=

(Λ−Λ0)2{1b0gF2⋅d2xdη2}+(Λ−Λ0)[4−2Q]{1b0gFdxdη}−2Q{xb0}

 

=

(Λ−Λ0)2{−2Λ2+6Λ4−[2Λ3+2Λ][cot⁡(Λ−E)]−2Λ2[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]−2Λ[cot⁡3(Λ−E)]}

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0)[4−2Q]{1Λ−2Λ3+1Λ2[cot⁡(Λ−E)]+1Λ[cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}

 

 

−2Q{1Λ2[1−Λcot⁡(Λ−E)]−a0b0}

⇒Λ4(Λ−Λ0)2b0gF2⋅0

=

(Λ−Λ0)2{(6−2Λ2)−(2Λ+2Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−2Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−2Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0)(4−2Q){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−2Q{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

⇒Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)(Λ−Λ0)−(Λ+Λ3)(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0){2Λ3−4Λ+2Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q{Λ3(Λ−Λ0)−2Λ(Λ−Λ0)+Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}.


The right-hand-side of this expression should simplify considerably if we let E→B, if we set (gF,Λ0)=(1,0)⇒Λ=η, and if (a0,b0)=(0,3). Let's see.

RHS

=

Λ{(3−Λ2)Λ−(Λ+Λ3)Λcot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)+2Λ3−4Λ+2Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q{Λ4−2Λ2+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)+Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)}

 

=

Λ{(−Λ+Λ3)+(Λ2−Λ4)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)−Λ3+Λ−Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

+Λcot⁡(λ−E){Λ4−2Λ2+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)+Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)}

 

=

Λ{(Λ2−Λ4)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)}+Λcot⁡(λ−E){Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

=

0.

EXCELLENT !!


Let's return to the more general expression and see if it can be simplified.

Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

Λ(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+Λ(Λ−Λ0){2Λ2−4+2Λcot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q(Λ−Λ0){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}−Q{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

=

Λ(Λ−Λ0){(Λ2−1)+(Λ−Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}−Λ(Λ−Λ0){Λ2−2+Λcot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}−{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)(Λ−Λ0){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}+ηcot⁡(η−B){Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

=

Λ(Λ−Λ0){1−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}−{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)(Λ−Λ0){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}+ηcot⁡(η−B){Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

Simplifying again produces,

RHS

=

Λ2{1−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}−{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)}

 

 

+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}+Λcot⁡(Λ−E){Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)}

 

=

Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)

 

 

+Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)−2Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)+Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)

 

=

0.

EXCELLENT !! Keep trying to simplify the more general expression …


Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

{Λ2−Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)−Λ2+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+(a0b0)Λ4}−Λ0{Λ−Λ4cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)(Λ){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}+ηcot⁡(η−B){Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

 

−ηcot⁡(η−B)(Λ0){Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

=

[Λ2−Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)−Λ2+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+(a0b0)Λ4]

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)[Λ4−2Λ2+Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)+Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4]

 

 

−Λ0{(Λ−Λ0)[(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)]+[Λ−Λ4cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)[Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}

 

=

[(a0b0)Λ4+(Λ3−Λ5)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]+ηcot⁡(η−B)[(1−a0b0)Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−Λ0{(Λ−Λ0)[(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)]+[Λ−Λ4cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

+ηcot⁡(η−B)[Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)]}.


Simplify again …

RHS

=

[(a0b0)Λ4+(Λ3−Λ5)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]+ηcot⁡(η−B)[(1−a0b0)Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

=

[(a0b0)Λ4+(Λ3−Λ5)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]+[(Λ5−Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

=

(a0b0)[Λ4−Λ5cot⁡(Λ−E)].

First Argument Relationships Guess

Let's try the relationship,

(η−B)

=

m(Λ−E).

Then, for example, if m=2, we can make the replacement,

cot⁡(η−B)=cot⁡[2(Λ−E)]=cot2(Λ−E)−12cot⁡(Λ−E).

And, alternatively, if m=3, we can make the replacement,

cot⁡(η−B)=cot⁡[3(Λ−E)]=cot3(Λ−E)−3cot⁡(Λ−E)3cot2(Λ−E)−1.


IMPLICATIONS

Given that we also are assuming the relationship,

η

=

1gF(Λ−Λ0),

we have,

mΛ−η

=

mE−B

⇒mΛ−1gF(Λ−Λ0)

=

mE−B

⇒Λ[m−1gF]

=

mE−B−Λ0gF.

In order for this statement to be true for all Λ, the RHS and the LHS must independently be zero. Hence, we require,

gF=1m       and      Λ0=E−Bm.

Let's try m=2:

2cot⁡(Λ−E)⋅Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

2cot⁡(Λ−E)[(a0b0)Λ4+(Λ3−Λ5)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

+2(Λ−Λ0)[cot2(Λ−E)−1][(1−a0b0)Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−Λ0{2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)[(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

+2(Λ−Λ0)[cot2(Λ−E)−1][Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

 

+2cot⁡(Λ−E)[Λ−Λ4cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)]}

⇒cot⁡(Λ−E)⋅Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

 

 

+Λ0(Λ−Λ0)[Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−(Λ−Λ0)[(1−a0b0)Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot2(Λ−E)]

 

 

cot⁡(Λ−E)[(a0b0)Λ4+(Λ3−Λ5)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ5cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)[(3−Λ2)−(Λ+Λ3)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

−Λ0cot⁡(Λ−E)[Λ−Λ4cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ4cot⁡3(Λ−E)]

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0)cot2(Λ−E)[(1−a0b0)Λ4−Λ2+Λ4cot2(Λ−E)]

 

 

−Λ0(Λ−Λ0)cot2(Λ−E)[Λ3−2Λ+Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)]

Second Argument Relationships Guess

Let's go back up to the general expression,

⇒Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)(Λ−Λ0)−(Λ+Λ3)(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0){2Λ3−4Λ+2Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q{Λ3(Λ−Λ0)−2Λ(Λ−Λ0)+Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−Q{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4},

where,

Q

=

[1−ηcot⁡(η−B)].

 

=

1−[(Λ−Λ0)gF]cot⁡[(Λ−Λ0)/gF−B].

Then, let's try setting,

cot⁡[(Λ−Λ0)/gF−B]

=

tan⁡(Λ−E)

⇒cot⁡{π2−[π2+B−(Λ−Λ0)/gF]}

=

tan⁡(Λ−E)

⇒π2+B−(Λ−Λ0)gF

=

Λ−E.

This will only work for all Λ if, gF=−1; in which case,

π2+B+(Λ−Λ0)

=

Λ−E

⇒E

=

Λ0−π2−B.

Hence, we have,

Q

=

1+(Λ−Λ0)tan⁡(Λ−E)

⇒Qcot⁡(Λ−E)

=

cot⁡(Λ−E)+(Λ−Λ0).

This means that,

cot⁡(Λ−E)⋅Λ4(Λ−Λ0)22b0gF2⋅0

=

cot⁡(Λ−E)(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)(Λ−Λ0)−(Λ+Λ3)(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)−Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

+cot⁡(Λ−E)(Λ−Λ0){2Λ3−4Λ+2Λ2cot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ3cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−[cot⁡(Λ−E)+(Λ−Λ0)]{Λ3(Λ−Λ0)−2Λ(Λ−Λ0)+Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−[cot⁡(Λ−E)+(Λ−Λ0)]{Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

=

(Λ−Λ0){(3−Λ2)(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)−(Λ+Λ3)(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)−Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡3(Λ−E)−Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡4(Λ−E)}

 

 

+(Λ−Λ0){2Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−4Λcot⁡(Λ−E)+2Λ2cot⁡2(Λ−E)+2Λ3cot⁡3(Λ−E)}

 

 

−(Λ−Λ0){Λ3(Λ−Λ0)−2Λ(Λ−Λ0)+Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)}

 

 

−(Λ−Λ0){Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}

 

 

−[cot⁡(Λ−E)]{Λ3(Λ−Λ0)−2Λ(Λ−Λ0)+Λ2(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡(Λ−E)+Λ3(Λ−Λ0)cot⁡2(Λ−E)+Λ2−Λ3cot⁡(Λ−E)−(a0b0)Λ4}.

Attempt 4A

Try, the structural function,

θ

=

1ξ[Asin⁡ξ−Bcos⁡ξ]

=

a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0),

where, recognizing that, f≡B/A,

a0≡A1+f2

      and      

b0≡tan−1f.

Does this structural function satisfy the Lane-Emden equation, namely …

ξ2d2θdξ2+2ξdθdξ+ξ2θ

=

0.

First, recognize that,

dθdξ

=

a0ξ⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0),

and,

d2θdξ2

=

−a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)+2a0ξ3⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0).

Hence,

ξ2d2θdξ2+2ξdθdξ+ξ2θ

=

ξ2{−a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)+2a0ξ3⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)}+2ξ{a0ξ⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)−a0ξ2⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)}+ξ2{a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)}

 

=

{−a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)−2a0⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)+2a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)}+{2a0⋅cos⁡(ξ−b0)−2a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)}+a0ξ⋅sin⁡(ξ−b0)

 

=

0.

Good!

Attempt 4B

Let's continue with the same 4A approach, but shift to the variable notation that we have used in the accompanying description of how to build an equilibrium, (nc, ne) = (5, 1) bipolytrope. For example, the envelope's structural function will be referred to as ϕ(η) instead of θ(ξ). Specifically, we have,

ϕ

=

a0[sin⁡(η−b0)η],

and,

dϕdη

=

a0η2[ηcos⁡(η−b0)−sin⁡(η−b0)],

and,

d2ϕdη2

=

−a0η⋅sin⁡(η−b0)−2a0η2⋅cos⁡(η−b0)+2a0η3⋅sin⁡(η−b0).

This satisfies the Lane-Emden equation for any values of the parameter pair, a0 and b0. Note that,

Q≡−dln⁡ϕdln⁡η

=

a0η2[sin⁡(η−b0)−ηcos⁡(η−b0)]⋅ηϕ

 

=

[1−ηcot⁡(η−b0)]

⇒ηcot⁡(η−b0)

=

(1−Q).


Note that for the μe/μc=1 model having a core-envelope interface of ξi=1.668646016 (and an adopted normalization, φi = 1), we also have,

θi= 0.720165
−(dθdξ)i= 0.207749
ηi= 1.498956
−(dϕdη)i= 0.963393
Λi= - 0.296262
b0= - 0.359864 (or +2.78173)
a0= 1.563355
ηs=π+b0= +2.78173 (or - 0.359864 = 5.92332)

Some of this is also detailed above in the Attempt 1 subsection.

Now, guided by a separate parallel discussion, we want to see whether, in the case of a bipolytropic configuration for which ne=1, the

Precise Solution to the Polytropic LAWE

σc2=0

      and      

xP

≡3c0(n−1)2n[1+(n−3n−1)(1ηϕn)dϕdη]

 

=−(3c0ηϕ)dϕdη=3c0η2⋅Q,

satisfies the governing LAWE, namely,

0

=

d2xPdη2+[4−2Q]1η⋅dxPdη−2Q⋅xPη2.

Well … recognizing that,

ddη[cot⁡(η−b0)]

=

−[1+cot2(η−b0)],

we have,

dQdη

=

η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0),

and,

d2Qdη2

=

ddη[η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0)]

 

=

1+[1+cot2(η−b0)]+cot2(η−b0)−2ηcot⁡(η−b0)[1+cot⁡2(η−b0)]

 

=

2−2ηcot⁡(η−b0)+2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2ηcot⁡3(η−b0).

Hence,

13c0⋅dxPdη

=

1η2dQdη−2Qη3

 

=

1η2[η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0)]−2Qη3,

and,

13c0⋅d2xPdη2

=

1η2d2Qdη2−2η3dQdη+6Qη4−2η3dQdη

 

=

1η2[2−2ηcot⁡(η−b0)+2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2ηcot⁡3(η−b0)]−4η3[η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0)]+6Qη4.

So the relevant LAWE becomes,

(η43c0)⋅ LAWE

=

η2[2−2ηcot⁡(η−b0)+2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2ηcot⁡3(η−b0)]−4η[η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0)]+6Q

 

 

+η3[4−2Q]{1η2[η−cot⁡(η−b0)+ηcot⁡2(η−b0)]−2Qη3}−2Q2

 

=

2η2[1−ηcot⁡(η−b0)+cot⁡2(η−b0)−ηcot⁡3(η−b0)]−4[η2−ηcot⁡(η−b0)+η2cot⁡2(η−b0)]+6Q

 

 

+4[η2−ηcot⁡(η−b0)+η2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2Q]−2Q[η2−ηcot⁡(η−b0)+η2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2Q]−2Q2

 

=

2η2[Q+cot2(η−b0)−ηcot3(η−b0)]−2Q−2Q[η2−ηcot⁡(η−b0)+η2cot⁡2(η−b0)−2Q]−2Q2

⇒(η46c0)⋅ LAWE

=

[η2cot2(η−b0)−η3cot3(η−b0)]+[1−ηcot⁡(η−b0)][ηcot⁡(η−b0)−η2cot⁡2(η−b0)]−Q(1−Q)

 

=

[ηcot⁡(η−b0)−η2cot⁡2(η−b0)]−Q(1−Q)

 

=

0.

Attempt 5

New Strategy

In the vast majority of our prior attempts to derive an analytic expression for the envelope's eigenvector, we have started with the presumption — as voiced by Beech (1988) and repeated in our accompanying derivation of the structure of the (nc,ne)=(5,1) bipolytrope's structure — that the most general solution to the n = 1 Lane-Emden equation can be written in the form,

ϕ

=

A[sin⁡(η−B)η].

But, as we have emphasized in a separate context, another expression that satisfies the relevant Lane-Emden equation has the form,

ϕ

=

−A[cos⁡(η−B)η].

We fully appreciate that for appropriately chosen and different values of the parameter, B, these two functions can be made equal to one another. But, for now, let's work through our analysis pretending that they are different functions.

This alternate "cosine" expression was not the solution of choice when we were seeking a mathematical description of the structure of an isolated, n = 1 polytrope because it does not satisfy the relevant central boundary conditions. However, it occurs to us that this alternate expression might work in the context we are considering now [20 April 2019], which deals with properties of the envelope of a bipolytrope. In this case,

Q≡−dln⁡ϕdln⁡η

=

A[cos⁡(η−B)η2+sin⁡(η−B)η]⋅η2Acos⁡(η−B)

 

=

[cos⁡(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)]⋅1cos⁡(η−B)

 

=

1+ηtan⁡(η−B);

and, following along the lines of our earlier Attempt 4B discussion, a reasonable guess for the dimensionless displacement function is,

xP

=

3c1Qη2

 

=

3c1η2[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)].

What are the first and second derivatives of this trial eigenfunction?

dxPdη

=

3c1η2[tan⁡(η−B)+ηcos2(η−B)]−6c1η3[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)]

 

=

3c1η3[η2cos2(η−B)−2−ηtan⁡(η−B)]

 

=

3c1η3cos2(η−B)[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)].

⇒d2xPdη2

=

[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]3c1ddη[η−3cos⁡−2(η−B)]

 

 

+3c1η3cos2(η−B)⋅ddη[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]

 

=

[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]3c1[2η−3sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡−3(η−B)−3η−4cos⁡−2(η−B)]

 

 

+3c1η3cos2(η−B)[2η+4sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−ηcos⁡2(η−B)+ηsin⁡2(η−B)]

 

=

3c1η4cos3(η−B)[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]⋅[2ηsin⁡(η−B)−3cos⁡(η−B)]

 

 

+3c1η4cos3(η−B)[2η2cos⁡(η−B)+4ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−η2cos⁡3(η−B)+η2sin⁡2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]

 

=

3c1η4cos3(η−B){2η3sin⁡(η−B)−4ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−2η2sin⁡2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)

 

 

−3η2cos⁡(η−B)+6cos⁡3(η−B)+3ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)

 

 

+η[4sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)]+η2[2cos⁡(η−B)−cos⁡3(η−B)+sin⁡2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

3c1η4cos3(η−B){6cos3(η−B)+η3[2sin⁡(η−B)]

 

 

+η[4sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−4sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)+3sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)]

 

 

+η2[2cos⁡(η−B)−cos⁡3(η−B)+sin⁡2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−2sin⁡2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−3cos⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

3c1η4cos3(η−B)[6cos3(η−B)+2ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−2η2cos⁡(η−B)+2η3sin⁡(η−B)].

Illustration

Attempt5 Trial Eigenfunction

Above & Below:  The solid, light-blue circular markers trace how the function, xP(η), varies over the "radial" range, −π≤η≤π, when c1=1, for various values of the parameter, B; in the above panel as well as in each frame of the animation, the chosen value of B is recorded in the upper-right corner of the image. (These values are also recorded in the table immediately below the animation.) The red vertical dashed line segment identifies the value of η at which the argument of the tangent function goes to π2 and, hence, where the function xP(η) flips discontinuously from plus- to minus-infinity. As explained further, below, the solid purple curve shows how the xP-intercept function varies with η; as defined, this curve is independent of the parameter, B, so it is unchanging in the animation sequence. The single larger yellow-circular marker (with a black border) shows where this "intercept" curve intersects the xP function and, therefore, where along this trial eigenfunction dln⁡xP/dln⁡η=−1; the coordinates (abscissa & ordinate) of this yellow marker are recorded in the accompanying table, for each illustrative value of B.

Animation of Attempt5 Trial Eigenfunction

  dln⁡xPdln⁡η=−1

Animation
Frame
B Abscissa
η
Ordinate
xP(η)
1 1.02×π2=1.6022 0.014 27,165
2 1.2×π2=1.8850 0.157 242.7
3 1.4×π2=2.1991 0.311 60.31
4 1.6×π2=2.5133 0.462 26.52
5 1.8×π2=2.8274 0.606 14.68
6 2×π2=3.1416 0.739 9.187
7 0.2×π2=0.3142 0.856 6.200
8 0.4×π2=0.6283 0.949 4.381
9 0.5×π2=0.7854 0.981 3.724
10 0.5×π2=0.9425 0.998 3.178
11 0.8×π2=1.2566 0.955 2.313
12 0.9×π2=1.4137 0.840 1.944
13 0.98×π2=1.5394 0.545 1.632

What is the expression for the logarithmic derivative of this eigenfunction guess?

dln⁡xPdln⁡η=ηxP⋅dxPdη

=

η33c1[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)]−1{3c1η2[tan⁡(η−B)+ηcos2(η−B)]−6c1η3[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

[cos⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)]{ηcos2(η−B)[sin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)+η]−2cos2(η−B)[cos⁡2(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

η2−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−2cos⁡2(η−B)cos2(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B).

At the surface of the bipolytropic configuration — that is, presumably when η=ηs — we must find that this logarithmic derivative is negative one. So, for a given value of the parameter, B, what is the value of ηs? Well …

dln⁡xPdln⁡η

=

−1

⇒−cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)

=

η2−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)−2cos⁡2(η−B)

⇒0

=

η2−cos2(η−B)

⇒η

=

±cos⁡(η−B).

Now, given that,

tan⁡(η−B)

=

±[1−cos2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)],

we see that,

xP|intercept

=

3c1η2{1±η[1−cos2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

3c1η2{1±η[1−cos2(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]}

 

=

3c1η2{1±η[1−η2η]}

 

=

3c1η2{1±1−η2}.

The solid-purple, xP-intercept curve that appears in the above figure/animation is defined by this function. Notice that this function never exceeds unity. This presumably means that if the tangent-based xP eigenfunction is the correct solution to the envelope's LAWE, then the dimensionless radius, ηs, of the bipolytrope must never exceed unity.

The following diagram — the original of which appears in our accompanying discussion of the equilibrium properties of bipolytropic configurations having (nc,ne)=(5,1) — shows how ηi (purple curve) and ηs (green curve) vary with the interface location ξi (ordinate). The solid yellow circular markers (with black edges) identify where the logarithmic derivative of the dimensionless displacement function, dln⁡xP/dln⁡η, equals negative one. If xP is the correct eigenfunction for the marginally unstable bipolytropic configuration, one of these yellow circular markers should coincide with the green curve, that is, it should be associated with the configuration's surface. Since the curve identified by the yellow circular markers does not appear to intersect the green curve, we conclude that we have not yet identified the correct eigenfunction.

Bipolytrope Properties

Is This Compatible With LAWE

In an effort to track the two Q(η) functions separately, we will add a subscript zero to the one that applies to the structural properties of the underlying equilibrium configuration. Again, we will be focused on finding a solution in the case where σc2=0 and n=1, that is — see also our above discussion — the relevant envelope LAWE is,

0

=

d2xPdη2+[2−Q0]2η⋅dxPdη−2αgQ0⋅xPη2,

where, drawing from our discussion of the n = 1 envelope's equilibrium structure,

Q0

=

[−dln⁡ϕdln⁡η]n=1=−ηϕ[dϕdη]n=1

=

−[1sin⁡(η−B0)][ηcos⁡(η−B0)−sin⁡(η−B0)]

=

[1−ηcot⁡(η−B0)].

Hence, after recognizing that for this specific case, αg=+1, we have,

LAWE

=

d2xPdη2+[2−Q0]2η⋅dxPdη−2Q0⋅xPη2

⇒  LAWE

=

3c1η4cos3(η−B)[6cos3(η−B)+2ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−2η2cos⁡(η−B)+2η3sin⁡(η−B)]

 

 

+[2−Q0]2η⋅3c1η3cos2(η−B)[η2−2cos2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]−2Q0η2⋅3c1η2[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)]

⇒[η4cos3(η−B)6c1]⋅  LAWE

=

[3cos3(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−η2cos⁡(η−B)+η3sin⁡(η−B)]

 

 

+[2−Q0]cos⁡(η−B)[η2−2cos⁡2(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡(η−B)]−Q0cos⁡3(η−B)[1+ηtan⁡(η−B)]

 

=

3cos3(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)−η2cos⁡(η−B)+η3sin⁡(η−B)

 

 

−4cos3(η−B)−2ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)+2η2cos⁡(η−B)

 

 

−Q0{[η2cos⁡(η−B)−2cos⁡3(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)]+[cos⁡3(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)]}

 

=

−cos3(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)+η2cos⁡(η−B)+η3sin⁡(η−B)+Q0[cos⁡3(η−B)−η2cos⁡(η−B)]

Quick Check:   Now, if we set Q0=1+ηtan⁡(η−B), these RHS terms should sum to zero. Let's check.

[η4cos3(η−B)6c1]⋅  LAWE

→

−cos3(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)+η2cos⁡(η−B)+η3sin⁡(η−B)

 

 

+[cos⁡(η−B)+ηsin⁡(η−B)]⋅[cos⁡2(η−B)−η2]

 

=

0.

Excellent!


Now, let's plug in the expression for the structural Q0. Specifically, we want,

Q0

≡

[1−ηcot⁡(η−B0)]

 

≡

[1+ηtan⁡(η−B0−π2±mπ)],

in which case we have,

[η4cos3(η−B)6c1]⋅  LAWE

→

−cos3(η−B)−ηsin⁡(η−B)cos⁡2(η−B)+η2cos⁡(η−B)+η3sin⁡(η−B)

 

 

+[1+ηtan⁡(η−B0−π2±mπ)]⋅[cos⁡3(η−B)−η2cos⁡(η−B)].

As we have just shown, above, in the context of a "Quick Check", the expression on the RHS will go to zero if we adopt the transformation, [B0+π2∓mπ]→B. Does this help shift the coordinate, η?

See Also

Tiled Menu

Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS |