SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization

From jetwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bipolytrope Generalization

On 26 August 2014, Tohline finished rewriting the chapter titled "Bipolytrope Generalization" in a very concise manner (go here for this Version2 chapter) then set this chapter aside to provide a collection of older attempts at the derivations. While much of what follows is technically correct, it is overly detailed and cumbersome. Because it likely also contains some misguided steps, we label it in entirety as Work in Progress.


Material that appears after this point in our presentation is under development and therefore
may contain incorrect mathematical equations and/or physical misinterpretations.
|   Go Home   |


Old Stuff

𝔊

=

Wgrav+𝔖A|core+𝔖A|env

 

=

Wgrav+[23(γc−1)]Score+[23(γe−1)]Senv.

In addition to the gravitational potential energy, which is naturally written as,

Wgrav

=

−35(GMtot2R)⋅𝔣WM,

it seems reasonable to write the separate thermal energy contributions as,

Score

=

32[Mcore(Picρic)]score=32[νMtotPic(ρicρ¯)−1(4πR33Mtot)]score=2πR3Pic[q3score],

Senv

=

32[Menv(Pieρie)]senv=32[(1−ν)MtotPie(ρieρ¯)−1(4πR33Mtot)]senv=2πR3Pie[(1−q3)senv],

where the subscript "i" means "at the interface," and 𝔣WM, score, and senv are dimensionless functions of order unity (all three functions to be determined) akin to the structural form factors used in our examination of isolated polytropes.

While exploring how the free-energy function varies across parameter space, we choose to hold Mtot and Kc fixed. By dimensional analysis, it is therefore reasonable to normalize all energies, length scales, densities and pressures by, respectively,

Enorm

≡

[G3(γc−1)Mtot5γc−6Kc]1/(3γc−4),

Rnorm

≡

[(KcG)Mtotγc−2]1/(3γc−4),

ρnorm

≡

34π[G3Mtot2Kc3]1/(3γc−4),

Pnorm

≡

[G3γcMtot2γcKc4]1/(3γc−4).

As is detailed below — first, here, and via an independent derivation, here — quite generally the expression for the normalized free energy is,

𝔊*≡𝔊Enorm

=

−35(GMtot2Enorm)(1R)⋅𝔣WM+[4πq3score3(γc−1)][R3PicEnorm]+[4π(1−q3)senv3(γe−1)][R3PieEnorm]

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5χ−1+[4πq3score3(γc−1)][Rnorm4PnormEnormRnorm][(PicPnorm)χ3]

 

 

+[4π(1−q3)senv3(γe−1)][Rnorm4PnormEnormRnorm][(PiePnorm)χ3]

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5χ−1+[4πq3score3(γc−1)][Picχ3γcPnorm]eqχ3−3γc+[4π(1−q3)senv3(γe−1)][Pieχ3γePnorm]eqχ3−3γe

where we have introduced the parameter, ν≡Mcore/Mtot. After defining the normalized (and dimensionless) configurarion radius, χ≡R/Rnorm, we can write the normalized free energy of a bipolytrope in the following compact form:

𝔊*

=

−3𝒜χ−1−ℬ(1−γc)χ3−3γc−𝒞(1−γe)χ3−3γe,

where,

𝒜

≡

15⋅𝔣WM,

ℬ

≡

(4π3)q3score[Picχ3γcPnorm]eq,

𝒞

≡

(4π3)(1−q3)senv[Pieχ3γePnorm]eq.

As is further detailed below, the second expression for the coefficient, 𝒞, ensures that the pressure at the "surface" of the core matches the pressure at the "base" of the envelope; but it should only be employed after an equilibrium radius, χeq, has been identified by locating an extremum in the free energy.

Simplest Bipolytrope

Familiar Setup

As has been shown in an accompanying presentation, for an (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope,

𝔣WM

≡

ν2q⋅f,

score

≡

1+Λeq,

(1−q3)senv

≡

(1−q3)+Λ[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)],

and where (see, for example, in the context of its original definition, or another, separate derivation),

Λeq

=

15(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γcχeq3γc−4

 

=

25(g2−1)={52(ρeρ0)[2(1−ρeρ0)(1−q)+ρeρ0(1q2−1)]}−1,

and where (see the associated discussion of relevant mass integrals),

ρcρ¯=νq3;ρeρ¯=1−ν1−q3;ρeρc=q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3)⇒q3ν=(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3.

Cleaner Virial Presentation

In an effort to show the similarity in structure among the several energy terms, we have also found it useful to write their expressions in the following forms:

Wgrav

=

−35(GMtot2R)ν2q⋅f=−4πPiR3(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅λif,

Score

=

2πPicR3[q3+(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅λic],

Senv

=

2πPieR3[(1−q3)+(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅λie𝔉],

where (see an associated discussion or the original derivation),

f(q,ρeρc)=1+52(ρeρc)1q5[(q3−q5)+(ρeρc)(25−q3+35q5)],

and where,

λi

≡

GMtot2R4Pi,

𝔉

≡

52(ρeρc)1q5[(−2q2+3q3−q5)+35(ρeρc)(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

 

=

1λie(22⋅5π3)q(1−q3)ν2(senv−1).

This also means that the three key terms used as shorthand notation in the above expressions for the three energy terms have the following definitions:

𝔣WM

≡

ν2q⋅f,

score

≡

1+(322⋅5π)ν2q4⋅λic,

senv

≡

1+(322⋅5π)ν2q(1−q3)⋅λie𝔉,

Hence, if all the interface pressures are equal — that is, if Pi=Pic=Pie and, hence also, λi=λic=λie — then the total thermal energy is,

Stot=Score+Senv

=

2πPiR3[1+(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅λi(1+𝔉)];

and the virial is,

2Stot+Wgrav

=

4πPiR3[1+(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅λi(1+𝔉−f)].

The virial should sum to zero in equilibrium, which means,

1λi|eq

=

(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅(f−1−𝔉)

⇒[(22⋅5π3)qν2]Req4PiGMtot2

=

f−1−𝔉

⇒(ρeρc)−1[(23π3)q6ν2]Req4PiGMtot2

=

[(q3−q5)+(ρeρc)(25−q3+35q5)]−[(−2q2+3q3−q5)+(ρeρc)(−35+3q2−3q3+35q5)]

 

=

2q2(1−q)+(ρeρc)(1−3q2+2q3)

 

=

q2(ρeρc)−1(g2−1)

⇒1λi|eq

=

2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2(g2−1).

Shift to Central Pressure Normalization

Let's rework the definition of λi in two ways: (1) Normalize Req to Rnorm and normalize the pressure to Pnorm; (2) shift the referenced pressure from the pressure at the interface (Pi) to the central pressure (P0), because it is P0 that is directly related to Kc and ρc; specifically, P0=Kcρcγc. Appreciating that, in equilibrium,

Pi

=

P0−q2Πeq=Kcρcγc−323π(GMtot2Req4)(ν2q6)q2,

the left-hand-side of the last expression, above, can be rewritten as,

1λi|eq

≡

Req4PiGMtot2

 

=

Req4GMtot2[P0−323π(GMtot2Req4)(ν2q6)q2]

 

=

Req4P0GMtot2−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2.

Hence, the virial equilibrium condition gives,

Req4P0GMtot2−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2

=

2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2(g2−1)

⇒Req4P0GMtot2

=

2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2g2.

This result precisely matches the result obtained via the detailed force-balanced conditions imposed through hydrostatic equilibrium.

Adopting our new variable normalizations and realizing, in particular, that,

Rnorm4Pnorm

=

GMtot2,

the expression alternatively can be rewritten as,

1λi|eq

≡

Req4PiGMtot2=χeq4(PiPnorm)

 

=

χeq4{KcρcγcPnorm−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2(GMtot2Req4Pnorm)}

 

=

χeq4{KcPnorm[ρcρ¯(3Mtot4πRnorm3)χeq−3]γc−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2χeq−4}

 

=

χeq4−3γc[(34π)νq3]γcKcPnorm(MtotγcRnorm3γc)−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2

 

=

χeq4−3γc[(34π)νq3]γc−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2.

Normalized in this manner, the virial equilibrium (as well as the hydrostatic balance) condition gives,

χeq4−3γc[(34π)νq3]γc−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2

=

2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2(g2−1)

⇒χeq4−3γc

=

2π3[(34π)νq3]2−γcq2g2.

Free-Energy Coefficients

Therefore, for an (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope, the coefficients in the normalized free-energy function are,

𝒜

=

ν25q⋅f=15(νq3)2[q5+52(ρeρc)q3(1−q2)+(ρeρc)2(1−52q3+32q5)],

ℬ

≡

(4π3)q3score[PicPnorm]eqχeq3γc=(4π3)q3score[1λic]eqχeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3[1+(322⋅5π)ν2q4⋅λic][1λic]eqχeq3γc−4=(4π3)q3[1λic+(322⋅5π)ν2q4]χeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3{χeq4−3γc[(34π)νq3]γc−2π3[(34π)νq3]2q2+(322⋅5π)ν2q4}χeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3{[(34π)νq3]γc+χeq3γc−4[322⋅5π−323π]ν2q4}

 

=

{ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1−χeq3γc−4(3223⋅5π)ν2q4(4π3)q3}=ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1−χeq3γc−4(310)ν2q

𝒞

≡

(4π3)(1−q3)senv[Pieχ3γePnorm]eq.

Note that, because Pie=Pic in equilibrium, the ratio of coefficients,

𝒞ℬ

=

χeq3(γe−γc){(1−q3)senvq3score}

⇒χeq3(γc−γe)(𝒞ℬ)

=

20πq(1−q3)λi−1+3ν2𝔉20πq4λi−1+3ν2.


The equilibrium condition is,

𝒜ℬ+𝒞'=χeq4−3γc,

where,

𝒞'≡𝒞χeq3(γc−γe).

More General Derivation of Free-Energy Coefficients B and C

Keep in mind that, generally,

GMtot2

=

Rnorm4Pnorm=EnormRnorm;

1λi

≡

R4PiGMtot2=(PiPnorm)χ4   … and, note that …    1Λ=(3⋅522π)1λi⋅1q2σ2;

ΠPnorm

=

323π(GMtot2PnormR4)ν2q6=(2π3)σ2χ−4;

KcρcγcPnorm

=

KcPnorm(ρcρ¯)γc[3Mtot4πR3]γc=KcMtotγcRnorm3γcPnorm[(34π)νq3]γcχ−3γc=σγcχ−3γc,

where we have introduced the notation,

σ≡(34π)νq3.

So, the free-energy coefficient,

ℬ

=

(4π3)q3score[PicPnorm]eqχeq3γc=(4π3)q3score[1λic]eqχeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3[1+(322⋅5π)ν2q4⋅λic]eq[1λic]eqχeq3γc−4=(4π3)q3[1λic+(322⋅5π)ν2q4]eqχeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3[χeq4(PicPnorm)eq+(4π3⋅5)q2σ2]χeq3γc−4.


And the free-energy coefficient,

𝒞

≡

(4π3)(1−q3)senv[Pieχ3γePnorm]eq=(4π3)(1−q3)senv[1λie]eqχeq3γe−4

 

=

(4π3)(1−q3){1λie+(322⋅5π)ν2q(1−q3)⋅𝔉}eqχeq3γe−4

 

=

(4π3){(1−q3)χeq4(PiePnorm)eq+(2π3)σ2[25q5𝔉]}eqχeq3γe−4.

OLD DERIVATION

Pic=Kcρcγc

NEW DERIVATION

Pic=P0−q2Π=Kcρcγc−q2Π

… therefore …

ℬOLD

=

(4π3)q3[σγcχeq4−3γc+(4π3⋅5)q2σ2]χeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3[σγc+(4π3⋅5)q2σ2χeq3γc−4]

ℬNEW

=

(4π3)q3[σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2+(4π3⋅5)q2σ2]χeq3γc−4

 

=

(4π3)q3[σγc−(2π5)q2σ2χeq3γc−4]

… and, enforcing in equilibrium Pie=Pic …

𝒞OLD

=

(4π3){(1−q3)[σγcχeq4−3γc]+(2π3)σ2[25q5𝔉]}eqχeq3γe−4

 

=

(4π3)[(1−q3)σγc+(2π3)σ2(25q5𝔉)χeq3γe−4]

𝒞NEW

=

(4π3){(1−q3)[σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2]+(2π3)σ2[25q5𝔉]}eqχeq3γe−4

 

=

(4π3){(1−q3)σγcχeq3γe−3γc+(2π3)σ2[(25q5𝔉)−q2(1−q3)]χeq3γe−4}

… and, also …

1λi|eq

=

σγcχeq4−3γc

⇒1Λeq

=

1q2(3⋅522π)σγc−2χeq4−3γc

 

=

(5qν)σγc−1χeq4−3γc

1λi|eq

=

σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2

⇒1Λeq

=

1q2σ2(3⋅522π)[σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2]

 

=

(5qν)σγc−1χeq4−3γc−52

Extrema

Extrema in the free energy occur when,

𝒜

=

ℬχeq4−3γc+𝒞χeq4−3γe.

Also, as stated above, because Pie=Pic in equilibrium, the ratio of coefficients,

𝒞ℬ

=

χeq3(γe−γc)[(1−q3)senvq3score].

When put together, these two relations imply,

𝒜

=

ℬχeq4−3γc+χeq4−3γcℬ[(1−q3)senvq3score]

 

=

ℬχeq4−3γc[1+(1−q3)senvq3score].

But the definition of ℬ gives,

ℬχeq4−3γc

=

(4π3)q3score[1λic]eq.

Hence, extrema occur when,

𝒜

=

(4π3)q3score[1λic]eq[1+(1−q3)senvq3score]

⇒(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅f

=

[1λic]eq[q3score+(1−q3)senv]

 

=

q3[λi]eq+(322⋅5π)ν2q+(1−q3)[λi]eq+(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅𝔉

⇒[1λic]eq

=

(322⋅5π)ν2q⋅(f−1−𝔉)

 

=

(2π3)σ2q2(g2−1).

In what follows, keep in mind that,

χeq4−3γc

=

(ReqRnorm)4−3γc=Req4−3γc(KcG)Mtotγc−2;

Kcρcγc

=

Kc(ρcρ¯)γc[3Mtot4πR3]γc=KcσγcMtotγcR−3γc;

Π

=

323π(GMtot2R4)ν2q6=2π3(GMtot2R4)σ2.


OLD DERIVATION

Pi=Kcρcγc

⇒Kc=Piσ−γcMtot−γcR+3γc

NEW DERIVATION

P0=Kcρcγc

⇒Kc=P0σ−γcMtot−γcR+3γc

… hence, as derived in the above table …

1λi|eq

=

σγcχeq4−3γc

1λi|eq

=

σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2

… which, when combined with the condition that identifies extrema, gives …

χeq4−3γc

=

(2π3)σ2−γcq2(g2−1)

⇒Req4−3γc(KcG)Mtotγc−2

=

(2π3)σ2−γcq2(g2−1)

⇒Req4PiGMtot2

=

(2π3)σ2q2(g2−1)

σγcχeq4−3γc−(2π3)q2σ2

=

(2π3)σ2q2(g2−1)

⇒χeq4−3γc

=

(2π3)σ2−γcq2g2

⇒Req4−3γc(KcG)Mtotγc−2

=

(2π3)σ2−γcq2g2

⇒Req4P0GMtot2

=

(2π3)σ2q2g2

These are consistent results because they result in the detailed force-balance relation, P0−Pi=q2Πeq.

Examples

Identification of Local Extrema in Free Energy

ν

q

ρeρc

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

Λeq

χeq

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

MIN/MAX

0.2

9−1/3=0.48075

0.5

12.5644

2.091312

0.366531

0.037453

0.2090801

0.2308269

2.06252×10−4

MIN

0.4

4−1/3=0.62996

0.5

4.21974

1.56498

0.707989

0.0220475

0.2143496

0.5635746

4.4626×10−5

MIN

0.473473

0.681838

0.516107

 

 

0.462927

0.08255

"

"

"

MAX

0.5

3−1/3=0.693361

0.5

2.985115

1.42334

0.9448663

0.0152116

0.2152641

0.791882

1.5464×10−5

MIN

0.559839

0.729581

0.499188

 

 

0.75089

0.032196

"

"

"

MAX



Free Energy Extrema when:     ρeρc=12⇒q3=ν2−ν

ν

q

ρeρc

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

1λi|eq

χeq

𝒜

ℬNEW

𝒞NEW

G*

Stability

MIN/MAX

0.5

(13)1/3

0.5

2.985115

1.423340

0.05466039

0.3152983

0.21526406

0.23552725

6.643899×10−3

+0.5176146

+0.429245

MIN

…

…

…

 

 

 

0.6674

"

"

"

+0.55572115

 

MAX

0.6

(37)1/3

0.5

2.2507129

1.31282895

0.04160318

0.3411545

0.21493717

0.26165939

5.208750×10−3

+0.73532249

+0.0935217

MIN

…

…

…

 

 

 

0.431745

"

"

"

+0.7367797

 

MAX

0.7

(713)1/3

0.5

1.7707809

1.2209446

0.029500

0.3589388

0.21330744

0.28172532

3.389793×10−3

+0.8953395

−0.0767108

MAX

…

…

…

 

 

 

0.270615

"

"

"

+0.89227216

 

MIN

System should be stable (with free energy minimum) if:     (γe−43)(γe−γc)f−[1+52(g2−1)]>0

Solution Strategy

For a given set of free-energy coefficients, 𝒜,ℬ, and 𝒞, along with a choice of the two adiabatic exponents (γc,γe), here's how to determine all of the physical parameters that are detailed in the above example table.

  • Step 1: Guess a value of 0<q<1.
  • Step 2: Given the pair of parameter values, (𝒜,q), determine the interface-density ratio, ρe/ρc, by finding the appropriate root of the expression that defines the function, 𝒜(q,ρe/ρc). This can be straightforwardly accomplished because, as demonstrated below, the relevant expression can be written as a quadratic function of (ρe/ρc).
  • Step 3: Given the pair of parameter values, (q,ρe/ρc), determine the value of the core-to-total mass ratio, ν, from the expression that was obtained from an integration over the mass, namely,

1ν

=

1+(ρeρc)(1q3−1).

  • Step 4: Given the value of ℬ along with the pair of parameter values, (q,ν), the above expression that defines ℬ can be solved to give the relevant value of the dimensionless parameter, Λeq.
  • Step 5: The value of 𝒞' — the coefficient that appears on the right-hand-side of the above expression that defines 𝒞 — can be determined, given the values of parameter triplet, (q,ν,Λeq).
  • Step 6: Given the value of 𝒞 and the just-determined value of the coefficient 𝒞', the normalized equilibrium radius, χeq, that corresponds to the value of q that was guessed in Step #1 can be determined from the above definition of 𝒞, specifically,

χeq|guess

=

(𝒞𝒞')1/(3γe−3γc).

  • Step 7: But, independent of this guessed value of χeq, the condition for virial equilibrium — which identifies extrema in the free-energy function — gives the following expression for the normalized equilibrium radius:

χeq|virial

=

[𝒜ℬ+𝒞']1/(4−3γc).

  • Step 8: If χeq|guess≠χeq|virial, return to Step #1 and guess a different value of q. Repeat Steps #1 through #7 until the two independently derived values of the normalized radius match, to a desired level of precision.
  • Keep in mind: (A) A graphical representation of the free-energy function, 𝔊(χ), can also be used to identify the "correct" value of χeq and, ultimately, the above-described iteration loop should converge on this value. (B) The free-energy function may exhibit more than one (or, actually, no) extrema, in which case more than one (or no) value of q should lead to convergence of the above-described iteration loop.



Material that appears after this point in our presentation is under development and therefore
may contain incorrect mathematical equations and/or physical misinterpretations.
|   Go Home   |


Detailed Derivations

Dividing the free-energy expression through by Enorm generates,

𝔊*≡𝔊Enorm

=

−35(GMtot2Enorm)(1R)⋅𝔣WM+[νscore(γc−1)][MtotKcρicγc−1Enorm]

 

 

+[(1−ν)senv(γe−1)][MtotKeρieγe−1Enorm]

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5[KcG(3γc−4)Mtot2(3γc−4)G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6]1/(3γc−4)(1R)

 

 

+[νscore(γc−1)][KcMtot3γc−4Kc3γc−4G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6]1/(3γc−4)(ρicρ¯)γc−1[3Mtot4πR3]γc−1

 

 

+[(1−ν)senv(γe−1)][KcMtot3γc−4Ke3γc−4G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6]1/(3γc−4)(ρieρ¯)γe−1[3Mtot4πR3]γe−1

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5(RnormR)

 

 

+[νscore(γc−1)](3Mtot4π)γc−1[Kc3γc−3G3γc−3Mtot2γc−2]1/(3γc−4)[RnormR]3(γc−1)[(KcG)Mtotγc−2]−3(γc−1)/(3γc−4)(ρicρ¯)γc−1

 

 

+[(1−ν)senv(γe−1)](3Mtot4π)γe−1[Kc3γc−3(Ke/Kc)3γc−4G3γc−3Mtot2γc−2]1/(3γc−4)[RnormR]3(γe−1)[(KcG)Mtotγc−2]−3(γe−1)/(3γc−4)(ρieρ¯)γe−1

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5(RnormR)

 

 

+[νscore(γc−1)](34π)γc−1[Mtot3γc−4](γc−1)/(3γc−4)[Mtot−2](γc−1)/(3γc−4)[Mtot−3γc+6](γc−1)/(3γc−4)[RnormR]3(γc−1)(ρicρ¯)γc−1

 

 

+[(1−ν)senv(γe−1)](34π)γe−1(KeKc)[Mtot2(γe−1)−2(γc−1)]1/(3γc−4)[RnormR]3(γe−1)[(KcG)(γc−1)−(γe−1)]3/(3γc−4)(ρieρ¯)γe−1

 

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5(RRnorm)−1+νscore(γc−1)[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1[RRnorm]−3(γc−1)

 

 

+(1−ν)senv(γe−1)(KeKc)[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)[(34π)ρieρ¯]γe−1[RRnorm]−3(γe−1).

We also want to ensure that envelope pressure matches the core pressure at the interface. This means,

Keρieγe

=

Kcρicγc

⇒KeKc

=

ρicγcρie−γe

 

=

[ρicρnorm]γc[ρieρnorm]−γeρnormγc−γe

 

=

[ρicρnorm]γc[ρieρnorm]−γe{34π[G3Mtot2Kc3]1/(3γc−4)}γc−γe

⇒KeKc[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)[(34π)ρieρ¯]γe−1

=

[(34π)ρicρnorm]γc[(34π)ρieρnorm]−γe[(34π)ρieρ¯]γe−1

 

=

[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1(ρicρie)(ρnormρ¯)γe−γc

 

=

[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1(ρicρie)(RRnorm)3(γe−γc)

Hence, we can write the normalized (and dimensionless) free energy as,

𝔊*

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5(RRnorm)−1+{νscore(γc−1)+(1−ν)senv(γe−1)(ρicρie)}[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1[RRnorm]−3(γc−1).

Keep in mind that, if the envelope and core both have uniform (but different) densities, then ρic=ρc, ρie=ρe, and

ρcρ¯=νq3;ρeρ¯=1−ν1−q3;ρeρc=q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3).

Free Energy and Its Derivatives

Now, the free energy can be written as,

𝔊

=

Utot+W

 

=

[23(γc−1)]Score+[23(γe−1)]Senv+W

 

=

[23(γc−1)]CcoreR3−3γc+[23(γe−1)]CenvR3−3γe−AR−1.

The first derivative of the free energy with respect to radius is, then,

d𝔊dR

=

−2CcoreR2−3γc−2CenvR2−3γe+AR−2.

And the second derivative is,

d2𝔊dR2

=

−2(2−3γc)CcoreR1−3γc−2(2−3γe)CenvR1−3γe−2AR−3.

 

=

2R2[(3γc−2)CcoreR3−3γc+(3γe−2)CenvR3−3γe−AR−1]

 

=

2R2[(3γc−2)Score+(3γe−2)Senv+W].

Equilibrium

The radius, Req, of the equilibrium configuration(s) is determined by setting the first derivative of the free energy to zero. Hence,

0

=

2CcoreReq2−3γc+2CenvReq2−3γe−AReq−2

 

=

Req−1[2CcoreReq3−3γc+2CenvReq3−3γe−AReq−1]

 

=

Req−1[2Score+2Senv+W]

⇒2Stot+W

=

0.

This is the familiar statement of virial equilibrium. From it we should always be able to derive the radius of equilibrium configurations.

Stability

To assess the relative stability of an equilibrium configuration, we need to determine the sign of the second derivative of the free energy, evaluated at the equilibrium radius. If the sign of the second derivative is positive, the system is dynamically stable; if the sign is negative, he system is dynamically unstable. Using the above statement of virial equilibrium, that is, setting,

2Stot+W

=

0,

⇒Senv

=

−Score−W2,

we obtain,

d2𝔊dR2|eq

=

2Req2[(3γc−2)Score+W−(3γe−2)(Score+W2)]eq

 

=

2Req2[3(γc−γe)Score+(2−32γe)W]eq

 

=

6Req2[(γc−γe)Score+12(43−γe)W]eq

 

=

6Req2[−W2(γe−43)−(γe−γc)Score]eq.

So, if when evaluated at the equilibrium state, the expression inside of the square brackets of this last expression is negative, the equilibrium configuration will be dynamically unstable. We have chosen to write the expression in this particular final form because we generally will be interested in bipolytropes for which the adiabatic exponent of the envelope is greater than 4/3 and the adiabatic exponent of the core is less than or equal to 4/3 — that is, γe>4/3≥γc. Hence, because the gravitational potential energy, W, is intrinsically negative, the system will be dynamically unstable only if the second term (involving Score) is greater in magnitude than the first term (involving W).

It is worth noting that, instead of drawing upon Score and W to define the stability condition, we could have used an appropriate combination of Senv and W, or the Score and Senv pair. Also, for example, because the virial equilibrium condition is Stot=−W/2, it is easy to see that the following inequality also equivalently defines stability:

Stot(γe−43)−(γe−γc)Score

>

0.

Examples

(0, 0) Bipolytropes

Review

In an accompanying discussion we have derived analytic expressions describing the equilibrium structure and the stability of bipolytropes in which both the core and the envelope have uniform densities, that is, bipolytropes with (nc,ne)=(0,0). From this work, we find that integrals over the mass and pressure distributions give:

WReq3Pi=−AReq4Pi

=

 −35[GMtot2R4Pi](ν2q)f

 

=

 −4πq3Λf,

ScoreReq3Pi=Bcore

=

2πq3(1+Λ),

SenvReq3Pi=Benv

=

2π[(1−q3)+52Λ(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2Λ(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)],

where,

Λ

≡

322⋅5π(GMtot2Req4Pi)ν2q4,

f(q,ρe/ρc)

≡

1+52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]

 

=

1+52q2(ρeρc)(1−q2)+12q5(ρeρc)2(2−5q3+3q5),

g2(q,ρe/ρc)

≡

1+(ρeρ0)[2(1−ρeρ0)(1−q)+ρeρ0(1q2−1)]

 

≡

1+[2(ρeρc)(1−q)+1q2(ρeρc)2(1−3q2+2q3)],

Renormalize

Let's renormalize these energy terms in order to more readily relate them to the generalized expressions derived above.

R3Pi

=

R3Kc(ρicρ¯)γc[(34π)MtotR3]γc

 

=

[RRnorm]3−3γc[(34π)ρicρ¯]γcKcMtotγcRnorm3−3γc

 

=

[RRnorm]3−3γc[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc{Kc3γc−4Mtotγc(3γc−4)[(KcG)Mtotγc−2]3−3γc}1/(3γc−4)

 

=

[RRnorm]3−3γc[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc{G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6Kc}1/(3γc−4)

 

=

[RRnorm]3−3γc[(34π)ρicρ¯]γcEnorm.

Also,

[GMtot2R]3γc−4

=

(RRnorm)−(3γc−4)G3γc−4Mtot6γc−8(GKc)Mtot2−γc

 

=

(RRnorm)−(3γc−4)[G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6Kc]

 

=

(RRnorm)−(3γc−4)Enorm3γc−4.

⇒GMtot2R4Pi

=

(RRnorm)−1[RRnorm]3γc−3[(34π)ρicρ¯]−γc

 

=

(RRnorm)3γc−4[(34π)ρicρ¯]−γc.

Hence,

Λ

≡

322⋅5πν2q4[(34π)ρicρ¯]−γc(RRnorm)3γc−4.

Given that ρic/ρ¯=ν/q3 for the (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope, we can finally write,

R3PiEnorm

=

[(34π)νq3]γc(RRnorm)3−3γc,

and,

Λ

≡

322⋅5πν2q4[(34π)νq3]−γc(RRnorm)3γc−4=15νq[(34π)νq3]1−γc(RRnorm)3γc−4.

Hence the renormalized gravitational potential energy becomes,

WgravEnorm

=

−(35)ν2q(RRnorm)−1⋅f;

and the two, renormalized contributions to the thermal energy become,

UcoreEnorm=23(γc−1)[ScoreEnorm]

=

4πq3(1+Λ)3(γc−1)[(34π)νq3]γc(RRnorm)3−3γc,

UenvEnorm=23(γe−1)[SenvEnorm]

=

4π3(γe−1)[(34π)(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe(KeKc)[Kc3G3Mtot2](3γc−3γe)/(3γc−4)(RRnorm)3−3γe

 

 

×[(1−q3)+52Λ(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2Λ(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)],

Finally, then, we can state that,

𝔣WM

≡

ν2q⋅f,

score

≡

1+Λ,

(1−q3)senv

≡

(1−q3)+Λ[52(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)].

Virial Equilibrium and Stability Evaluation

With these expressions in hand, we can deduce the equilibrium radius and relativity stability of (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytropes using the generalized expressions provided above. For example, from the statement of virial equilibrium (2Stot=−W) we obtain,

q3(1+Λ)+(1−q3)+52Λ(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2Λ(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)

=

q3Λ[1+52q2(ρeρc)(1−q2)+12q5(ρeρc)2(2−5q3+3q5)]

⇒1Λ

=

52(ρeρc)(q−q3)+12q2(ρeρc)2(2−5q3+3q5)−[52(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

 

=

52(ρeρc)(q−q3+2−3q+q3)+12q2(ρeρc)2(2−5q3+3q5+3−15q2+15q3−3q5)

 

=

52[2(ρeρc)(1−q)+1q2(ρeρc)2(1−3q2+2q3)]

 

=

52(g2−1)

⇒[PiGMtot2]Req4

=

(323π)ν2q4(g2−1).

Or, given the above renormalization, this expression can be written as,

(RRnorm)4−3γc[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc

=

(323π)ν2q4(g2−1)

⇒RRnorm

=

{(323π)ν2q4(g2−1)[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc}1/(4−3γc).


And the condition for dynamical stability is,

−W2(γe−43)−(γe−γc)Score

  > 

0.

⇒2πq3Λ[(γe−43)f−(γe−γc)(1+1Λ)]

  > 

0.

(γe−43)f−(γe−γc)[1+52(g2−1)]

  > 

0.

(5, 1) Bipolytropes

In another accompanying discussion we have derived analytic expressions describing the equilibrium structure of bipolytropes with (nc,ne)=(5,1). Can we perform a similar stability analysis of these configurations? Work in progress!

Best of the Best

One Derivation of Free Energy

𝔊*

=

−3⋅𝔣WM5(RRnorm)−1+νscore(γc−1)[(34π)νq3]γc−1[RRnorm]−3(γc−1)

 

 

+(1−ν)senv(γe−1)(KeKc)[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)[(34π)(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1[RRnorm]−3(γe−1).

Another Derivation of Free Energy

Hence the renormalized gravitational potential energy becomes,

WgravEnorm

=

−(35)ν2q(RRnorm)−1⋅f;

and the two, renormalized contributions to the thermal energy become,

UcoreEnorm=23(γc−1)[ScoreEnorm]

=

4πq3(1+Λ)3(γc−1)[(34π)νq3]γc(RRnorm)3−3γc

 

=

ν(1+Λ)(γc−1)[(34π)νq3]γc−1χ3−3γc,

UenvEnorm=23(γe−1)[SenvEnorm]

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[R3PieEnorm][(1−q3)+52Λ(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2Λ(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

 

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[BigTermEnorm]R3Keρieγe

 

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[BigTermEnorm]R3Keρnormγe(ρieρ¯)γe(ρ¯ρnorm)γe

 

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[BigTermEnorm](ρnormRnorm3)Keρnormγe−1[(1−ν)(1−q3)]γeχ3−3γe

 

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[(1−ν)(1−q3)]γeχ3−3γe[BigTerm](3Mtot4π)KeEnorm(34π)γe−1[G3Mtot2Kc3](γe−1)/(3γc−4)

 

=

(1−ν)(1−q3)(γe−1)[34π(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1(KeKc)χ3−3γe[BigTerm]KcMtotEnorm[Kc3G3Mtot2](1−γe)/(3γc−4)

 

=

(1−ν)(1−q3)(γe−1)[34π(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1(KeKc)χ3−3γe[BigTerm][Kc3G3Mtot2](1−γe)/(3γc−4)[Kc3γc−4Mtot3γc−4G3γc−3Mtot5γc−6Kc−1]1/(3γc−4)

 

=

(1−ν)(1−q3)(γe−1)[34π(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1(KeKc)χ3−3γe[BigTerm][Kc3G3Mtot2](1−γe)/(3γc−4)[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−1)/(3γc−4)

 

=

(1−ν)(1−q3)(γe−1)[34π(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1(KeKc)[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)[BigTerm]χ3−3γe

Finally, then, we can state that,

𝔣WM

≡

ν2q⋅f,

score

≡

1+Λ,

(1−q3)senv

≡

(1−q3)+Λ[52(ρeρ0)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρ0)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)].

Note,

Λ

≡

322⋅5πν2q4[(34π)νq3]−γc(ReqRnorm)3γc−4=15(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γcχeq3γc−4.

We also want to ensure that envelope pressure matches the core pressure at the interface. This means,

Keρieγe

=

Kcρicγc

⇒KeKc

=

ρicγcρie−γe

 

=

[ρicρnorm]γc[ρieρnorm]−γeρnormγc−γe

 

=

[ρicρnorm]γc[ρieρnorm]−γe{34π[G3Mtot2Kc3]1/(3γc−4)}γc−γe

⇒KeKc[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)[(34π)ρieρ¯]γe−1

=

[(34π)ρicρnorm]γc[(34π)ρieρnorm]−γe[(34π)ρieρ¯]γe−1

 

=

[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1(ρicρie)(ρnormρ¯)γe−γc

 

=

[(34π)ρicρ¯]γc−1(ρicρie)(RRnorm)3(γe−γc)

Keep in mind that, if the envelope and core both have uniform (but different) densities, then ρic=ρc, ρie=ρe, and

ρcρ¯=νq3;ρeρ¯=1−ν1−q3;ρeρc=q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3).

Summary

Understanding Free-Energy Behavior

Step 1: Pick values for the separate coefficients, 𝒜,ℬ, and 𝒞, of the three terms in the normalized free-energy expression,

𝔊*

=

−3𝒜χ−1−ℬ(1−γc)χ3−3γc−𝒞(1−γe)χ3−3γe

then plot the function, 𝔊*(χ), and identify the value(s) of χeq at which the function has an extremum (or multiple extrema).

Step 2: Note that,

𝒜

≡

ν25q{1+52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]}

 

=

15(νq3)2[q5+52(ρeρc)(1−q2)q3+(ρeρc)2(1−52q3+32q5)]

ℬ

≡

ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1[1+Λeq]

𝒞

≡

(1−ν)(KeKc)*[(34π)(1−ν)(1−q3)]γe−1{1+Λeq(1−q3)[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]}

 

≡

ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1{(1−q3)q3+Λeqq3[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]}χeq3(γe−γc)

where (see, for example, in the context of its original definition),

Λeq≡322π⋅5(GMtot2Req4Pi)ν2q4

=

15(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γcχeq3γc−4

and, where,

(KeKc)*≡KeKc[Kc3G3Mtot2](γc−γe)/(3γc−4)

=

[(34π)1−ν1−q3]−γe[(34π)νq3]γcχeq3(γe−γc).

Also, keep in mind that, if the envelope and core both have uniform (but different) densities, then ρic=ρc, ρie=ρe, and

ρcρ¯=νq3;ρeρ¯=1−ν1−q3;ρeρc=q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3)⇒q3ν=(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3.

Step 3: An analytic evaluation tells us that the following should happen. Using the numerically derived value for χeq, define,

𝒞'≡𝒞χeq3(γc−γe).

We should then discover that,

𝒜ℬ+𝒞'=χeq4−3γc=1Λeq⋅15(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γc.

Check It

ℬ+𝒞'

=

ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1{[1+Λeq]+(1−q3)q3+Λeqq3[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]}

⇒𝒜[Λeq⋅5(qν2)]

=

1+Λeq+(1−q3)q3+Λeqq3[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

⇒Λeq{1+52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]}

=

1+Λeq+(1−q3)q3+Λeqq3[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

⇒Λeq{52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]}

=

1q3+Λeqq3[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

⇒1Λeq

=

q3{52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]}−[52(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)+32q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

⇒2Λeq

=

5(ρeρc)(q−q3)+2q2(ρeρc)2[(1−q5)−52(q3−q5)]−5(ρeρc)(−2+3q−q3)−3q2(ρeρc)2(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)

 

=

5(ρeρc)[(q−q3)−(−2+3q−q3)]+1q2(ρeρc)2[2(1−q5)−5(q3−q5)−3(−1+5q2−5q3+q5)]

 

=

10(ρeρc)[1−q]+5q2(ρeρc)2[1−3q2+2q3]

⇒1Λeq[2q25(ρeρc)−1]

=

2q2(1−q)+(ρeρc)(1−3q2+2q3)

Fortunately, this precisely matches our earlier derivation, which states that,

1Λ

  = 

52(g2−1)=52(ρeρ0)[2(1−ρeρ0)(1−q)+ρeρ0(1q2−1)].

Playing With One Example

By setting,

γc=6/5;γe=2

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

2.5

1.0

2.0

a plot of 𝔊* versus χ exhibits the following, two extrema:

extremum

χeq

𝔊*

 

χeq3(γc−γe)

𝒞'

χeq4−3γc

𝒜ℬ+𝒞'

MIN

1.1824

−0.611367

 ⇒ 

0.66891

1.3378

1.0693

1.0694

MAX

9.6722

+0.508104

⇒

0.004313

0.008625

2.4786

2.4786

The last two columns of this table confirm the internal consistency of the relationships presented in Step 3, above. But what does this mean in terms of the values of ν, q, and the related ratio of densities at the interface, ρe/ρc?

Let's assume that what we're trying to display and examine is the behavior of the free-energy surface for a fixed value of the ratio of densities at the interface. Once the value of ρe/ρc has been specified, it is clear that the value of q (and, hence, also ν) is set because 𝒜 has also been specified. But our specification of ℬ along with ρe/ρc also forces a particular value of q. It is unlikely that these two values of q will be the same. In reality, once 𝒜 and ℬ have both been specified, they force a particular (ν,q) pair. How do we (easily) figure out what this pair is?

Let's begin by rewriting the expressions for 𝒜 and ℬ in terms of just q and the ratio, ρe/ρc, keeping in mind that, for the case of a uniform-density core (of density, ρc) and a uniform-density envelope (of density, ρe),

ρeρc

=

q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3),

hence,

ν

=

[1+(ρeρc)(1−q3)q3]−1

   and    

q3ν

=

[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3].

Putting the expression for 𝒜 in the desired form is simple because ν only appears as a leading factor. Specifically, we have,

𝒜

=

πq55[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]−2{1+52(ρeρc)(1q2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(1q5−1)−52(1q2−1)]}

 

=

π5[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]−2{q5+52(ρeρc)(q3−q5)+(ρeρc)2[1−52q3+32q5]}.

The expression for ℬ can be written in the form,

ℬ

=

ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1{1+π5(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γcχeq3γc−4}

 

=

ν[(4π3)q3ν]1−γc+πq55(ν2q6)χeq3γc−4

 

=

q3(4π3)1−γc[q3ν]−γc+πq55(q3ν)−2χeq3γc−4

 

=

q3(4π3)1−γc[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]−γc+πq55[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]−2χeq3γc−4.

Generally speaking, the equilibrium radius, χeq, which appears in the expression for ℬ, is not known ahead of time. Indeed, as is illustrated in our simple example immediately above, the normal path is to pick values for the coefficients, 𝒜, ℬ, and 𝒞, and determine the equilibrium radius by looking for extrema in the free-energy function. And because χeq is not known ahead of time, it isn't clear how to (easily) figure out what pair of physical parameter values, (ν,q), give self-consistent values for the coefficient pair, (𝒜,ℬ).

Because we are using a uniform density core and uniform density envelope as our base model, however, we do know the analytic solution for χeq. As stated above, it is,

χeq4−3γc

=

1Λeq⋅π5(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γc

 

=

πq22(34π)1−γc(νq3)(ρeρc)[2(1−ρeρc)(1−q)+ρeρc(1q2−1)]⋅[q3ν]γc−1

 

=

π2(34π)1−γc(ρeρc)[2(1−ρeρc)(q2−q3)+ρeρc(1−q2)]⋅[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]γc−2

Combining this expression with the one for ℬ gives us the desired result — although, strictly speaking, it is cheating! We can now methodically choose (ν,q) pairs and map them into the corresponding values of 𝒜 and ℬ. And, via an analogous "cheat," the choice of (ν,q) also gives us the self-consistent value of 𝒞. In this manner, we should be able to map out the free-energy surface for any desired set of physical parameters.

Second Example

Explain Logic

File:FreeEnergyExample.jpg

The figure presented here, on the right, shows a plot of the free energy, as a function of the dimensionless radius,

𝔊*(χ)

, where,

𝔊*

=

−3𝒜χ−1−ℬ(1−γc)χ3−3γc−𝒞(1−γe)χ3−3γe,

and, where we have used the parameter values,

γc=6/5;γe=2

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.201707

0.0896

0.002484

Directly from this plot we deduce that this free-energy function exhibits a minimum at χeq=0.1235 and that, at this equilibrium radius, the configuration has a free-energy value, 𝔊*(χeq)=−2.0097. Via the steps described below, we demonstrate that this identified equilibrium radius is appropriate for an (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope (with the just-specified core and envelope adiabatic indexes) that has the following physical properties:

  • Fractional core mass, ν=0.1;
  • Core-envelope interface located at ri/R=q=0.435;
  • Density jump at the core-envelope interface, ρe/ρc=0.8.


Step 1: Because the ratio, q3/ν, is a linear function of the density ratio, ρe/ρc, the full definition of the free-energy coefficient, 𝒜, can be restructured into a quadratic equation that gives the density ratio for any choice of the parameter pair, (q,𝒜). Specifically,

5(q3ν)2𝒜

=

q5+52(ρeρc)(1−q2)q3+(ρeρc)2(1−52q3+32q5)

⇒5𝒜[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]2

=

q5+52(ρeρc)(1−q2)q3+(ρeρc)2(1−52q3+32q5),

and this can be written in the form,

(ρeρc)2a+(ρeρc)b+c

=

0,

where,

a

≡

5𝒜(1−q3)2−1+52q3−32q5,

b

≡

10𝒜q3(1−q3)−52q3(1−q2),

c

≡

5𝒜q6−q5.

Hence,

ρeρc

=

12a[±(b2−4ac)1/2−b].

(For our physical problem it appears as though only the positive root is relevant.) For the purposes of this example, we set 𝒜=0.2017 and examined a range of values of q to find a physically interesting value for the density ratio. We picked:

𝒜

q

 

a

b

c

 

ρeρc

 

ν

0.2017

0.435

⇒

0.03173

−0.01448

−0.008743

⇒

0.80068

⇒

0.10074


Step 2: Next, we chose the parameter pair,

(q,ρeρc)=(0.43500,0.80000)

and determined the following parameter values from the known analytic solution:

ν

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

Λeq

χeq

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.100816

43.16365

3.923017

0.13684

0.12349

0.201707

0.089625

0.002484

Construction Multiple Curves to Define a Free-Energy Surface

Okay. Now that we have the hang of this, let's construct a sequence of curves that represent physical evolution at a fixed interface-density ratio, ρe/ρc, but for steadily increasing core-to-total mass ratio, ν. Specifically, we choose,

ρeρc=12.

From the known analytic solution, here are parameters defining several different equilibrium models:

Identification of Local Minimum in Free Energy

ν

q

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

Λeq

χeq

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.2

9−1/3=0.48075

12.5644

2.091312

0.366531

0.037453

0.2090801

0.2308269

2.06252×10−4

0.4

4−1/3=0.62996

4.21974

1.56498

0.707989

0.0220475

0.2143496

0.5635746

4.4626×10−5

0.5

3−1/3=0.693361

2.985115

1.42334

0.9448663

0.0152116

0.2152641

0.791882

1.5464×10−5

Here we are examining the behavior of the free-energy function for bipolytropic models having (nc,ne)=(0,0), (γc,γe)=(6/5,2), and a density ratio at the core-envelope interface of ρe/ρc=1/2. The figure shown here, on the right, displays the three separate free-energy curves, 𝔊*(χ) — where, χ≡R/Rnorm is the normalized configuration radius — that correspond to the three values of ν≡Mcore/Mtot given in the first column of the above table. Along each curve, the local free-energy minimum corresponds to the the equilibrium radius, χeq, recorded in column 6 of the above table.

File:ThreeFreeEnergyCurves.png

Each of the free-energy curves shown above has been entirely defined by our specification of the three coefficients in the free-energy function, 𝒜,ℬ, and 𝒞. In each case, the values of these three coefficients was judiciously chosen to produce a curve with a local minimum at the correct value of χeq corresponding to an equilibrium configuration having the desired (ν,ρe/ρc) model parameters. Upon plotting these three curves, we noticed that two of the curves — curves for ν=0.4 and ν=0.5 — also display a local maximum. Presumably, these maxima also identify equilibrium configurations, albeit unstable ones. From a careful inspection of the plotted curves, we have identified the value of χeq that corresponds to the two newly discovered (unstable) equilibrium models; these values are recorded in the table that immediately follows this paragraph. By construction, we also know what values of 𝒜,ℬ, and 𝒞 are associated with these two identified equilibria; these values also have been recorded in the table. But it is not immediately obvious what the values are of the (ν,ρe/ρc) model parameters that correspond to these two equilibrium models.

Subsequently Identified Local Energy Maxima

χeq

𝔊*

χeq4−3γc

∴

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

𝒞'=𝒜χeq3γc−4−ℬ

(𝒞𝒞')1/(3γe−3γc)

0.08255

+4.87562

0.368715

0

0.2143496

0.5635746

4.4626×10−5

1.7768×10−2

0.08254

0.032196

+11.5187

0.25300

0

0.2152641

0.791882

1.5464×10−5

5.8964×10−2

0.032196

Related Discussions

Tiled Menu

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