SSC/FreeEnergy/PolytropesEmbedded/Pt3A

From jetwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Background

Index to original, very long chapter

Free-Energy of Bipolytropes

In this case, the Gibbs-like free energy is given by the sum of four separate energies,

𝔊

=

[Wgrav+𝔖therm]core+[Wgrav+𝔖therm]env.

In addition to specifying (generally) separate polytropic indexes for the core, nc, and envelope, ne, and an envelope-to-core mean molecular weight ratio, μe/μc, we will assume that the system is fully defined via specification of the following five physical parameters:

  • Total mass, Mtot;
  • Total radius, R;
  • Interface radius, Ri, and associated dimensionless interface marker, q≡Ri/R;
  • Core mass, Mc, and associated dimensionless mass fraction, ν≡Mc/Mtot;
  • Polytropic constant in the core, Kc.

In general, the warped free-energy surface drapes across a five-dimensional parameter "plane" such that,

𝔊

=

𝔊(R,Kc,Mtot,q,ν).

Order of Magnitude Derivation

Let's begin by providing very rough, approximate expressions for each of these four terms, assuming that nc=5 and ne=1.

Wgrav|core

≈

−𝔞c[GMtotMc(Ri/2)]=−2𝔞c[GMtot2R(νq)];

Wgrav|env

≈

−𝔞e[GMtotMe(Ri+R)/2]=−2𝔞e[GMtot2R(1−ν1+q)];

𝔖therm|core=Uint|core

≈

𝔟c⋅ncKcMc(ρ¯c)1/nc=5𝔟c⋅KcMtotν[3Mc4πRi3]1/5

 

=

𝔟c(3⋅5522π)1/5Kc(Mtotν)6/5(Rq)−3/5;

𝔖therm|env=Uint|env

≈

𝔟e⋅neKeMenv(ρ¯e)1/ne=𝔟e⋅KeMtot(1−ν)[3Menv4π(R3−Ri3)]

 

=

𝔟e(322π)Ke[Mtot(1−ν)]2[R3(1−q3)]−1.

In writing this last expression, it has been necessary to (temporarily) introduce a sixth physical parameter, namely, the polytropic constant that characterizes the envelope material, Ke. But this constant can be expressed in terms of Kc via a relation that ensures continuity of pressure across the interface while taking into account the drop in mean molecular weight across the interface, that is,

Ke(ρ¯e)(ne+1)/ne

≈

Kc(ρ¯c)(nc+1)/nc

⇒Ke[(μeμc)ρ¯c]2

≈

Kc(ρ¯c)6/5

⇒KeKc(μeμc)2

≈

[3Mtotν4π(Rq)3]−4/5.

Hence, the fourth energy term may be rewritten in the form,

𝔖therm|env=Uint|env

≈

𝔟e(322π)(μeμc)−2Kc[3Mtotν4π(Rq)3]−4/5[Mtot(1−ν)]2[R3(1−q3)]−1

 

=

𝔟e(322π)1/5(μeμc)−2KcMtot6/5R−3/5[q3ν]4/5(1−ν)2(1−q3).

Putting all the terms together gives,

𝔊

≈

−2𝔞c[GMtot2R(νq)]−2𝔞e[GMtot2R(1−ν1+q)]+𝔟c(3⋅5522π)1/5Kc(Mtotν)6/5(Rq)−3/5

 

 

+𝔟e(322π)1/5(μeμc)−2KcMtot6/5R−3/5[q3ν]4/5(1−ν)2(1−q3)

 

=

−2𝒜biP[GMtot2R]+ℬbiPKc[(νMtot)2qR]3/5

⇒𝔊Enorm

=

−2𝒜biP[GMtot2R](G3Kc5)1/2+ℬbiP(ν2q)3/5Kc[Mtot2R]3/5(G3Kc5)1/2

 

=

−2𝒜biP[RnormR]+ℬbiP(ν2q)3/5[RnormR]3/5,

where,

𝒜biP

≡

[𝔞c(νq)+𝔞e(1−ν1+q)],

ℬbiP

≡

(322π)1/5[5𝔟c+𝔟e(μeμc)−2q3(1−ν)2ν2(1−q3)].

Equilibrium Radius

Order of Magnitude Estimate

This means that,

∂𝔊∂R

=

+2𝒜biP[GMtot2R2]−35ℬbiPKc[ν2q]3/5Mtot6/5R−8/5.

Hence, because equilibrium radii are identified by setting ∂𝔊/∂R=0, we have,

ReqRnorm

=

(2⋅53)5/2[𝒜biPℬbiP]5/2(qν2)3/2.

Reconcile With Known Analytic Expression

From our earlier derivations, it appears as though,

χeq≡ReqRnorm

=

(3825π)−1/2(324)(qℓi)5(νq3)2(1+ℓi2)3

 

=

(2⋅53)5/2(qν2)3/2[(π28⋅3⋅55)1/2(ν2q)5/2(1+ℓi2)3ℓi5].

This implies that,

𝒜biPℬbiP

≈

[(π28⋅3⋅55)1/2(ν2q)5/2(1+ℓi2)3ℓi5]2/5

 

=

(ν2q)(π28⋅3⋅55)1/5(1+ℓi2)6/5ℓi2

⇒[𝔞c(νq)+𝔞e(1−ν1+q)]

≈

122⋅5(ν2q)(1+ℓi2)6/5ℓi2[5𝔟c+𝔟e(μeμc)−2q3(1−ν)2ν2(1−q3)]

⇒[𝔞c+𝔞e⋅q(1−ν)ν(1+q)]

≈

ν22⋅5(1+ℓi2)6/5ℓi2[5𝔟c+𝔟e(μeμc)−2q3(1−ν)2ν2(1−q3)]

Focus on Five-One Free-Energy Expression

Approximate Expressions

Let's plug this equilibrium radius back into each term of the free-energy expression.

WgravEnorm|core

≈

−2𝔞c(G3Kc5)1/2[GMtot2Req(νq)]

 

=

−2𝔞c(νq)[RnormReq];

WgravEnorm|env

≈

−2𝔞e(G3Kc5)1/2[GMtot2Req(1−ν1+q)]

 

=

−2𝔞e(1−ν1+q)[RnormReq];

ScoreEnorm=[3(γc−1)2]UintEnorm|core

≈

[32⋅5]𝔟c(3⋅5522π)1/5(G3Kc5)1/2Kc(Mtotν)6/5(Reqq)−3/5

 

=

[32⋅5]𝔟c(3⋅5522π)1/5(ν2q)3/5(RnormReq)3/5;

SenvEnorm=[3(γe−1)2]UintEnorm|env

≈

[32]𝔟e(322π)1/5(μeμc)−2(G3Kc5)1/2KcMtot6/5Req−3/5[q3ν]4/5(1−ν)2(1−q3)

 

=

[32]𝔟e(322π)1/5(μeμc)−2[q3ν]4/5(1−ν)2(1−q3)(RnormReq)3/5.

From Detailed Force-Balance Models

In the following derivations, we will use the expression,

χeq≡ReqRnorm

=

(μeμc)3(π23)1/21A2ηs=(π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5.

Keep in mind, as well — as derived in an accompanying discussion — that,

ν≡McoreMtot

=

(m32ℓi3)(1+ℓi2)−1/2[1+(1−m3)2ℓi2]−1/2[m3ℓi+(1+ℓi2)(π2+tan−1Λi)]−1,

where,

m3≡3(μeμc).

From the accompanying Table 1 parameter values, we also can write,

q

=

ηiηs=ηi{π2+ηi+tan−1[1ηi−ℓi]}−1

 

=

ηi{ηi+cot−1[ℓi−1ηi]}−1,

where,

ηi

=

m3[ℓi(1+ℓi2)].

Let's also define the following shorthand notation:

𝔏i

≡

(ℓi4−1)ℓi2+(1+ℓi2)3ℓi3⋅tan−1ℓi;

𝔎i

≡

(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1Λi]+Λiηi.


Gravitational Potential Energy of the Core

Pulling from our detailed derivations,

[WcoreEnorm]eq

=

−(3825π)1/2[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)].

⇒−χeq[WcoreEnorm]eq

=

(3825π)1/2[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)](π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5

 

=

(324)ν2q⋅1ℓi5[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)+(1+ℓi2)3tan−1(ℓi)]

Out of equilibrium, then, we should expect,

WcoreEnorm

=

−χ−1(324)ν2q⋅1ℓi5[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)+(1+ℓi2)3tan−1(ℓi)]

 

=

−χ−1(324)ν2q⋅1ℓi2[𝔏i−83],

which, in comparison with our above approximate expression, implies,

𝔞c

=

(325)νℓi5[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)+(1+ℓi2)3tan−1(ℓi)].

Thermal Energy of the Core

Again, pulling from our detailed derivations,

[ScoreEnorm]eq

=

12(3825π)1/2[ℓi(ℓi4−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]

⇒χeq3[ScoreEnorm]eq5

=

125(3825π)5/2[ℓi(ℓi4−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]5[(π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5]3

 

=

1π(322)11(ν2q)3[ℓi(ℓi4−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]5[(1+ℓi2)9ℓi15].

Out of equilibrium, we should then expect,

ScoreEnorm

=

(322π)1/5[χ−1(ν2q)1(1+ℓi2)2]3/5(322)2𝔏i.

In comparison with our above approximate expression, we therefore have,

[(32⋅5)𝔟c(3⋅5522π)1/5(ν2q)3/5]5

=

1π(322)11(ν2q)3[ℓi(ℓi4−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]5[(1+ℓi2)9ℓi15]

⇒𝔟c

=

323ℓi3(1+ℓi2)6/5[ℓi(ℓi4−1)+(1+ℓi2)3tan−1(ℓi)].


Gravitational Potential Energy of the Envelope

Again, pulling from our detailed derivations and appreciating, in particular, that (see, for example, our notes on equilibrium conditions),

A

=

ηisin⁡(ηi−B),

(ηs−B)

=

π,

ηi−B

=

π2−tan−1(Λi),

⇒sin⁡(ηi−B)=(1+Λi2)−1/2

     and    

sin⁡[2(ηi−B)]=2Λi(1+Λi2)−1 ,

we have,

[WenvEnorm]eq

=

−(123π)1/2(μeμc)−3A2{[6(ηs−B)−3sin⁡[2(ηs−B)]−4ηssin⁡2(ηs−B)+4B]

 

 

−[6(ηi−B)−3sin⁡[2(ηi−B)]−4ηisin⁡2(ηi−B)+4B]}

 

=

−(123π)1/2(μeμc)−3[ηisin⁡(ηi−B)]2{6π−[6(ηi−B)−3sin⁡[2(ηi−B)]−4ηisin⁡2(ηi−B)]}

 

=

−(123π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2(1+Λi2){6π−6[π2−tan−1(Λi)]+6[Λi(1+Λi2)]+4ηi[1(1+Λi2)]}

 

=

−(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi+23⋅ηi}.

So, in equilibrium we can write,

−χeq[WenvEnorm]eq

=

(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi+23⋅ηi}(π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5

 

=

322(ηim3)3{(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λiηi+23}ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)3ℓi5

 

=

322(ν2q)1ℓi2{(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λiηi+23}.

And out of equilibrium,

WenvEnorm

=

−χ−1⋅322(ν2q)1ℓi2[𝔎i+23].

This, in turn, implies that both in and out of equilibrium,

𝔞e

=

323[ν2(1+q)q(1−ν)]1ℓi2{(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λiηi+23}.

Thermal Energy of the Envelope

Again, pulling from our detailed derivations,

[SenvEnorm]eq

=

(125π)1/2(μeμc)−3A2{[6(ηs−B)−3sin⁡[2(ηs−B)]]−[6(ηi−B)−3sin⁡[2(ηi−B)]]}

 

=

(125π)1/2(μeμc)−3[ηisin⁡(ηi−B)]2{6π−6(ηi−B)+3sin⁡[2(ηi−B)]}

 

=

(125π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2(1+Λi2){6[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+6[Λi(1+Λi2)−1]}

 

=

12(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi}.

So, in equilibrium we can write,

χeq3[SenvEnorm]eq

=

12(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi}[(π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5]3

 

=

(ν2q)3(32π2212)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi3{(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λiηi}[(1+ℓi2)939ℓi15]

 

=

(ν2q)3(π26⋅35)[(1+ℓi2)6ℓi12]{(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λiηi}.

And, out of equilibrium,

[SenvEnorm]eq

=

χ−3(ν2q)3(π26⋅35)[(1+ℓi2)6ℓi12]𝔎.

Combined in Equilibrium

Notice that, in combination,

[2Senv+WenvEnorm]eq

=

−23(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi3

 

=

−23(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3[3(μeμc)ℓi(1+ℓi2)−1]3

 

=

−(2⋅36π)1/2[ℓi3(1+ℓi2)3].

Also, from above,

[2Score+WcoreEnorm]eq

=

−(3825π)1/2[ℓi(−83ℓi2)(1+ℓi2)−3]

 

=

+(2⋅36π)1/2[ℓi3(1+ℓi2)3].

So, in equilibrium, these terms from the core and envelope sum to zero, as they should.

Out of Equilibrium

And now, in combination out of equilibrium,

𝔊Enorm

=

(χχeq)−1{[WcoreEnorm]eq+[WenvEnorm]eq}+(χχeq)−3/5(2nc3)[ScoreEnorm]eq+(χχeq)−3(2ne3)[SenvEnorm]eq.

Hence, quite generally out of equilibrium,

∂∂χ[𝔊Enorm]

=

−χ−1(χχeq)−1{[WcoreEnorm]eq+[WenvEnorm]eq}−35χ−1(χχeq)−3/5(103)[ScoreEnorm]eq−3χ−1(χχeq)−3(23)[SenvEnorm]eq.

Let's see what the value of this derivative is if the dimensionless radius, χ, is set to the value that has been determined, via a detailed force-balanced analysis, to be the equilibrium radius, namely, χ=χeq. In this case, we have,

{∂∂χ[𝔊Enorm]}χ→χeq

=

−χeq−1{[WcoreEnorm]eq+[WenvEnorm]eq+2[ScoreEnorm]eq+2[SenvEnorm]eq}.

But, according to the virial theorem — and, as we have just demonstrated — the four terms inside the curly braces sum to zero. So this demonstrates that the derivative of our out-of-equilibrium free-energy expression does go to zero at the equilibrium radius, as it should!

Summary51

In summary, the desired out of equilibrium free-energy expression is,

𝔊Enorm

=

WcoreEnorm+WenvEnorm+(2nc3)ScoreEnorm+(2ne3)SenvEnorm

 

=

−χ−1(324)ν2q⋅1ℓi2[𝔏i−83]−χ−1⋅322(ν2q)1ℓi2[𝔎i+23]

 

 

+(2⋅53)(322π)1/5[χ−1(ν2q)1(1+ℓi2)2]3/5(322)2𝔏i+(23)χ−3(ν2q)3(π26⋅35)[(1+ℓi2)6ℓi12]𝔎

 

=

−(324)[χ−1ν2q⋅1ℓi2][𝔏i+4𝔎i]+(322π)1/5(3⋅523)[χ−1(ν2q)1(1+ℓi2)2]3/5𝔏i

 

 

+(π25⋅36)[χ−1(ν2q)(1+ℓi2)2ℓi4]3𝔎.

Or, in terms of the ratio,

X≡χχeq,

and pulling from the above expressions,

[WcoreEnorm]eq

=

−(3825π)1/2[ℓi(ℓi4−83ℓi2−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]

 

=

−(3825π)1/2[ℓi(1+ℓi2)]3[𝔏i−83]

[WenvEnorm]eq

=

−(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi+23⋅ηi}

 

=

−(3825π)1/2[ℓi(1+ℓi2)]3[4𝔎i+83]

[ScoreEnorm]eq

=

12(3825π)1/2[ℓi(ℓi4−1)(1+ℓi2)−3+tan−1(ℓi)]

 

=

12(3825π)1/2[ℓi(1+ℓi2)]3𝔏i

[SenvEnorm]eq

=

12(322π)1/2(μeμc)−3ηi2{(1+Λi2)[π2+tan−1(Λi)]+Λi}

 

=

12(3825π)1/2[ℓi(1+ℓi2)]3(4𝔎i),

we have the streamlined,

(25π36)1/2[(1+ℓi2)ℓi]3[𝔊Enorm]

=

+X−3/5(5𝔏i)+X−3(4𝔎i)−X−1(3𝔏i+12𝔎i)

or, better yet,

Out-of-Equilibrium, Free-Energy Expression for BiPolytropes with (nc,ne)=(5,1)

24(qℓi2ν2)χeq[𝔊Enorm]

=

X−3/5(5𝔏i)+X−3(4𝔎i)−X−1(3𝔏i+12𝔎i)


where,

𝔏i

≡

(ℓi4−1)ℓi2+(1+ℓi2)3ℓi3⋅tan−1ℓi,

𝔎i

≡

Λiηi+(1+Λi2)ηi[π2+tan−1Λi],

Λi

≡

1ηi−ℓi,

ηi

=

3(μeμc)[ℓi(1+ℓi2)].

From the accompanying Table 1 parameter values, we also can write,

1q

=

ηsηi=1+1ηi[π2+tan−1Λi],

ν

=

ℓiq(1+Λi2)1/2.

Radial Derivatives

∂𝔊*∂X

=

−X−8/5(3𝔏i)−X−4(12𝔎i)+X−2(3𝔏i+12𝔎i)

∂2𝔊*∂X2

=

35[X−13/5(8𝔏i)+X−5(80𝔎i)−X−1(10𝔏i+40𝔎i)]

Consistent with our generic discussion of the stability of bipolytropes and the specific discussion of the stability of bipolytropes having (nc,ne)=(5,1), it can straightforwardly be shown that ∂𝔊/∂χ=0 is satisfied by setting X=1; that is, the equilibrium condition is,

χ=χeq

=

(π23)1/2ν2q⋅(1+ℓi2)333ℓi5.

Furthermore, the equilibrium configuration is unstable whenever ∂2𝔊/∂χ2<0, that is, it is unstable whenever,

𝔏i𝔎i

>

20.

Table 1 of an accompanying chapter — and the red-dashed curve in the figure adjacent to that table — identifies some key properties of the model that marks the transition from stable to unstable configurations along equilibrium sequences that have various values of the mean-molecular weight ratio, μe/μc.

See Also

In October 2023, this very long chapter was subdivided in order to more effectively accommodate edits. Here is a list of the resulting set of shorter chapters:

  1. Free-Energy Synopsis
  2. Free-Energy of Truncated Polytropes
  3. Free-Energy of BiPolytropes


Tiled Menu

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