SSC/VirialStability

From jetwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Virial Stability of BiPolytropes

Discussion with Kundan Kadam

See particularly … K. Kadam et al. (2016, MNRAS, 462, pp. 2237-2245)

The comments provided inside the following box are for Kundan Kadam, providing feedback on a derivation he sent to me ( J. E. Tohline) on Monday, 27 January 2014.

[31 January 2014] I agree with the following derived expressions; they all already appear in my presentation elsewhere on this page:

Throughout the envelope …       Mr=4π3(r3ρe+ri3ρc−ri3ρe);

Mtot=4π3ρc(q3R3ν);

ν=[1+(ρeρc)(q−3−1)]−1.

During the recent December holiday break, I also used the hydrostatic balance relation to derive expressions for the pressure throughout the two-component (uniform density core + uniform density envelope) model, as you have done. I agree completely with your derivation of the expressions for — and relationships between — Pcc, Pci, and Pei. In addition, I chose to normalize all the pressures to,

Pnorm≡(G3ρc4Mtot2)1/3.

Letting an asterisk superscript denote normalized pressures, that is, P*≡P/Pnorm, my derived expressions are:

Pcc*=Pci*+[πν26]1/3,

and,

Pei*=Pci*=[πν26]1/3(ρeρc)[ρeρc(1q2−1)+2(1−ρeρc)(1−q)].




[4 February 2014] In deriving the above analytic expression for the pressure, we have effectively determined the detailed equilibrium structure of a bipolytrope that has nc=0 and ne=0 without ever using the virial theorem. This is an excellent accomplishment for a variety of reasons.

First, we can now compare and contrast these newly derived expressions with the analogous expressions that have been derived earlier for a bipolytrope with nc=5 and ne=1. For example, at the end of Step #7 in the new derivation, we find the following expressions for the equilibrium radius and total mass of a bipolytrope with (nc,ne)=(0,0) expressed in terms of the chosen central density, ρ0, and central pressure, P0, of the configuration:

[Gρ02P0]1/2R

  = 

(12π)1/23qg,

[G3ρ04P03]1/2Mtot

  = 

(2π)1/23νg3,

where the function (note that, for a few days, there was a sign error in this definition of g),

g(q,ρe/ρ0)≡{1+(ρeρ0)[2(1−ρeρ0)(1−q)+ρeρ0(1q2−1)]}1/2.

We will also find it useful to combine these two expressions to eliminate direct reference to the central density, ρ0, obtaining,

[R4GMtot2]P0

  = 

(123π)3ν2g2q4.

For comparison, referring back to the "Normalization" discussion and table of "Parameter Values" provided in our example bipolytrope with (nc,ne)=(5,1), we have,

(μeμc)[Gρ02(Kcρ06/5)]1/2R

  = 

(12π)1/2ηsθi2,

(μeμc)2[G3ρ04(Kcρ06/5)3]1/2Mtot

  = 

(2π)1/2Aηsθi,

[R4GMtot2]1/2Kcρ06/5

  = 

(123π)ηs2A2θi6,

where expressions for the various functions, A,ηs,θi, are also provided in the table of "Parameter Values." The dimensional normalizations are clearly the same in both types of bipolytropes because, in the latter case, P0=Kcρ06/5.

Second, a comparison between these two types of bipolytropes may help clarify how a discontinuous jump in the mean molecular weight should be handled in the more general virial analysis. Usually ρe/ρc is set equal to μe/μc at the interface, but if the core and envelope are both treated as having uniform densities, setting the ratio of densities to the ratio of mean molecular weights seems to overconstrain the problem. I haven't figured out yet how to handle this, but maybe this model comparison will help.

Third, when conducting the virial analysis, it should now be clear how to evaluate the system's free energy. When the system is treated as being composed of a central uniform-density spherical core surrounded by a uniform-density envelope, we have already derived an analytic expression for the total gravitational potential energy, W. The above derivation of the pressure distribution throughout such a configuration — that is, throughout a bipolytrope with (nc,ne)=(0,0) — now lets us derive an analytic expression for the thermal energy of the core, Score, and an analytic expression for the thermal energy of the envelope, Senv. Whether focusing on the core or the envelope, start with an appreciation that,

dS=32(Pρ)dm=32(Pρ)(4π3)ρr2dr=2πPr2dr.

Hence,

Score=2π∫0ri[P(r)]corer2dr;andSenv=2π∫riR[P(r)]envr2dr.

Then, for either volume segment, the relationship between the internal energy, U, and the thermal energy, S, is,

U=[23(γ−1)]S.

My initial derivation gives,

Do not use these expressions as they are flawed. The correct expressions follow in the comments dated 12 February 2014.

Score=2πP0R3[q3−q5(2πGρ02R25P0)];

Senv=4π3R3{3Pi2(1−q3)+πGρ02R2(ρeρc)[16(6q3−q2−5q5)−110(ρeρc)(2+10q3−5q2−7q5)]}.




[12 February 2014] In an accompanying discussion of the thermal energy content of an (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope, I've re-derived and cross-checked the expressions for Score and Senv. I am quite confident that the correct expressions are:

Score

=

(4π5)R3q5(5Pi2q2+Π),

Senv

=

πR35{10Pi(1−q3)+10Π(ρeρ0)[−2q2+3q3−q5]+6Π(ρeρ0)2[−1+5q2−5q3+q5]},

where, Pi is the pressure at the interface,

Π≡323π(GMtot2R4)(ν2q6),

and the relationship between the central pressure and the pressure at the interface is,

P0=Pi+Πq2.




[7 February 2014] More succinctly, this (nc,ne)=(0,0) bipolytrope is very interesting because it provides three independent ways of deriving the proper equilibrium structure. If we work through the detailed derivation in all three cases, we should have a very firm foundation from which to perform the stability analysis of a broad range of bipolytropic configurations. The three derivations are …

  1. Detailed force balance (Kundan has already done this): Use the hydrostatic balance equation to determine how the pressure varies with radius throughout the two-component (core-envelope) structure. For a given choice of P0,ρ0,ν, and q, the radius and, hence, total mass of the configuration is determined by the surface boundary condition, that is, P=0 at r=R. These results are summarized above.
  2. Virial equilibrium: The structures derived from demanding detailed force balance should also be in virial equilibrium. (The virial equilibrium condition is less demanding than detailed force balance because it is a global statement of energy balance and is not concerned with internal structural details. Virial equilibrium is a necessary but not sufficient condition; the force-balance solution gives the more detailed information but must, itself, also define a structure that has virial energy balance.) It is well known that, for the simplest spherically symmetric stars, the statement of virial balance is,

    2S+W=0.

    Since we have analytic expressions for both S and W, we should check to see if they sum appropriately to zero as expected from this simple statement of virial equilibrium. [Note inserted 12 February 2014: An accompanying discussion of the virial equilibrium of this particular bipolytrope shows that the relation does hold precisely.]

  1. Extrema in the Free Energy: We should also expect to be able to define the free energy of this bipolytrope by the expression,

    𝔊=U+W.

    Then, for a given choice of P0,ρ0,ν, and q (perhaps we should choose Mtot instead of P0), the equilibrium radius should be defined by the radius at which,

    ∂𝔊∂R=0.

    We should check to make sure that this is also true.

Items #2 and #3 are the next things I will be working on.




[17 February 2014; by J. E. Tohline] Using derivatives of the free energy function, 𝔊, I have finished deriving the equilibrium radius for bipolytropic configurations where the density of the core (ρ0) and the density of the envelope (ρe) are both assumed to be uniform. I have also finished deriving the condition for the dynamical stability of such configurations assuming that, as the equilibrium structure undergoes a radial perturbation, the core compresses along a γc adiabat while the envelope compresses along a γe adiabat. The equilibrium radius is derived here and the stability condition is described here.




[25 February 2014; by J. E. Tohline] I have extended the free-energy-based stability analysis to models of (nc,ne)=(5,1) bipolytropes. As is detailed here, I have been able to derive analytic, closed form expressions for the gravitational potential energy and internal thermal energies of these configurations. As is shown here, an examination of the first derivative of the free energy identifies equilibrium configurations that exactly match those derived from the earlier detailed force-balance derivation; and, finally, as shown here (see especially Figure 3), the second derivative of the free energy expression allows us to determine which equilibrium models are stable and which are dynamically unstable. Hooray!



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   |


BiPolytrope Structural Relations

[Following a discussion that Tohline had with Kundan Kadam on 3 July 2013, we have decided to carry out a virial equilibrium and stability analysis of nonrotating bipolytropes.]

We will adopt the following approach:

  • Properties of the core ⋯
    • Uniform density, ρc;
    • Polytropic constant, Kc, and polytropic index, nc;
    • Surface of the core at ri;
  • Properties of the envelope ⋯
    • Uniform density, ρe;
    • Polytropic constant, Ke, and polytropic index, ne;
    • Base of the core at ri and surface at R.

Use the dimensionless radius,

ξ≡rri.

Then, ξi=1 and ξs≡R/ri.

Expressions for Mass

Inside the core, the expression for the mass interior to any radius, 0≤ξ≤1, is,

Mξ=4π3ρcri3ξ3 .

The expression for the mass interior to any position within the envelope, 1≤ξ≤ξs, is,

Mξ=4π3ri3[ρc+ρe(ξ3−1)] .

Hence, the mass of the core, the mass of the envelope, and the total mass are, respectively,

Mcore=4π3ρcri3 ;

Menv=4π3ri3[ρe(ξs3−1)] ;

Mtot=4π3ri3[ρc+ρe(ξs3−1)] .

Following the work of Schönberg & Chandrasekhar (1942) — see our accompanying discussion — we are seeking equilibrium configurations in the ν−q plane where,

ν≡McoreMtot     and     q≡riR=1ξs.

So we can combine the above expressions to obtain,

ρeρc=MenvMcore(ξs3−1)−1=[1−νν](ξs3−1)−1=q3ν(1−ν1−q3),

or,

ν=[1+(ρeρc)(1q3−1)]−1 .

It is worth noting that exactly the same result arises from an examination of the analytically definable, structural properties of bipolytropes having nc=5 and ne=1. That is, the ratio of the average density in the envelope to the average density in the core is,

ρ¯eρ¯c=(Mtot*−Mcore*)/[(R*)3−(rcore*)3]Mcore*/(rcore*)3=q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3).

This is, of course, at it should be.


It is worth noting that, because ρ¯≡3Mtot/(4πR3), we can write,

ρcρ¯=νq3,    and     ρeρ¯=1−ν1−q3,

which is consistent with the above expression for the ratio, ρe/ρc. The following figure shows how ν varies with q for various choices of the mass density ratio, ρe/ρc. It illustrates that, for a given core-to-total mass ratio, ν, the relative location of the interface radius, q, can vary between zero and one, but each value of q reflects a different ratio of envelope-to-core mass density.

Nu versus Q
Nu versus Q

Energy Expressions

The gravitational potential energy of the bipolytropic configuration is obtained by integrating over the following differential energy contribution,

dW=−(GMrr)dm .

Hence,

W=Wcore+Wenv

=−G{∫0ri(Mrr)4πr2ρcdr+∫riR(Mrr)4πr2ρedr}

 

=−G{∫01(4π3ρcri3ξ3)4πri2ρcξdξ+∫1ξs4π3ρcri3[1+ρeρc(ξ3−1)]4πri2ρeξdξ}

 

=−3GMcore2ri{∫01ξ4dξ+∫1ξs[1+ρeρc(ξ3−1)](ρeρc)ξdξ}

 

=−3GMcore2ri{15+(ρeρc)∫1ξsξdξ+(ρeρc)2∫1ξs(ξ3−1)ξdξ}

 

=−(GMtot2R)3ν2ξs{15+12(ρeρc)(ξs2−1)+(ρeρc)2[15(ξs5−1)−12(ξs2−1)]}

 

=−(3GMtot25R0)(RR0)−1ν2ξsf(ν,q),

where R0 is an, as yet unspecified, normalization radius, and

f(ν,q)≡1+52(ρeρc)(ξs2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(ξs5−1)−52(ξs2−1)].

I like the form of this expression. The leading term, which scales as R−1, encapsulates the behavior of the gravitational potential energy for a given choice of the internal structure, namely, a given choice of ξs, ν, and density ratio (ρe/ρc). Actually, only two internal structural parameters need to be specified — ν and ξs (or, q). From these two, the expression shown above allows the determination of (ρe/ρc).

Sanity Check: Uniform Density Configuration

Mcore=4π3ri3ρc;

Menv=4π3ri3ρe(ξs3−1);

Mtot=4π3ri3ρc[1+ρeρc(ξs3−1)].

If ρe/ρc=1, then,

MenvMcore=(1ν−1)=(ξs3−1)=(1q3−1)⇒ν=q3.

The gravitational potential energy is,

W|ρe/ρc=1

=−(GMtot2R)3ν2ξs{15+12(ξs2−1)+[15(ξs5−1)−12(ξs2−1)]}

 

=−35(GMtot2R)ν2ξs{15+[15(ξs5−1)]}

 

=−35(GMtot2R)ν2ξs6=−35(GMtot2R)(νq3)2=−35(GMtot2R).

Drawing on expressions developed in our introductory discussion of the virial equation, the internal energy of the bipolytropic configuration is,

U=Ucore+Uenv

=

{Mcore[(1−δ∞nc)ncKcρc1/nc+δ∞nccs2ln⁡(ρc/ρ0)]+neMenvKeρe1/ne},

where ρ0 is an, as yet unspecified, normalization density, and we have allowed for either an isothermal (δ∞nc=1) or an adiabatic (δ∞nc=0) core.


Strategy

Scaling Parameters

We want to vary the total radius, R, of the configuration and look for extrema in the free energy, while holding the following parameters fixed: Mtot, cs2 (or Kc), ν, and q. So we need to rewrite the expressions for W and U such that everything is constant except for R, or χ≡R/R0. And, in order to put everything explicitly in terms of the fixed parameters just specified, let's go ahead and define the length, time, and density against which all dimensional quantities will ultimately be scaled.

Chosen Scaling Parameters

 

Polytropic Core

Isothermal Core

R0

[(KcG)ncMtot1−nc]1/(3−nc)

GMtotcs2

t0

[(Kc3Mtot2)ncG−(2nc+3)]1/(6−2nc)

GMtotcs3

ρ0≡3Mtot4πR03

34π[G3Mtot2Kc3]nc/(3−nc)

34π[cs6G3Mtot2]


Rescaled Energy Expressions

Isothermal Core

In the case of an isothermal core, the expression for W shown above needs only a slight modification to put it in the appropriate form, namely,

W

=−35Mtotcs2χ−1(ν2q)f(ν,q),

In the case of an isothermal core, the expression for the total internal energy may be rewritten as,

UMtot

=

νcs2ln⁡(ρc/ρ0)+(1−ν)neKeρe1/ne

 

=

νcs2[ln⁡(ρc/ρ¯)+ln⁡(ρ¯/ρ0)]+(1−ν)neKeρ01/ne[(ρeρ¯)(ρ¯ρ0)]1/ne

 

=

νcs2[ln⁡(ν/q3)−3ln⁡χ]+(1−ν)neKeρ01/ne(1−ν1−q3)1/neχ−3/ne.

Hence (in the case of an isothermal core),

𝔊*≡𝔊Mtotcs2

=

−35(ν2q)f(ν,q)χ−1+ν[ln⁡(ν/q3)−3ln⁡χ]+(1−ν)ne[Keρ01/necs2](1−ν1−q3)1/neχ−3/ne

 

=

𝔊0*−Aχ−1−Cln⁡χ+Dχ−3/ne,

where,

𝔊0*

≡

νln⁡(ν/q3),

A

≡

35(ν2q)f(ν,q),

C

≡

3ν,

D

≡

(1−ν)ne[Keρ01/necs2](1−ν1−q3)1/ne=(1−ν)ne(Kecs2)[34π(cs6G3Mtot2)]1/ne(1−ν1−q3)1/ne.

Polytropic Core

In the case of a polytropic core,

𝔊*≡𝔊MtotKcρ01/nc

=

−Aχ−1+Bcχ−3/nc+Beχ−3/ne,

where,

A

≡

35[GMtotR0Kcρ01/nc](ν2q)f(ν,q)=35(4π3)1/nc(ν2q)f(ν,q),

Bc

≡

ncν(νq3)1/nc,

Be

≡

ne(1−ν)[(KeKc)ρ01/ne−1/nc](1−ν1−q3)1/ne.

Temperature Across the Interface

In order to ensure that the temperature of the envelope is the same as the temperature of the core when there is a drop in the mean molecular weight at the interface, we need to have,

[Pe(ρe/μe)]E

=

[Pc(ρc/μc)]E.

Note that this reflects the same physical condition as the constraint that is placed on the enthalpy at the interface when we analyze the detailed structure of nc=5, ne=1 bipolytropes (see the middle of Table 1 in the accompanying discussion), namely,

[μeHe(ne+1)]i

=

[μcHc(nc+1)]i.


In the case of an isothermal core, this implies,

(μeμc)Kecs2

=

[ρe−1/ne]E

⇒(μeμc)Keρ01/necs2

=

[(ρeρ¯)(ρ¯ρ0)E]−1/ne

 

=

(1−ν1−q3)−1/ne(ρ¯ρ0)E−1/ne=(1−ν1−q3)−1/neχE3/ne

Not Necessarily Useful

⇒χE3/ne

=

(μeμc)Kecs2[34π(cs6G3Mtot2)]1/ne(1−ν1−q3)1/ne

 

=

(μeμc)[D(1−ν)neMtotcs2]

 

=

(μeμc)[3ν(1−ν)ne(DC)]

Therefore, the coefficient D becomes,

D

≡

ne(1−ν)[Keρ01/necs2](1−ν1−q3)1/ne=ne(1−ν)(μcμe)χE3/ne.


In the case of a polytropic core, this implies,

(μeμc)KeKc

=

ρ01/nc[ρe−1/ne]E

⇒(μeμc)(KeKc)ρ0(1/ne−1/nc)

=

[(ρeρ¯)(ρ¯ρ0)E]−1/ne

 

=

(1−ν1−q3)−1/ne(ρ¯ρ0)E−1/ne=(1−ν1−q3)−1/neχE3/ne

Therefore, the coefficient Be becomes,

Be

≡

ne(1−ν)(μcμe)χE3/ne.


Pressure Across the Interface

We will relate Ke to Kc by demanding that initially the pressure is identical in both layers. The relevant algebraic relation will depend on whether the core is isothermal (nc=∞), or whether it has a finite polytropic index and therefore adjusts adiabatically to compressions or expansions.

Isothermal Core

Guided by the interface conditions presented in Table 2 of our accompanying discussion of the structure of bipolytropes, the condition for pressure balance in the case of an isothermal core should be,

cs2Keρ01/ne=(ρcρ0)1/ne(ρeρc)1+1/ne=(ρcρ0)1/ne(μeμc)1+1/ne.

Actually, in the full structural solution,

cs2Keρ01/ne

=

(ρcρ0)1/neeψi(ρeρc)1+1/neϕi1+ne

 

=

(ρcρ0)1/neeψi[μeμce−ψiϕi−ne]1+1/neϕi1+ne

 

=

(ρcρ0e−ψi)1/ne[μeμc]1+1/ne.

Adiabatic Core

Guided by the interface conditions presented in Table 2 of our accompanying discussion of the structure of bipolytropes, the condition for pressure balance in the case of polytropic core should be,

(KcKe)ρ01/nc−1/ne=(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/nc(ρeρc)1+1/ne=(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/nc(μeμc)1+1/ne.

Actually, in the full structural solution,

(KcKe)ρ01/nc−1/ne

=

ρ01/nc−1/neρc−(1+1/nc)θi−(1+nc)ρe1+1/neϕi1+ne

 

=

(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/ncθi−(1+nc)(ρeρc)1+1/neϕi1+ne

 

=

(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/nc[μeμcθinc]1+1/neθi−(1+nc)

 

=

(ρcρ0θinc)1/ne−1/nc[μeμc]1+1/ne.

Virial Analysis

Isothermal Core Equilibrium Condition

For a given set of fixed coefficients in the free energy expression, equilibria are identified by setting ∂𝔊/∂χ=0. Generally,

∂𝔊∂χ

=

Aχ−2−Cχ−1−(3ne)Dχ−(1+3/ne).

So, for the case of ne=3/2, the equilibrium radius is given by the condition,

AχE−2

=

CχE−1+2DχE−3

⇒CχE2−AχE+2D

=

0

⇒χE

=

12C[A±(A2−8DC)1/2]

⇒χE

=

A2C[1±(1−8DCA2)1/2]

 

=

χ0[1±1−Π],

where,

χ0

≡

A2C,

    and    

Π

≡

8DCA2.

Combined Equilibrium Constraints

But, from the condition on the temperature at the interface we also need,

χE

=

(μeμc)1/2[2ν(1−ν)(DC)]1/2

 

=

χ0(μeμc)1/2[(ν1−ν)Π]1/2.

Hence, the two conditions combined imply,

1±1−Π

=

λ1/2Π1/2,

where,

λ

≡

(μeμc)(ν1−ν).

This, in turn, implies,

1−Π

=

(λ1/2Π1/2−1)2

 

=

λΠ−2(λΠ)1/2+1

⇒2(λΠ)1/2

=

Π(1+λ)

⇒Π

=

4λ(1+λ)2.

But notice, as well, that in order to have real roots of the equilibrium condition, we need Π≤1. This means,

4λ

≤

(1+λ)2

⇒λ2−2λ+1

≥

0.

⇒(λ−1)2

≥

0

⇒λ

≥

1

⇒μeμc

≥

1ν−1

⇒ν

≥

(μeμc+1)−1.

Free Energy Expression

To within an additive constant, the free energy may now be written as,

𝔊=W+U=−Aχ−1+Beχ−3/ne+(1−δ∞nc)Bcχ−3/nc−δ∞nc[BIln⁡χ−13BIln⁡(ρc|0ρ0)],

where, χ≡R/R0 and,

A

=

(3GMtot25R0)ν2ξs{1+52(ρeρc)(ξs2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(ξs5−1)−52(ξs2−1)]}=(3GMtot25R0)ν2qf(ν,q),

Be

=

Mtot(1−ν)neKe(ρe|0)1/ne=Mtot(1−ν)Keρ01/nene(ρe|0ρ0)1/ne,

Bc

=

MtotνncKc(ρc|0)1/nc=MtotKeρ01/neνnc[(KcKe)ρ01/nc−1/ne](ρc|0ρ0)1/nc=MtotKeρ01/neνnc[(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/nc(μeμc)1+1/ne](ρc|0ρ0)1/nc,

BI

=

3Mtotcs2ν=MtotKeρ01/ne[cs2Keρ01/ne]3ν=MtotKeρ01/ne[(ρcρ0)1/ne(μeμc)1+1/ne]3ν.

Derivatives of Free Energy

∂𝔊∂χ=Aχ−2−3neBeχ−(1+3/ne)−(1−δ∞nc)3ncBcχ−(1+3/nc)−δ∞ncBIχ−1;

∂2𝔊∂χ2=−2Aχ−3+3ne(1+3ne)Beχ−(2+3/ne)+(1−δ∞nc)3nc(1+3nc)Bcχ−(2+3/nc)+δ∞ncBIχ−2.

Equilibrium Condition

We obtain the equilibrium radius, χE, when ∂𝔊/∂χ=0. Hence, the relation governing the equilibrium radius is,

AχE−2

=

(1−δ∞nc)3ncBcχE−1−3/nc+δ∞ncBIχE−1+3neBeχE−1−3/ne

⇒neA3Be

=

(1−δ∞nc)neBcncBeχE1−3/nc+δ∞ncneBI3BeχE+χE1−3/ne

⇒χE1−3/ne

=

α−(1−δ∞nc)βχE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβIχE,

where,

α

≡

neA3Be=[GMtot5R0Ke(ρe|0)1/ne]ν2f(ν,q)q=[GMtot5R0Keρ01/ne](ρe|0ρ0)−1/neν2f(ν,q)q;

β

≡

neBcncBe=ν[(ρcρ0)1/ne−1/nc(ρc|0ρ0)1/nc(ρe|0ρ0)−1/ne](μeμc)1+1/ne;

βI

≡

neBI3Be=cs2ν(1−ν)Ke(ρe|0)1/ne=ν[(ρcρ0)1/ne(ρe|0ρ0)−1/ne](μeμc)1+1/ne.

Isothermal Core

In the case of an isothermal core (δ∞nc=1),

AχE−2

=

BIχE−1+3neBeχE−1−3/ne

⇒BIχE3/ne−AχE3/ne−1+3neBe

=

0.

Or, alternatively, via a dimensionless treatment,

χE1−3/ne

=

α−βIχE.

Adiabatic Core

In the case of an adiabatice core (δ∞nc=0),

χE1−3/ne

=

α−βχE1−3/nc.

Stability

At this equilibrium radius, the second derivative of the free energy has the value,

χE3(ne3Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

−2A(ne3Be)+(1−δ∞nc)(ne3Be)3nc(1+3nc)BcχE1−3/nc+δ∞nc(ne3Be)BIχE+3ne(ne3Be)(1+3ne)BeχE1−3/ne

 

=

−2α+(1−δ∞nc)β(1+3nc)χE1−3/nc+δ∞ncβIχE+(1+3ne)χE1−3/ne,

which, when combined with the condition for equilibrium gives,

χE3(ne3Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

−2α+(1−δ∞nc)β(1+3nc)χE1−3/nc+δ∞ncβIχE+(1+3ne)[α−(1−δ∞nc)βχE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβIχE]

 

=

α(3ne−1)+(1−δ∞nc)β(3nc−3ne)χE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβI(3ne)χE

⇒χE3(ne23Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

α(3−ne)−(1−δ∞nc)3β(1−nenc)χE1−3/nc−δ∞nc3βIχE.

The equilibrium configuration is stable as long as this second derivative is positive.

Isothermal Core

Hence, for a bipolytrope with an isothermal core (δ∞nc=1), the configuration is stable as long as,

χE<α(3−ne)3βI.

Adiabatic Core

In the adiabatic case (δ∞nc=0), the configuration is stable as long as,

χE1−3/nc<αnc(3−ne)3β(nc−ne).


Examples

Isothermal Core with ne=3/2

Consider the case examined by Schönberg & Chandrasekhar (1942), that is, the case of an isothermal core and an envelope with ne=3/2. The equilibrium radius is given by the expression,

χE−1

=

α−βIχE

⇒βIχE2−αχE+1

=

0

⇒χE

=

12βI[α±(α2−4βI)1/2]

 

=

α2βI[1±(1−4βIα2)1/2].

And the system is stable when,

χE<χ0≡α2βI.

A couple of physical attributes are now clear:

  • Physical configurations only exist for (4βI/α2)≤1.
  • For each value of (4βI/α2)<1, there are two equilibrium configurations, given by the ± roots of the quadratic equation for χE; the "negative" branch is stable but the "positive" branch is unstable.

Note that,

χ0≡α2βI=(GMtot10R0cs2)νf(ν,q)q⇒(10R0cs2GMtot)=νf(ν,q)qχ0,

and,

4βIα2=(10R0cs2GMtot)2[Ke(ρe|0)1/necs2]q2(1−ν)ν3f2(ν,q)=[Ke(ρe|0)1/necs2]q2(1−ν)ν3f2(ν,q)[νf(ν,q)qχ0]2=[μcμe](1ν−1).

But, this last expression must be less than or equal to unity, which implies,

1ν≤1+μeμc⇒ν≥(1+μeμc)−1 This doesn't seem to have the correct behavior, for example, the smaller values of ν should be the stable ones, so there must be a mistake in the derivation.

Adiabatic Core with nc=5 and ne=1

Consider the case with an analytical structure derived by Eagleton, Faulkner, and Cannon (1998, MNRAS, 298, 831), that is, the case of an adiabatic core having nc=5 and an envelope with ne=1. The equilibrium radius is,

Old and Probably Irrelevant Discussion

Summary Expressions (New)

In the above derivations, we have adopted the notation,

ρnorm≡3Mtot4πR03.

Now, guided by the earlier discussion of pressure-bounded isothermal spheres, we choose the following normalization energy and radius:

E0=3Mtotcs2         and         R0=GMtot5cs2.

Also, by analogy, it is useful to define the dimensionless parameter,

ΠI≡Keρnorm1/necs2=Kecs2[3Mtot4πR03]1/ne=(3⋅534π)1/neKecs2[cs6G3Mtot2]1/ne.

(It is worth noting that if we set ne=−1, the dimensionless parameter ΠI becomes identical to the parameter Π as defined in the context of our discussion of the Bonnor-Ebert sphere. But in order to complete the analogy with the Bonnor-Ebert sphere discussion, we would also need to change the sign on the last term in the above expression for the free energy because in the earlier discussion the external pressure was an external, confining condition whereas here it is included as an internal energy of the system.)


Relevant Expressions for Isothermal Core

ρeρc=μeμc

q3ν(1−ν1−q3)

 

χ≡RR0

ΠIne/3[ν−ne (1−ν)ne+1]1/3qne(1−q3)−(ne+1)/3

 

χ3=(RR0)3

ΠIne(ρeρc)ne+1[q3+(ρeρc)(1−q3)]−1

 

AE0

ν2ξs{1+52(ρeρc)(ξs2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(ξs5−1)−52(ξs2−1)]}

=(ν2q){fA(ν,q)}

BeE0

ΠI(ne3)(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne

 

BIE0

ν

 

𝔊E0

−AE0χ−1−BIE0ln⁡χ+BeE0χ−3/ne

=ν[−(νq)fA(ν,q)χ−ln⁡χ+ne3(1q3−1)]

[On 8 November 2013, J. E. Tohline wrote: I just confirmed that the simpler expression for the normalized total free energy, 𝔊/E0, matches the more complicated version. I don't like the result because the third term in the free energy -- the one contributed by the internal energy of the envelope -- is independent of the radius of the configuration, χ; it works out this way because my expression for ΠI has a radial dependence that exactly cancels out the explicit radial dependence that appears in the more complicated expression. But maybe it's okay after all because this expression is intended to show how the free energy varies across the (q,ν) plane, and the effect of ΠI appears implicitly through the specification of χ, or visa versa.]


Summary Expressions (Old)

In the above derivations, we have adopted the notation,

ρnorm≡3Mtot4πR03.

Now, guided by the dimensional aspects of the various coefficients in the free energy expression, we choose the following normalization energy and radius:

E0=MtotKeρnorm1/ne         and         R0=GMtotKeρnorm1/ne.

When combined with the expression for ρnorm, these become,

E0=[(4π3)G3Mtot5−neKe−ne]1/(3−ne)         and         R0=[3Mtot4π(KeGMtot)ne]1/(3−ne).

So, the primary scales are determined after specifying two parameters: Mtot and Ke. We also obtain,

κI≡cs2Keρnorm1/ne=Mtotcs2E0=cs2[(34π)KeneG3Mtot2]1/(3−ne).


Relevant Expressions for Isothermal Core

ρeρc

q3ν(1−ν1−q3)

χ≡RR0

qne(1−q3)−(ne+1)/3[ν−ne (1−ν)ne+1κI−ne]1/3

AE0

(35)ν2ξs{1+52(ρeρc)(ξs2−1)+(ρeρc)2[(ξs5−1)−52(ξs2−1)]}

BeE0

ne(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne

BIE0

3κIν

𝔊E0

−AE0χ−1−BIE0ln⁡χ+BeE0χ−3/ne

Subsequently, we will also find it useful to have expressions for the following coefficient ratios:

neA3Be

=

(GMtot25R0)ν2ξs{f(ρe/ρc,ξs)}[KeMtotρnorm1/ne(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne]−1

 

=

(GMtot5Keρnorm1/neR0)ν2ξs{f(ρe/ρc,ξs)}(1−ν)−(1+1/ne)q3/ne(1q3−1)1/ne

 

=

(GMtot5Keρnorm1/neR0)ν2q−1[(1−ν)−(ne+1)(1−q3)]1/ne{f(ρe/ρc,ξs)};


neBI3Be

=

Mtotcs2ν[KeMtotρnorm1/ne(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne]−1

 

=

κIν(1−ν)−(1+1/ne)q3/ne(1q3−1)1/ne

 

=

κIν[(1−ν)−(ne+1)(1−q3)]1/ne;


neBcncBe

=

[KcMtotρnorm1/ncν1+1/ncξs3/nc][KeMtotρnorm1/ne(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne]−1

 

=

κAν1+1/ncξs3/nc[(1−ν)1+1/neξs3/ne(ξs3−1)−1/ne]−1

 

=

κA[ν1+1/nc(1−ν)−(1+1/ne)][ξs3(1/nc−1/ne)(ξs3−1)1/ne]

 

=

κA[ν1+1/nc(1−ν)−(1+1/ne)][q3(1/ne−1/nc)(1q3−1)1/ne]

 

=

κA[ν1+1/nc(1−ν)−(1+1/ne)][q−3ne/nc(1−q3)]1/ne

 

=

κA[ν1+1/ncq−3/nc][(1−ν)−(ne+1)(1−q3)]1/ne.

Derivatives of Free Energy

∂𝔊∂χ=Aχ−2−(1−δ∞nc)3ncBcχ−(1+3/nc)−δ∞ncBIχ−1−3neBeχ−(1+3/ne);

∂2𝔊∂χ2=−2Aχ−3+(1−δ∞nc)3nc(1+3nc)Bcχ−(2+3/nc)+δ∞ncBIχ−2+3ne(1+3ne)Beχ−(2+3/ne).

Equilibrium Condition

We obtain the equilibrium radius, χE, when ∂𝔊/∂χ=0. Hence, the relation governing the equilibrium radius is,

AχE−2

=

(1−δ∞nc)3ncBcχE−1−3/nc)+δ∞ncBIχE−1+3neBeχE−1−3/ne)

⇒neA3Be

=

(1−δ∞nc)neBcncBeχE1−3/nc+δ∞ncneBI3BeχE+χE1−3/ne

⇒χE1−3/ne

=

α−(1−δ∞nc)βχE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβIχE,

where,

α≡neA3Be;β≡neBcncBe;βI≡neBI3Be.

Stability

At this equilibrium radius, the second derivative of the free energy has the value,

χE3(ne3Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

−2A(ne3Be)+(1−δ∞nc)(ne3Be)3nc(1+3nc)BcχE1−3/nc+δ∞nc(ne3Be)BIχE+3ne(ne3Be)(1+3ne)BeχE1−3/ne

 

=

−2α+(1−δ∞nc)β(1+3nc)χE1−3/nc+δ∞ncβIχE+(1+3ne)χE1−3/ne,

which, when combined with the condition for equilibrium gives,

χE3(ne3Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

−2α+(1−δ∞nc)β(1+3nc)χE1−3/nc+δ∞ncβIχE+(1+3ne)[α−(1−δ∞nc)βχE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβIχE]

 

=

α(3ne−1)+(1−δ∞nc)β(3nc−3ne)χE1−3/nc−δ∞ncβI(3ne)χE

⇒χE3(ne23Be)∂2𝔊∂χ2|E

=

α(3−ne)−(1−δ∞nc)3β(1−nenc)χE1−3/nc−δ∞nc3βIχE.

Finally, the equilibrium configuration is stable as long as this second derivative is positive. Hence, for a bipolytrope with an isothermal core (δ∞nc=1), the configuration is stable as long as,

χE<α(3−ne)3βI.

In the adiabatic case (δ∞nc=0), the configuration is stable as long as,

χE1−3/nc<αnc(3−ne)3β(nc−ne).


Examples

Isothermal Core with n=3/2 Envelope

When the core is isothermal and ne=3/2, the equilibrium condition is:

χE−1=α−βIχE,

⇒βIχE2−αχE+1=0,

⇒χE=12βI[α±α2−4βI]=α2βI[1±1−4βIα2].

At the same time, the condition for stability is,

χE<α2βI.

Isothermal Core with n=1 Envelope

When the core is isothermal and ne=1, the equilibrium condition is:

χE−2=α−βIχE,

⇒χE3−αβIχE2+1βI=0.

(We need to solve this cubic equation.)

At the same time, the condition for stability is,

χE<2α3βI.

Old (and probably incorrect) cases

Envelope with n=3/2

If we choose an ne=3/2 envelope, we obtain stability for,

χE<2βα.

In this case, the equilibrium radius condition is,

χE2−αχE+β=0

⇒χE=12[α±(α2−4β)1/2]=α2[1±(1−4βα2)1/2]


Envelope with n=1

If, instead, we choose an ne=1 envelope, we obtain stability for,

χE<3βα.

In this case, the equilibrium radius condition is,

α=χE+βχE−2,

⇒χE3−αχE2+β=0.

See Also

Tiled Menu

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