Appendix/Ramblings/BdHN - Revision history

Jet53man at 16:59, 4 July 2023

2023-07-04T16:59:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 4 July 2023
Line 621:		Line 621:
	END HIDDEN (pt. 1)		END HIDDEN (pt. 1)
	-->		-->



			<!-- BEGIN HIDDEN (pt. 2) this is submitted manuscript review.

	=Critique=		=Critique=
Line 670:		Line 674:

	C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin, G. H. (1906, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 206, 161).		C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin, G. H. (1906, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 206, 161).

			END HIDDEN (pt. 2)
			-->



			<!-- BEGIN HIDDEN (pt. 3)


	==Other==		==Other==
Line 735:		Line 747:
	<li>Ill-advised to refer to the ''new'' NS as "νNS" because, in this context, readers might reasonably associate the greek letter, ν, with neutrinos. </li>		<li>Ill-advised to refer to the ''new'' NS as "νNS" because, in this context, readers might reasonably associate the greek letter, ν, with neutrinos. </li>
	</ol>		</ol>

			END HIDDEN (pt. 3)
			-->

	=See Also=		=See Also=

Jet53man at 16:56, 4 July 2023

2023-07-04T16:56:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 4 July 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__FORCETOC__		__FORCETOC__

	=Binary-driven ~~Hpernovae~~=		=Binary-driven Hypernovae=
	The material presented here builds on our separate discussion of [[Appendix/Ramblings/TurningPoints#Close_Binary_Stars\|close binary stars]].		The material presented here builds on our separate discussion of [[Appendix/Ramblings/TurningPoints#Close_Binary_Stars\|close binary stars]].

			HIDDEN as of 4 July 2023.

			<!-- BEGIN HIDDEN (pt. 1)
	==Setup==		==Setup==

Line 615:		Line 618:
	</tr>		</tr>
	</table>		</table>

			END HIDDEN (pt. 1)
			-->

	=Critique=		=Critique=

Jet53man: /* Other */

2023-07-02T23:32:12Z

Other

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 2 July 2023
Line 665:		Line 665:
	C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin, G. H. (1906, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 206, 161).		C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin, G. H. (1906, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 206, 161).

	===~~Other~~===		==Other==

			===Trial Pieces===

	As a case in point, their toy model "before fission" is a (10 solar-mass) Maclaurin spheroid; next, they envision that fission occurs when the initial CO_star is rotating sufficiently fast that its eccentricity places it at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates (e = 0.8127); finally, their toy model "after fission" is a (1.5 solar-mass) Jacobi ellipsoid paired with an 8.5 solar-mass Maclaurin spheroid; . This is inaccurate depiction of the classical fission theory [see note 1, below].		As a case in point, their toy model "before fission" is a (10 solar-mass) Maclaurin spheroid; next, they envision that fission occurs when the initial CO_star is rotating sufficiently fast that its eccentricity places it at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates (e = 0.8127); finally, their toy model "after fission" is a (1.5 solar-mass) Jacobi ellipsoid paired with an 8.5 solar-mass Maclaurin spheroid; . This is inaccurate depiction of the classical fission theory [see note 1, below].

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T23:09:26Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 2 July 2023
Line 639:		Line 639:
	A. An excellent presentation regarding the classical "Fission Theory of Binary Stars" can be found in Lebovitz, N. R. (1972, ApJ, 175, p. 171) -- see especially the 2nd paragraph of section IV (pp. 176 - 177) where reference is made to the Jacobi bifurcation at e = 0.8127, and bifurcation to the "lower self-adjoint (LSA)" sequence at e = 0.9529. Both are points along the Maclaurin sequence where the the axisymmetric configuration is susceptible to deformation into a nonaxisymmetric (specifically, ellipsoidal) configuration: In the presence of viscous dissipation, the Jacobi bifurcation point is relevant; in the absence of viscosity, the LSA bifurcation point is relevant. In section 2 of their manuscript, Zhang and Ruffini focus on a "before fission" model that sits at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates. In the context of the precursor of long-GRBs, why have the authors focused on bifurcation to the Jacobi sequence instead of the LSA sequence?		A. An excellent presentation regarding the classical "Fission Theory of Binary Stars" can be found in Lebovitz, N. R. (1972, ApJ, 175, p. 171) -- see especially the 2nd paragraph of section IV (pp. 176 - 177) where reference is made to the Jacobi bifurcation at e = 0.8127, and bifurcation to the "lower self-adjoint (LSA)" sequence at e = 0.9529. Both are points along the Maclaurin sequence where the the axisymmetric configuration is susceptible to deformation into a nonaxisymmetric (specifically, ellipsoidal) configuration: In the presence of viscous dissipation, the Jacobi bifurcation point is relevant; in the absence of viscosity, the LSA bifurcation point is relevant. In section 2 of their manuscript, Zhang and Ruffini focus on a "before fission" model that sits at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates. In the context of the precursor of long-GRBs, why have the authors focused on bifurcation to the Jacobi sequence instead of the LSA sequence?

	B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, ~~note 1.C~~). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by Zhang and Ruffini?		B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, Note 1C). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by Zhang and Ruffini?

	C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575) where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from the Jacobi sequence; it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity.		C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575) where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from the Jacobi sequence; it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity. The scenario presented by Zhang and Ruffini regarding the manner in which fission occurs is quite different from the classical theory; the authors should explain why.


Line 659:		Line 659:
	Relevant References ...		Relevant References ...

	A. See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).		A. See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas, W. and Tait, P. G. (1867, Treatise on Natural Philosophy, Vol. I).

	B. See, for example, Eq. (4.2) on p. 591 of Marcus, Press, & Teukolsky (1977).		B. See, for example, Eq. (4.2) on p. 591 of Marcus, P. S., Press, W. H., and Teukolsky, S. A. (1977, ApJ, 214, 584).

	C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin (1906).		C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin, G. H. (1906, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 206, 161).

	===Other===		===Other===

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T22:38:37Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 2 July 2023
Line 649:		Line 649:


	[3] ~~Acknowledge Earlier Examples~~ of ~~Toy Model~~.		[3] Authors should acknowledge earlier examples of toy model.

	The authors' "Before Fission" configuration is a Maclaurin spheroid. For any value of the spheroid's eccentricity (e) -- not just the ~~value (0.8127)~~ picked by the authors ~~-- we know its dimensionless spin frequency [see reference 3A~~, ~~below] and we know its~~ dimensionless angular momentum [see reference 3B, below]. The configuration's spin frequency (Omega_0) and angular momentum (J_tot) can be expressed in physical units if~~, furthermore,~~ the configuration's mass and spin period are specified.		The authors' "Before Fission" configuration is a Maclaurin spheroid. For over 100 years, we have known what the expression is for the spheroid's dimensionless spin frequency [see reference 3A, below], for any value of the spheroid's eccentricity (e) -- not just the limited set of values picked for illustration purposes by the authors. Similarly, the community has had access to an analytic expression for the configuration's dimensionless angular momentum [see reference 3B, below]. The configuration's spin frequency (Omega_0) and angular momentum (J_tot) can furthermore be expressed in physical units if the configuration's mass and spin period are specified.

	The authors' "After Fission" configuration is a binary system that contains a pair of uniform-density, uniformly rotating objects in circular orbit about one another; assume furthermore that both stars have a spin frequency that is the same as (is synchronized with) the orbital frequency (Omega_f). Over a century ago, Darwin (1906) provided a general expression for this system's dimensionless total angular momentum, in terms of the binary's mass ratio and the ratio of the radius of each star to the orbital separation [see reference 3C, below]. Darwin assumed that both stars are spherical, whereas Zhang and Ruffini have assumed that one is a Maclaurin spheroid and the other is a Jacobi ellipsoid; in the context of the "toy model" being offered by the authors, this difference is ~~negligible~~.		The authors' "After Fission" configuration is a binary system that contains a pair of uniform-density, uniformly rotating objects in circular orbit about one another; they assume furthermore that both stars have a spin frequency that is the same as (is synchronized with) the orbital frequency (Omega_f). Over a century ago, Darwin (1906) provided a general expression for this system's dimensionless total angular momentum, in terms of the binary's mass ratio and the ratio of the radius of each star to the orbital separation [see reference 3C, below]. Darwin assumed that both stars are spherical, whereas Zhang and Ruffini have assumed that one is a Maclaurin spheroid and the other is a Jacobi ellipsoid; in the context of the "toy model" being offered by the authors, this is a subtle and negligible difference.

			Why don't the authors provide these much more general expressions to the reader and, at the same time, acknowledge that there is nothing particularly new about the toy model that they have adopted.

	Relevant References ...		Relevant References ...

	A. See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).		A. See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T21:53:50Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 2 July 2023
Line 649:		Line 649:


	[3] Toy Model		[3] Acknowledge Earlier Examples of Toy Model.

	~~Let~~ configuration ~~#1 be~~ a Maclaurin spheroid. ~~Once~~ the spheroid's eccentricity (e) ~~has been specified,~~ we know its dimensionless spin frequency [see ~~note 1~~, below] and we know its dimensionless angular momentum [see ~~note 2~~, below]. The configuration's spin frequency (Omega_0) and angular momentum (J_tot) can be expressed in physical units if, furthermore, the configuration's mass and spin period are specified.		The authors' "Before Fission" configuration is a Maclaurin spheroid. For any value of the spheroid's eccentricity (e) -- not just the value (0.8127) picked by the authors -- we know its dimensionless spin frequency [see reference 3A, below] and we know its dimensionless angular momentum [see reference 3B, below]. The configuration's spin frequency (Omega_0) and angular momentum (J_tot) can be expressed in physical units if, furthermore, the configuration's mass and spin period are specified.

	~~Let~~ configuration ~~#2 be~~ a binary system that contains a pair of uniform-density ~~spheres~~ in circular orbit about one another; assume furthermore that both ~~spheres~~ have a spin frequency that is the same as (is synchronized with) the orbital frequency (Omega_f). Darwin (1906) ~~provides an~~ expression for this system's dimensionless total angular momentum, in terms of the binary's mass ratio and the ratio of the radius of each star to the orbital separation [see ~~note 3~~, below].		The authors' "After Fission" configuration is a binary system that contains a pair of uniform-density, uniformly rotating objects in circular orbit about one another; assume furthermore that both stars have a spin frequency that is the same as (is synchronized with) the orbital frequency (Omega_f). Over a century ago, Darwin (1906) provided a general expression for this system's dimensionless total angular momentum, in terms of the binary's mass ratio and the ratio of the radius of each star to the orbital separation [see reference 3C, below]. Darwin assumed that both stars are spherical, whereas Zhang and Ruffini have assumed that one is a Maclaurin spheroid and the other is a Jacobi ellipsoid; in the context of the "toy model" being offered by the authors, this difference is negligible.

	~~[1]~~ See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).		Relevant References ...
			A. See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).

	~~[2]~~ See, for example, Eq. (4.2) on p. 591 of Marcus, Press, & Teukolsky (1977).		B. See, for example, Eq. (4.2) on p. 591 of Marcus, Press, & Teukolsky (1977).

	~~[3] See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin (1906~~).

			C. See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin (1906).

	===Other===		===Other===

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T21:29:38Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 2 July 2023
Line 651:		Line 651:
	[3] Toy Model		[3] Toy Model

			Let configuration #1 be a Maclaurin spheroid. Once the spheroid's eccentricity (e) has been specified, we know its dimensionless spin frequency [see note 1, below] and we know its dimensionless angular momentum [see note 2, below]. The configuration's spin frequency (Omega_0) and angular momentum (J_tot) can be expressed in physical units if, furthermore, the configuration's mass and spin period are specified.

			Let configuration #2 be a binary system that contains a pair of uniform-density spheres in circular orbit about one another; assume furthermore that both spheres have a spin frequency that is the same as (is synchronized with) the orbital frequency (Omega_f). Darwin (1906) provides an expression for this system's dimensionless total angular momentum, in terms of the binary's mass ratio and the ratio of the radius of each star to the orbital separation [see note 3, below].

			[1] See, for example, Eq. (6) on p. 78 of Chandrasekhar's EFE, or much earlier, Eq. (1) on p. 613 of Thomas & Tait (1867).

			[2] See, for example, Eq. (4.2) on p. 591 of Marcus, Press, & Teukolsky (1977).

			[3] See, for example, the expression for L_1 immediately following Eq. (1) on p. 165 of Darwin (1906).


			===Other===

	As a case in point, their toy model "before fission" is a (10 solar-mass) Maclaurin spheroid; next, they envision that fission occurs when the initial CO_star is rotating sufficiently fast that its eccentricity places it at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates (e = 0.8127); finally, their toy model "after fission" is a (1.5 solar-mass) Jacobi ellipsoid paired with an 8.5 solar-mass Maclaurin spheroid; . This is inaccurate depiction of the classical fission theory [see note 1, below].		As a case in point, their toy model "before fission" is a (10 solar-mass) Maclaurin spheroid; next, they envision that fission occurs when the initial CO_star is rotating sufficiently fast that its eccentricity places it at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates (e = 0.8127); finally, their toy model "after fission" is a (1.5 solar-mass) Jacobi ellipsoid paired with an 8.5 solar-mass Maclaurin spheroid; . This is inaccurate depiction of the classical fission theory [see note 1, below].

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T21:26:47Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 2 July 2023
Line 640:		Line 640:

	B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, note 1.C). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by Zhang and Ruffini?		B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, note 1.C). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by Zhang and Ruffini?


	C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575) where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from the Jacobi sequence; it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity.		C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575) where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from the Jacobi sequence; it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity.
Line 648:		Line 647:

	Over the past 40+ years, various modeling efforts have examined the onset and/or the nonlinear development of nonaxisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating configurations that are more realistic than the (incompressible) models considered by the classical fission hypothesis. All seem to indicate that the outcome is not fission. See, for example, Lebovitz, N. R. (1974, ApJ, 190, 121); or Tohline, J. E. (2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 40, 349) -- especially the section titled "Delayed Breakup" (pp. 367 - 374) -- or Ott, C. D. et al. (2005, ApJ, 625, L119).		Over the past 40+ years, various modeling efforts have examined the onset and/or the nonlinear development of nonaxisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating configurations that are more realistic than the (incompressible) models considered by the classical fission hypothesis. All seem to indicate that the outcome is not fission. See, for example, Lebovitz, N. R. (1974, ApJ, 190, 121); or Tohline, J. E. (2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 40, 349) -- especially the section titled "Delayed Breakup" (pp. 367 - 374) -- or Ott, C. D. et al. (2005, ApJ, 625, L119).


			[3] Toy Model

Jet53man: /* Manuscript Review */

2023-07-02T18:42:13Z

Manuscript Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 2 July 2023
Line 628:		Line 628:
	Furthermore, the authors do not address serious questions that have been raised over the past 40+ years regarding the viability of the fission theory. Using numerical hydrodynamic techniques, various research groups have modeled the growth of non-axisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating protostellar clouds as well as in collapsing stellar cores. Nonlinear-amplitude bar-like and spiral-shaped structures develop, but fission into a binary system does not occur [see our Note 2, below].		Furthermore, the authors do not address serious questions that have been raised over the past 40+ years regarding the viability of the fission theory. Using numerical hydrodynamic techniques, various research groups have modeled the growth of non-axisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating protostellar clouds as well as in collapsing stellar cores. Nonlinear-amplitude bar-like and spiral-shaped structures develop, but fission into a binary system does not occur [see our Note 2, below].

	Finally, the bulk of this manuscript (sections 2 and 3) ~~is used~~ by the authors to develop, then use, a toy (algebraic) model to illustrate what the properties might be of a binary system that results from the fission of a CO_star. As is explained below [see our Note 3], there is nothing new (astrophysically or mathematically) in this presentation. At best, this portion of the manuscript should be significantly compressed and ~~earlier work properly referenced~~, ~~then~~ relegated to an appendix of a more substantive article.		Finally, the bulk of this manuscript (sections 2 and 3) describes efforts by the authors to develop, then use, a toy (algebraic) model to illustrate what the properties might be of a binary system that results from the fission of a CO_star. As is explained below [see our Note 3], there is nothing new (astrophysically or mathematically) in this presentation. At best, this portion of the manuscript should be significantly compressed; it should be modified to properly include citations to earlier works that have developed and used the same toy model; and -- again, at best -- it should be relegated to an appendix of a more substantive article.

			In summary, the authors present a highly speculative theory regarding precursors to long-GRBs but they provide no substantive arguments to back it up. My recommendation is that this manuscript by Zhang and Ruffini not be published in The Astrophysical Journal.


Line 637:		Line 639:
	A. An excellent presentation regarding the classical "Fission Theory of Binary Stars" can be found in Lebovitz, N. R. (1972, ApJ, 175, p. 171) -- see especially the 2nd paragraph of section IV (pp. 176 - 177) where reference is made to the Jacobi bifurcation at e = 0.8127, and bifurcation to the "lower self-adjoint (LSA)" sequence at e = 0.9529. Both are points along the Maclaurin sequence where the the axisymmetric configuration is susceptible to deformation into a nonaxisymmetric (specifically, ellipsoidal) configuration: In the presence of viscous dissipation, the Jacobi bifurcation point is relevant; in the absence of viscosity, the LSA bifurcation point is relevant. In section 2 of their manuscript, Zhang and Ruffini focus on a "before fission" model that sits at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates. In the context of the precursor of long-GRBs, why have the authors focused on bifurcation to the Jacobi sequence instead of the LSA sequence?		A. An excellent presentation regarding the classical "Fission Theory of Binary Stars" can be found in Lebovitz, N. R. (1972, ApJ, 175, p. 171) -- see especially the 2nd paragraph of section IV (pp. 176 - 177) where reference is made to the Jacobi bifurcation at e = 0.8127, and bifurcation to the "lower self-adjoint (LSA)" sequence at e = 0.9529. Both are points along the Maclaurin sequence where the the axisymmetric configuration is susceptible to deformation into a nonaxisymmetric (specifically, ellipsoidal) configuration: In the presence of viscous dissipation, the Jacobi bifurcation point is relevant; in the absence of viscosity, the LSA bifurcation point is relevant. In section 2 of their manuscript, Zhang and Ruffini focus on a "before fission" model that sits at the point along the Maclaurin sequence where the Jacobi sequence bifurcates. In the context of the precursor of long-GRBs, why have the authors focused on bifurcation to the Jacobi sequence instead of the LSA sequence?

	B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, note 1.C). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by ~~Ahang~~ and Ruffini?		B. In their effort to illustrate what the properties of an "after fission" binary system might be, Zhang and Ruffini pick: a system in which the mass ratio is 17/3; the more massive component is a Maclaurin spheroid; and the less massive component is a Jacobi ellipsoid. Why is this an appropriate "after fission" configuration? They seem to be suggesting that fission occurs precisely when the "before fission" CO_star evolves to the Jacobi bifurcation point and that it splits in such a way that one fission component lands on one equilibrium branch -- the Maclaurin sequence -- while the second lands on the other equilibrium branch -- the Jacobi sequence. This is quite different from the scenario that is suggested by the classical fission theory (see the following, note 1.C). What is the physical justification for the scenario being proposed by Zhang and Ruffini?


	C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along ~~the Jacobi sequence where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from~~ the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575); it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity.		C. The classical fission theory is quantitatively well illustrated by Eriguchi, Y., and Hachisu, I. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 844) -- see especially their Figure 1 -- and by Eriguchi, Y., Hachisu, I., and Sugimoto, D. (1982, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 67, p. 1068) -- see especially their Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Applying this classical theory to the physical scenario being investigated by Zhang and Ruffini, we would expect the following: After the axisymmetric CO_star encounters the Jacobi bifurcation point, the star should deform into an ellipsoidal configuration that becomes more and more elongated on a (slow) viscous timescale. Eventually, a point is encountered along the Jacobi sequence (a_2, a_3) = (0.2972, 0.2575) where a so-called dumbbell/binary sequence bifurcates from the Jacobi sequence; it is at this point that the configuration becomes susceptible to fission into a binary system with a mass ratio of unity.

Jet53man: /* NOTES: */

2023-07-02T18:15:42Z

NOTES:

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 2 July 2023
Line 645:		Line 645:
	[2] Is the classical concept of fission viable in any physical context?		[2] Is the classical concept of fission viable in any physical context?

	Over the past 40+ years, various modeling efforts have examined the onset and/or the nonlinear development of nonaxisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating configurations that are more realistic than the (incompressible) models considered by the classical fission hypothesis. All seem to indicate that the outcome is not fission. See, for example, Lebovitz, N. R. (1974, ApJ, 190, 121); ~~and~~ Tohline, J. E. (2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 40, 349) -- especially the section titled "Delayed Breakup" (pp. 367 - 374) -- ~~and~~ Ott, C. D. et al. (2005, ApJ, 625, L119).		Over the past 40+ years, various modeling efforts have examined the onset and/or the nonlinear development of nonaxisymmetric structure in rapidly rotating configurations that are more realistic than the (incompressible) models considered by the classical fission hypothesis. All seem to indicate that the outcome is not fission. See, for example, Lebovitz, N. R. (1974, ApJ, 190, 121); or Tohline, J. E. (2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 40, 349) -- especially the section titled "Delayed Breakup" (pp. 367 - 374) -- or Ott, C. D. et al. (2005, ApJ, 625, L119).