SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51Renormalize: Difference between revisions

From jetwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,538: Line 1,538:
<tr>
<tr>
   <td align="right">
   <td align="right">
<math>x_+ \biggl[2\phi_i +\frac{4\Delta_\eta \phi_i}{\eta_i} - \Delta_\eta (n+1)(- \phi^')_i\biggr] </math>
<math>x_+ \overbrace{\biggl[2\phi_i +\frac{4\Delta_\eta \phi_i}{\eta_i} - \Delta_\eta (n+1)(- \phi^')_i\biggr]}^{\mathrm{TERM1}} </math>
   </td>
   </td>
   <td align="center">
   <td align="center">
Line 1,545: Line 1,545:
   <td align="left">
   <td align="left">
<math>
<math>
x_- \biggl[\frac{4\Delta_\eta \phi_i}{\eta_i} - \Delta_\eta (n+1)(- \phi^')_i - 2\phi_i\biggr]  
x_- \overbrace{\biggl[\frac{4\Delta_\eta \phi_i}{\eta_i} - \Delta_\eta (n+1)(- \phi^')_i - 2\phi_i\biggr]}^{\mathrm{TERM2}}
+  x_i\biggl\{4\phi_i - \frac{\Delta_\eta^2(n+1)}{3}\biggl[ \frac{\sigma_c^2}{\gamma_g}  -  
+  x_i \overbrace{\biggl\{4\phi_i - \frac{\Delta_\eta^2(n+1)}{3}\biggl[ \frac{\sigma_c^2}{\gamma_g}  -  
2\alpha \biggl(- \frac{3\phi^'}{\eta}\biggr)_i\biggr]  \biggr\} \, .</math>
2\alpha \biggl(- \frac{3\phi^'}{\eta}\biggr)_i\biggr]  \biggr\}}^{\mathrm{TERM3}} \, .</math>
   </td>
   </td>
</tr>
</tr>

Revision as of 19:42, 28 May 2022

BiPolytrope with nc=5 and ne=1

This chapter very closely parallels our original analytic derivation — see also, 📚 P. P. Eggleton, J. Faulkner, & R. C. Cannon (1998, MNRAS, Vol. 298, issue 3, pp. 831 - 834) — of the structure of bipolytropes in which the core has an nc=5 polytropic index and the envelope has an ne=1 polytropic index. Our primary objective, here, is to renormalize the principal set of variables, replacing the central density with the configuration's total mass, so that the mass is held fixed along each model sequence.

From Table 1 of our original analytic derivation, we see that,

(μeμc)2Mtot = 𝓂surf(KcG)3/2ρ01/5
ρ0 = {𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}5,

where,

𝓂surf (2π)1/2θi1(η2dϕdη)s=(2π)1/2Aηsθi.

Steps 2 & 3

Based on the discussion presented elsewhere of the structure of an isolated n=5 polytrope, the core of this bipolytrope will have the following properties:

θ(ξ)=[1+13ξ2]1/2θi=[1+13ξi2]1/2;

dθdξ=ξ3[1+13ξ2]3/2(dθdξ)i=ξi3[1+13ξi2]3/2.

The first zero of the function θ(ξ) and, hence, the surface of the corresponding isolated n=5 polytrope is located at ξs=. Hence, the interface between the core and the envelope can be positioned anywhere within the range, 0<ξi<.

Step 4: Throughout the core (0ξξi)

Specify: Kc and ρ0

 

ρ

=

ρ0θnc

=

ρ0(1+13ξ2)5/2

P

=

Kcρ01+1/ncθnc+1

=

Kcρ06/5(1+13ξ2)3

r

=

[(nc+1)Kc4πG]1/2ρ0(1nc)/(2nc)ξ

=

[KcGρ04/5]1/2(32π)1/2ξ

Mr

=

4π[(nc+1)Kc4πG]3/2ρ0(3nc)/(2nc)(ξ2dθdξ)

=

[Kc3G3ρ02/5]1/2(23π)1/2[ξ3(1+13ξ2)3/2]


Specify: Kc and Mtot

ρ =

{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}5(1+13ξ2)5/2

  =

(𝓂surfMtot)5(KcG)15/2(μeμc)10(1+13ξ2)5/2;

P =

Kc{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}6(1+13ξ2)3

  =

(𝓂surfMtot)6Kc10G9(μeμc)12(1+13ξ2)3;

r =

{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}2[KcG]1/2(32π)1/2ξ

  =

(𝓂surfMtot)2(KcG)5/2(μeμc)4(32π)1/2ξ;

Mr =

{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}1[Kc3G3]1/2(23π)1/2[ξ3(1+13ξ2)3/2]

  =

(Mtot𝓂surf)(μeμc)2(23π)1/2[ξ3(1+13ξ2)3/2].

New Normalization
ρ~ ρ[(KcG)3/21Mtot]5;
P~ P[Kc10G9Mtot6];
r~ r[(KcG)5/2Mtot2],
M~r MrMtot;
H~ H[Kc5/2G3/2Mtot].

After applying this new normalization, we have throughout the core,

ρ~ =

𝓂surf5(μeμc)10(1+13ξ2)5/2;

P~ =

𝓂surf6(μeμc)12(1+13ξ2)3;

r~ =

𝓂surf2(μeμc)4(32π)1/2ξ;

M~r =

𝓂surf1(μeμc)2(23π)1/2[ξ3(1+13ξ2)3/2].

Step 8: Throughout the envelope (ηiηηs)

Given (from above) that,

ρ0 = {𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}5,

we have throughout the envelope,

ρ

=

ρ0(μeμc)θi5ϕ

 

=

{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}5(μeμc)θi5ϕ

 

=

{(KcG)15/2Mtot5}𝓂surf5(μeμc)9θi5ϕ;

P

=

Kcρ06/5θi6ϕ2

 

=

Kc{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}6θi6ϕ2

 

=

{Kc10G9Mtot6}𝓂surf6(μeμc)12θi6ϕ2;

r

=

[KcGρ04/5]1/2(μeμc)1θi2(2π)1/2η

 

=

[KcG]1/2{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}2(μeμc)1θi2(2π)1/2η

 

=

{(KcG)5/2Mtot2}𝓂surf2(μeμc)3θi2(2π)1/2η;

Mr

=

[Kc3G3ρ02/5]1/2(μeμc)2θi1(2π)1/2(η2dϕdη)

 

=

[Kc3G3]1/2{𝓂surf(KcG)3/2(μeμc)2Mtot1}1(μeμc)2θi1(2π)1/2(η2dϕdη)

 

=

Mtot𝓂surf1θi1(2π)1/2(η2dϕdη).

Adopting the new normalization then gives,


ρ~

=

𝓂surf5(μeμc)9θi5ϕ;

P~

=

𝓂surf6(μeμc)12θi6ϕ2;

r~

=

𝓂surf2(μeμc)3θi2(2π)1/2η;

M~r

=

𝓂surf1θi1(2π)1/2(η2dϕdη).

Behavior of Central Density Along Equilibrium Sequence

Each equilibrium sequence will be defined as a sequence of models having the same jump in the mean-molecular weight, μe/μc. Along a given sequence, we vary the location of the core/envelope interface, ξi. Our desire is to analyze the behavior of the central density, while holding the total mass fixed, as the location of the interface is varied.

The central density is given by the expression,

ρ~c =

𝓂surf5(μeμc)10[(1+13ξ2)5/2]ξ=0=𝓂surf5(μeμc)10,

where,

𝓂surf = (2π)1/2Aηsθi.

In order to evaluate 𝓂surf for a given specification of the interface location, ξi, we need to know that,

θi = (1+13ξi2)1/2,
ηi = (μeμc)3θi2ξi,
Λi = ξi3[(μeμc)11θi2ξi21],
A = ηi(1+Λi2)1/2,
ηs = π2+ηi+tan1(Λi).

Keep in mind, as well, that,

νMcoreMtot = (μeμc)23[ξi3θi4Aηs],
qrcoreR = (μeμc)3[ξiθi2ηs].


Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences
Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences
Central Density versus xi_i (mu_ratio = 0.3100)

Model Pairings

Here we work in the context of the B-KB74 conjecture. We will stick with the sequence corresponding to μe/μc=0.31, and continue to examine the model pairings (B1 and B2) associated with the degenerate model (A) at νmax. Specifically …

file = Dropbox/WorkFolder/Wiki edits/Bipolytrope/Stability/qAndNuMax.xlsx --- worksheet = B-KB74 thru MinuPreparation
file = Dropbox/WorkFolder/Wiki edits/Bipolytrope/Stability/qAndNuMax.xlsx --- worksheet = B-KB74 thru MinuPreparation
Bipolytrope with (nc,ne)=(5,1)
Selected Pairings along the μe/μc=0.31 Sequence
Pairing ξi Λi ν q
A 9.014959766 0.59835053 0.3372170064 0.0755022550
B1 9.12744 0.60069262 0.3372001445 0.0746451491
B2 8.90394 0.59610192 0.33720014467 0.0763642133


Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences
Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences
Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences
Bipolytropic (5, 1) Equilibrium Sequences


Core B-KB74 Eigenfunction
mr B1 B2 δrr=r~B1r~B22(r~B1+r~B2)
ξ r~(mr) ξ r~(mr)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --
0.005 0.430797 0.0007299 0.430395 0.0007331 -0.00109
0.05 1.054468 0.0017865 1.053194 0.0017938 -0.00102
0.1 1.502081 0.0025449 1.499761 0.0025544 -0.00093
0.15 1.963871 0.0033273 1.959917 0.0033382 -0.00082
0.20 2.5329785 0.0042915 2.525985 0.0043023 -0.00063
0.25 3.366385 0.0057034 3.352268 0.0057097 -0.00028
0.30 5.000525 0.0084721 4.959790 0.0084477 +0.00072
0.33715 9.11445 0.015442 8.89185 0.0151449 +0.00486
0.3372001 9.12744 0.015464 8.90394 0.0151654 +0.00487


Envelope
mr B1 B2 δrr=r~B1r~B22(r~B1+r~B2)
η r~(mr) η r~(mr)
0.3372001 0.1703455 0.015464 0.1743134 0.0151654 +0.00487
0.35 0.3073375 0.0279002 0.309463 0.0269236 +0.00891
0.40 0.5753765 0.0522328 0.576515 0.0501574 +0.01013
0.45 0.748189 0.0679208 0.749101 0.0651726 +0.01032
0.50 0.8885645 0.0806641 0.8893695 0.0773761 +0.01040
0.55 1.0122575 0.091893 1.012999 0.088132 +0.01045
0.60 1.126297 0.1022455 1.1269968 0.0980499 +0.01047
0.65 1.2347644 0.1120922 1.2354345 0.1074841 +0.01049
0.70 1.3405518 0.1216956 1.3411998 0.1166858 +0.01051
0.75 1.4461523 0.131282 1.4467833 0.1258716 +0.01052
0.80 1.5542198 0.1410924 1.5548378 0.1352725 +0.01053
0.85 1.6683004 0.1514487 1.668908 0.1451967 +0.01054
0.90 1.794487 0.1629039 1.7950862 0.1561743 +0.01055
0.95 1.94764 0.1768072 1.9482325 0.1694982 +0.01055
1.00 2.2820704 0.2071669 2.282658 0.1985936 +0.01056

B-KB74 Eigenfunction

Attempt at Constructing Analytic Eigenfunction Expression

Background

In our accompanying discussion of eigenvectors associated with the radial oscillation of pressure-truncated polytropes, we derived the following,

Exact Solution to the Polytropic LAWE

σc2=0

      and      

xP3(n1)2n[1+(n3n1)(1ξθn)dθdξ].

Drawing on the definition of θ(ξ) for n = 5 polytropes, as given in an accompanying chapter, we deduce that,

xP|n=5

=

65[1+12(1ξθ5)dθdξ]n=5

 

=

6535ξ(1+ξ23)5/2ξ3(1+ξ23)3/2

 

=

6515(1+ξ23)

 

=

1ξ215.

And, given that for n = 1 polytropes,

θ(ξ)=sinξξ,

we also find,

xP|n=1

=

3[(1ξθ)dθdξ]n=1

 

=

3ξ(ξsinξ)[sinξξ2cosξξ]

 

=

3ξ2[1ξcotξ].

Core

Allowing for an overall leading scale factor, α, a viable displacement function for the (n=5) core of our bipolytropic configuration is,

xcoreα

=

[1ξ215].

Throughout the core, the corresponding Lagrangian radial coordinate, r~, is given by the expression,

r~core =

𝓂surf2(μeμc)4(32π)1/2ξ.

For "model A" the range is,

0ξξi=9.0149598.

SLOPE:  What is the slope of the function, xcore(r~), at the interface?

dxcoredξ|i =

2αξi15,

dxcoredr~|i =

2αξi15[𝓂surf2(μeμc)4(32π)1/2]1=707.53765α,

where, for "model A," we have set (μe/μc)=0.31 and 𝓂surf=1.938127063. Note as well that,

dln(xcore)dlnr~|i=dln(xcore)dlnξ|i =

2ξi215[1ξi215]1=+2.452697.

Envelope

As we have demonstrated in a separate structure discussion, the radial profile of the (n=1) envelope of our bipolytropic configuration is governed by the modified sinc-function,

ϕ(η)

=

A[sin(ηB)η],

dϕdη

=

Aη2[sin(ηB)ηcos(ηB)].

where, for "model A," A=0.200812422 and B=0.859270052.

Again allowing for an overall leading scale factor, β, a viable displacement function for the (n=1) envelope of our bipolytropic configuration is,

xenv3β

=

1ηϕ(dϕdη)

 

=

Aη3[sin(ηB)ηcos(ηB)][ηAsin(ηB)]

 

=

1η2[1ηcot(ηB)].

Throughout the envelope, the corresponding Lagrangian radial coordinate is,

r~env

=

𝓂surf2(μeμc)3θi2(2π)1/2η.

For "model A" the range is,

(ηi=0.1723205)η(ηs=2.282322601).

SLOPE:  As we have detailed elsewhere, the slope of the function, xenv(r~), is related to the slope of xcore(r~) at the interface via the expression,

{dlnxdlnr|i}env={dlnxdlnη|i}env

=

3(γcγe1)+γcγe{dlnxdlnξ|i}core.

In our case, γc=6/5 and γe=2γc/γe=3/5. Hence, from the point of view of the envelope displacement function, at the interface,

[r~xenvdxenvdr~]i

=

35{[dln(xcore)dlnξ]i2}

 

=

35{[2.4526972}=0.271618.

Now, at the interface of any bipolytrope, the ratio r~/x should have the same numerical value whether it is viewed from the point of view of the core or the envelope. Given that, for our particular "model A",

[r~x]i=0.0153150.00485976=3.15139,

we should expect the slope of the envelope's displacement function at the interface to be,

dxenvdr~|i

=

0.08619.


Trial Displacement Function

The blue curve in the following figure results from plotting xcore versus r~core after setting the leading coefficient, α=0.0011. The red-dotted curve results from plotting (xenv+xshift) versus r~env after setting the leading coefficient, β=0.000062, and xshift=+0.0105.

Trial Analytic Eigenfunction

ASSESSMENT:

  • Our analytically specified displacement function, xcore, appears to be an excellent match to the displacement function obtained throughout the core by implementing the B-KB74 conjecture.
  • At first glance, the plot of (xenv+xshift) appears to provide a reasonably good fit to the approximate displacement function that we have obtained throughout the envelope by implementing the B-KB74 conjecture. But, in reality, there are two fatal flaws:
    1. We have presented the behavior of our analytically specified envelope displacement function only up to the radial coordinate, η=2.19707(r~env=0.19526). Between this point and the surface, ηs=2.2823226(r~env=0.2028415) — where the argument of the cotangent, (ηsB)π — the analytic function dives steeply to negative infinity. This violently departs from the behavior derived via the B-KB74 conjecture.
    2. While our analytically specified displacement function, xenv, satisfies the "n = 1" polytropic LAWE, this satisfaction is destroyed by adding xshift to the displacement function.

Let's examine the slope of the displacement function at the interface. From the perspective of the core, our analytic prescription for the displacement function matches the K-BK74-derived displacement function very well. An analytic evaluation of the slope at the inferface — as derived above — gives,

dxcoredr~|i=707.53765α=+0.77829.

The black-dashed line segment that appears in the following figure has this slope and goes through the point of intersection; it appears to be tangent to the analytic displacement function, as expected. Alternatively, the orange-dashed line segment that appears in this same figure, also goes through the point of intersection, but it has a slope that matches our expectation for the envelope's displacement function; that is, it has a slope as derived of,

dxenvdr~|i=+0.08619.

This orange-dashed line segment does not appear to lie tangent to the K-BK74-derived displacement function for the envelope.

Trial Analytic Eigenfunction with Intersection Slopes

Numerical Integration Through Envelope

In an effort to numerically determine the eigenfunction of the envelope, we will follow the procedure described in an accompanying stability analysis of pressure-truncated polytropes to integrate the n=1 envelope from the core/envelope interface to the surface. In a closely related chapter titled, Radial Oscillations of n = 1 Polytropic Spheres, we have tried to find analytic expressions for the eigenvector of marginally unstable configurations.

Setup

Continuous Form of LAWE

We begin by writing our generic version of the polytropic LAWE,

0=d2xdξ2+[4(n+1)Q]1ξdxdξ+(n+1)[(σc26γg)ξ2θαQ]xξ2

where:    Q(ξ)dlnθdlnξ,    σc23ω22πGρc,     and,     α(34γg)

then focus on the n=1 case — setting γg=1+1/n=2 and α=+1 — the relevant LAWE becomes,

0 =

d2xdη2+{42Q}1ηdxdη+2{(σc212)η2ϕQ}xη2,

where, in the broadest context,

ϕ(η)

=

A[sin(ηB)η],

dϕdη

=

Aη2[sin(ηB)ηcos(ηB)],

Q(η)dlnϕdlnη

=

Aη2[sin(ηB)ηcos(ηB)]η2Asin(ηB)

 

=

[1ηcot(ηB)].

For the n=1 LAWE we therefore have,

0 =

d2xdη2+{42[1ηcot(ηB)]}1ηdxdη+2{(σc212)η3Asin(ηB)[1ηcot(ηB)]}xη2

  =

d2xdη2+2{1+ηcot(ηB)}1ηdxdη+2{(σc212)η3Asin(ηB)1+ηcot(ηB)}xη2.

Multiplying through by ϕ, we can write,

[Asin(ηB)η]d2xdη2 =

2Aη{sin(ηB)+ηcos(ηB)}1ηdxdη+2Aη{sin(ηB)ηcos(ηB)}xη22(σc212)x.

Discrete Form of LAWE

In order to integrate this 2nd-order ODE numerically, we will build from the more general expression for polytropes used in our separate development of a finite-difference scheme, namely,

θixi

=

[4θi(n+1)ξi(θ')i]xiξi(n+1)[σc26γgαξi(θ')i]xi.

Making the notation substitutions, (ξ,θ)(η,ϕ), we have instead,

ϕixi

=

[4ϕi(n+1)ηi(ϕ')i]xiηi(n+1)[σc26γgαηi(ϕ')i]xi.

Now, adopting the finite-difference expressions,

xi

x+x2Δη,    and,

xi

x+2xi+xΔη2,

the discrete form of the LAWE becomes,

x+[2ϕi+4ΔηϕiηiΔη(n+1)(ϕ')i]TERM1

=

x[4ΔηϕiηiΔη(n+1)(ϕ')i2ϕi]TERM2+xi{4ϕiΔη2(n+1)3[σc2γg2α(3ϕ'η)i]}TERM3.

When applied specifically to an n=1, polytropic configuration, we should insert the following specific expressions:

γg

=

1+1n=2,

α

=

34γg=+1,

ϕi

=

A[sin(ηiB)ηi],

(ϕ)i

=

Aηi2[sin(ηiB)ηicos(ηiB)].

Pressure-Truncated n = 1 Polytrope

In the case of an isolated, pressure-truncated n=1 polytrope, we must set B=0; in addition, it is customary to set A=1. The relevant LAWE is, then,

0 =

d2xdη2+2{1+ηcot(η)}1ηdxdη+2{(σc212)η3sin(η)1+ηcot(η)}xη2.

Review of Trial Analytic Eigenfunction

This is the same 2nd-order ODE that we derived in a separate discussion; there it was accompanied by the surface boundary condition,

dlnxdlnξ|surf

=

(3nn+1)+nσc26(n+1)[ξθ]surf

dlnxdlnη|surf

=

1+σc212[η3(ηcosηsinη)]η=π=1π2σc212.

From, for example, a separate succinct demonstration, we appreciate that if the displacement function is assumed to be,

xP

=

3η2[1ηcotη]

… that is,

xP

=

3η23cosηηsinη,

in which case,

dxPdη

=

6η3+3[cosηη2sinη+1η+cos2ηηsin2η],

and,

d2xPdη2

=

+18η4+3ddη[cosηη2sinη]+3ddη[1η]+3ddη[cos2ηηsin2η]

 

=

+18η43[2cosηη3sinη+cos2ηη2sin2η+sinηη2sinη][3η2]3[cos2ηη2sin2η+2cos3ηηsin3η+2cosηηsinη].

Hence,

LAWE =

{2η+2cosηsinη}{6η3+[3cosηη2sinη+3η+3cos2ηηsin2η]}+2{(σc212)η3sin(η)1+ηcosηsinη}[3η43cosηη3sinη]

   

+18η43[2cosηη3sinη+cos2ηη2sin2η+sinηη2sinη][3η2]3[cos2ηη2sin2η+2cos3ηηsin3η+2cosηηsinη]

  =

[2η+2cotη][6η3+3cotηη2+3η+3cot2ηη]+{(σc26)η3sinη}[3η43cotηη3]+[2+2ηcotη][3η43cotηη3]

   

+18η4[6cotηη3+3cot2ηη2+3η2][3η2][3cot2ηη2+6cot3ηη+6cotηη]

  =

{(σc22)1ηsinη}[1ηcotη]+[12η4+6η2]+[2cotη][3η3+3cotηη2]+[2cotη][6η3+3cotηη2+3η+3cot2ηη]

   

+[6η4+6cotηη3]+[2cotη][3η33cotηη2]+18η46η2+[2cotη][3cot2ηη3cotηη23η3η3]

  =

{(σc22)1ηsinη}[1ηcotη]+[2cotη][3η3+6cotηη2+3η+3cot2ηη]

   

+[2cotη][3η33cot2ηη6cotηη23η]

  =

{(σc22)1ηsinη}[1ηcotη].

the n=1 LAWE reduces to …

LAWE =

{(σc22)1ηsinη}[1ηcotη].

ASSESSMENT: 

  1. If we set σc2=0, the right-hand-side of this expression goes to zero — and, hence, the n=1 LAWE is satisfied — for any chosen truncation radius in the range, 0<ηi<π. (We have not included the isolated n=1 polytrope because xP blows up at its surface, ηi=π.)
  2. At the surface, ηi, the slope of this trial eigenfunction is,

    13dxPdη|i

    =

    [cotηiηi2+1ηi+cot2ηiηi]2ηi3.

    By contrast, as stated above, the eigenvalue problem will be properly solved only if the surface slope is,

    dlnxdlnη|surf

    =

    1+σc2012[η3(ηcosηsinη)]η=π=1

    13dxPdη|surf

    =

    xP3η|i

     

    =

    1ηi3[1ηicotηi]=cotηiηi21ηi3.

    These two slopes do not appear to be the same, for any allowed choice of ηi. We conclude, therefore, that no model along the sequence of pressure-truncated n=1 polytropes is marginally unstable.

Determining Discrete Representation of Eigenfunction

Let's numerically integrate the discrete form of the n=1 LAWE over the radial coordinate range, 0ηiηs. Following our discussion of the more general polytropic case, we will kickstart integration from the center, outward, via the expression,

x2

=

x1[1(n+1)𝔉Δη260],

      where,      

𝔉

[σc2γg2α].

Here, we will restrict our investigation to the case where γg=(n+1)/n=2, in which case, α=(34/γg)=+1, 𝔉=(σc24)/2, and

x2

=

x1[1(σc24)Δη260].

Isolated n = 1 Polytrope

If we integrate all the way out to the natural, zero-pressure surface of our n=1 polytrope, then ηs=π and — as derived in our discussion of the equilibrium structure of n = 1 polytropes(ρc/ρ¯)=π2/3. In line with our discussion of Schwarzschild's model of oscillations in n=3 polytropes, we therefore expect the boundary condition at the surface of our n=1 configurations to be given by the expression,

dlnxdlnη|surf =

12{[𝔉+2α](ρcρ¯)2α}

  =

1(σc2π212),

as reviewed immediately above.

Pressure-Truncated n = 1 Polytrope

Drawing from an accompanying discussion, if the polytropic configuration is truncated by the pressure, Pe, of a hot, tenuous external medium, then the solution to the LAWE is subject to the outer boundary condition,

dlnxdlnη

=

3     at     η=η~.

Bipolytropic Envelope

For the n=1 envelope of a (nc,ne)=(5,1) bipolytrope, the relevant LAWE is,

LAWE =

d2xdη2

   

+2{1+ηcos(ηB)sin(ηB)}1ηdxdη

   

+2{(σc212)η3Asin(ηB)1+ηcos(ηB)sin(ηB)}xη2.

Three terms in this expression blow up at the surface, where (ηB)π and, hence, sin(ηB)0. We can improve the behavior of this LAWE expression by assuming that the eigenfunction is of the form,

x =

f(η)[sin(ηB)]m,

in which case,

dxdη =

[sin(ηB)]mdfdη+mf(η)[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB);     and,

d2xdη2 =

[sin(ηB)]md2fdη2+2m[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB)dfdη+m(m1)f(η)[sin(ηB)]m2cos2(ηB)mf(η)[sin(ηB)]m1sin(ηB).

This gives,

LAWE =

[sin(ηB)]md2fdη2+2m[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB)dfdη+m(m1)f(η)[sin(ηB)]m2cos2(ηB)mf(η)[sin(ηB)]m1sin(ηB)

   

+2{1+ηcos(ηB)sin(ηB)}1η{[sin(ηB)]mdfdη+mf(η)[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB)}

   

+2{(σc212)ηAsin(ηB)1η2+cos(ηB)ηsin(ηB)}f(η)[sin(ηB)]m

  =

[sin(ηB)]md2fdη2+2{1η+cos(ηB)sin(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]mdfdη+2m[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB)dfdη

   

+m(m1)[sin(ηB)]m2cos2(ηB)f(η)m[sin(ηB)]m1sin(ηB)f(η)

   

+2m{1η+cos(ηB)sin(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]m1cos(ηB)f(η)+2{(σc212)ηAsin(ηB)1η2+cos(ηB)ηsin(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]mf(η)

  =

[sin(ηB)]md2fdη2+2{1η[sin(ηB)]+(m+1)cos(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]m1dfdη

   

+{m(m1)cos2(ηB)m[sin(ηB)]2}[sin(ηB)]m2f(η)

   

+{2mη[sin(ηB)]cos(ηB)+2mcos2(ηB)+[(σc26)ηA][sin(ηB)]2η2[sin(ηB)]2+2cos(ηB)η[sin(ηB)]}[sin(ηB)]m2f(η).

Try m = 1 and m = 2

If we set m=1, there are still terms in the LAWE expression that blow up at the surface, where (ηB)π and, hence, sin(ηB)0. Instead, let's try m=2:

LAWE|m=2 =

[sin(ηB)]2d2fdη2+2{1η[sin(ηB)]+3cos(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]dfdη

   

+{2cos2(ηB)2[sin(ηB)]2}f(η)

   

+{4η[sin(ηB)]cos(ηB)+4cos2(ηB)+[(σc26)ηA][sin(ηB)]2η2[sin(ηB)]2+2cos(ηB)η[sin(ηB)]}f(η),

which, at the surface ηηs=(π+B), reduces to …

{LAWE|m=2}ηs =

6f(ηs).

Hence, this LAWE will be satisfied for any function, f(η), that goes to zero at the surface.


Try m = 3

Setting m=3, we obtain,

LAWE|m=3 =

[sin(ηB)]3d2fdη2+2{1η[sin(ηB)]+4cos(ηB)}[sin(ηB)]2dfdη

   

+{6cos2(ηB)3[sin(ηB)]2}[sin(ηB)]f(η)

   

+{6η[sin(ηB)]cos(ηB)+6cos2(ηB)+[(σc26)ηA][sin(ηB)]2η2[sin(ηB)]2+2cos(ηB)η[sin(ηB)]}[sin(ηB)]f(η).

which trivially reduces to zero at the surface because, ηηs=(π+B)sin(ηB)0. For all other relevant radial positions in the envelope, ηiη<ηs, we can divide through by sin3(ηB) to obtain,

[sin(ηB)]3×LAWE|m=3 =

d2fdη2+2{1η+4cot(ηB)}dfdη+{12cot2(ηB)3+8η[cot(ηB)]+[(σc26)ηAsin(ηB)]2η2}f(η),

Boundary Condition

In addition, there is a (boundary condition) constraint on the slope of the eigenfunction at the surface. So, let's examine …

dlnxdlnη|m=2[ηxdxdη]m=2 =

ηf(η)sin2(ηB){sin2(ηB)dfdη+2f(η)sin(ηB)cos(ηB)}

  =

dlnfdlnη+2ηcot(ηB)

Now, from above, we appreciate that when ϕ=Asin(ηB)/η,

ηcot(ηB) =

1+dlnϕdlnξ

dlnxdlnη|m=2 =

dlnfdlnη+2[1+dlnϕdlnξ].

It therefore appears as though we should adopt the function relation,

dlnfdlnη =

2dlnϕdlnη


x =

f(η)[sin(ηB)]m,



Let's now examine "model A" from above, for which, A=0.200812422 and B=0.859270052. If we set σc2=0, this LAWE becomes,

0 =

d2xdη2+[42Q]1ηdxdη2[αQ]xη2.


Tiled Menu

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