SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization/Pt4

From JETohlineWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bipolytrope Generalization (Pt 4)[edit]


Part I:  Bipolytrope Generalization

 


Part II:  Derivations

 


Part III:  Examples

 


Part IV:  Best of the Best

 

Best of the Best[edit]

One Derivation of Free Energy[edit]

𝔊*

=

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

 

 

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

Another Derivation of Free Energy[edit]

Hence the renormalized gravitational potential energy becomes,

WgravEnorm

=

−(35)ν2q(RRnorm)−1⋅f;

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

UcoreEnorm=23(γc−1)[ScoreEnorm]

=

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

 

=

ν(1+Λ)(γc−1)[(34π)νq3]γc−1χ3−3γc,

UenvEnorm=23(γe−1)[SenvEnorm]

=

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

 

=

2(2π)3(γe−1)[BigTermEnorm]R3Keρieγe

 

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

Finally, then, we can state that,

𝔣WM

≡

ν2q⋅f,

score

≡

1+Λ,

(1−q3)senv

≡

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

Note,

Λ

≡

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

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

Keρieγe

=

Kcρicγc

⇒KeKc

=

ρicγcρie−γe

 

=

[ρicρnorm]γc[ρieρnorm]−γeρnormγc−γe

 

=

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

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

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

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

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

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

Summary[edit]

Understanding Free-Energy Behavior[edit]

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

𝔊*

=

−3𝒜χ−1−ℬ(1−γc)χ3−3γc−𝒞(1−γe)χ3−3γe

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

Step 2: Note that,

𝒜

≡

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

 

=

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

ℬ

≡

ν[(34π)νq3]γc−1[1+Λeq]

𝒞

≡

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

 

≡

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

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

Λeq≡322π⋅5(GMtot2Req4Pi)ν2q4

=

15(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γcχeq3γc−4

and, where,

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

=

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

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

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

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

𝒞'≡𝒞χeq3(γc−γe).

We should then discover that,

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

Check It[edit]

ℬ+𝒞'

=

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

⇒𝒜[Λeq⋅5(qν2)]

=

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

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

=

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

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

=

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

⇒1Λeq

=

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

⇒2Λeq

=

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

 

=

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

 

=

10(ρeρc)[1−q]+5q2(ρeρc)2[1−3q2+2q3]

⇒1Λeq[2q25(ρeρc)−1]

=

2q2(1−q)+(ρeρc)(1−3q2+2q3)

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

1Λ

  = 

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

Playing With One Example[edit]

By setting,

γc=6/5;γe=2

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

2.5

1.0

2.0

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

extremum

χeq

𝔊*

 

χeq3(γc−γe)

𝒞'

χeq4−3γc

𝒜ℬ+𝒞'

MIN

1.1824

−0.611367

 ⇒ 

0.66891

1.3378

1.0693

1.0694

MAX

9.6722

+0.508104

⇒

0.004313

0.008625

2.4786

2.4786

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

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

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

ρeρc

=

q3(1−ν)ν(1−q3),

hence,

ν

=

[1+(ρeρc)(1−q3)q3]−1

   and    

q3ν

=

[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3].

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

𝒜

=

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

 

=

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

The expression for ℬ can be written in the form,

ℬ

=

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

 

=

ν[(4π3)q3ν]1−γc+πq55(ν2q6)χeq3γc−4

 

=

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

 

=

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

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

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

χeq4−3γc

=

1Λeq⋅π5(νq)[(34π)νq3]1−γc

 

=

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

 

=

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

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

Second Example[edit]

Explain Logic[edit]

File:FreeEnergyExample.jpg

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

𝔊*(χ)

, where,

𝔊*

=

−3𝒜χ−1−ℬ(1−γc)χ3−3γc−𝒞(1−γe)χ3−3γe,

and, where we have used the parameter values,

γc=6/5;γe=2

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.201707

0.0896

0.002484

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

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


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

5(q3ν)2𝒜

=

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

⇒5𝒜[(ρeρc)(1−q3)+q3]2

=

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

and this can be written in the form,

(ρeρc)2a+(ρeρc)b+c

=

0,

where,

a

≡

5𝒜(1−q3)2−1+52q3−32q5,

b

≡

10𝒜q3(1−q3)−52q3(1−q2),

c

≡

5𝒜q6−q5.

Hence,

ρeρc

=

12a[±(b2−4ac)1/2−b].

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

𝒜

q

 

a

b

c

 

ρeρc

 

ν

0.2017

0.435

⇒

0.03173

−0.01448

−0.008743

⇒

0.80068

⇒

0.10074


Step 2: Next, we chose the parameter pair,

(q,ρeρc)=(0.43500,0.80000)

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

ν

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

Λeq

χeq

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.100816

43.16365

3.923017

0.13684

0.12349

0.201707

0.089625

0.002484

Construction Multiple Curves to Define a Free-Energy Surface[edit]

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

ρeρc=12.

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

Identification of Local Minimum in Free Energy

ν

q

f(q,ρeρc)

g2(q,ρeρc)

Λeq

χeq

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

0.2

9−1/3=0.48075

12.5644

2.091312

0.366531

0.037453

0.2090801

0.2308269

2.06252×10−4

0.4

4−1/3=0.62996

4.21974

1.56498

0.707989

0.0220475

0.2143496

0.5635746

4.4626×10−5

0.5

3−1/3=0.693361

2.985115

1.42334

0.9448663

0.0152116

0.2152641

0.791882

1.5464×10−5

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

File:ThreeFreeEnergyCurves.png

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

Subsequently Identified Local Energy Maxima

χeq

𝔊*

χeq4−3γc

∴

𝒜

ℬ

𝒞

𝒞'=𝒜χeq3γc−4−ℬ

(𝒞𝒞')1/(3γe−3γc)

0.08255

+4.87562

0.368715

0

0.2143496

0.5635746

4.4626×10−5

1.7768×10−2

0.08254

0.032196

+11.5187

0.25300

0

0.2152641

0.791882

1.5464×10−5

5.8964×10−2

0.032196

Related Discussions[edit]

Tiled Menu

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