SSC/FreeEnergy/PolytropesEmbedded/Pt1
Free Energy of Embedded Polytropes[edit]
Part I: Synopsis |
Part II: Truncated Polytropes |
Part III: Free-Energy of Bipolytropes |
||
IIIA: Focus on (5, 1) Bipolytropes |
IIIB: Focus on (0, 0) Bipolytropes |
IIIC: Overview |
||
Free-Energy Synopsis[edit]
All of the self-gravitating configurations considered below have an associated Gibbs-like free-energy that can be expressed analytically as a power-law function of the dimensionless configuration radius, . Specifically,
|
|
|
|
Equilibrium Radii and Critical Radii[edit]
The first and second (partial) derivatives with respect to are, respectively,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equilibrium configurations are identified by setting the first derivative to zero. This gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We conclude, as well, that at this equilibrium radius, the second (partial) derivative assumes the value,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, equilibrium configurations for which the second (as well as first) derivative of the free energy is zero are found at "critical" radii given by the expression,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples[edit]
Pressure-Truncated Polytropes[edit]
For pressure-truncated polytropes of index , we set, , in which case,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
Case M[edit]
More specifically, the expression that describes the "Case M" free-energy surface is,
|
Hence, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the structural form factors for pressure-truncated polytropes are precisely defined here. Therefore, the statement of virial equilibrium is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And we conclude that,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASIDE: Let's see what this requires for the case of , where everything is specifiable analytically. We have gathered together:
So, the radius of the critical equilibrium state should be,
whereas, each equilibrium configuration has,
So the equilibrium state that marks the critical configuration must have a value of that satisfies the relation,
The solution is: |
In addition, we know from our dissection of Hoerdt's work on detailed force-balance models that, in the equilibrium state,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means that, for any chosen polytropic index, the critical equilibrium state is the equilibrium configuration for which (needs to be checked),
|
|
|
|
We note, as well, that by combining the Horedt expression for with our virial equilibrium expression, we find (needs to be checked),
|
|
|
|
Case P[edit]
First Pass[edit]
Alternatively, let's examine the "Case P" free-energy surface. Drawing on Stahler's presentation, we adopt the following radius and mass normalizations:
In terms of these new normalizations, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rewriting the expression for the free energy gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, in this case, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the structural form factors for pressure-truncated polytropes are precisely defined here. The statement of virial equilibrium is, therefore,
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a previous derivation, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which, thankfully, matches! We conclude as well that the transition from stable to dynamically unstable configurations occurs at,
|
|
|
|
When combined with the statement of virial equilibrium at this critical point, we find,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This also means that the critical radius is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following parallel derivation was done independently. [Note that a factor of 2n/(n-1) appears to correct a mistake made during the original derivation.] Beginning with the virial expression,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also from Stahler's work we know that the equilibrium mass and radius are,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional details in support of an associated PowerPoint presentation can be found here.
Reconcile[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking the ratio, the RHS is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while the LHS is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q.E.D.
Now, given that,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By inspection, in the specific case of (see above), this critical configuration appears to coincide with one of the "turning points" identified by Kimura. Specifically, it appears to coincide with the "extremal in r1" along an M1 sequence, which satisfies the condition,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, according to Kimura, the turning point associated with the configuration with the largest equilibrium radius, corresponds to the equilibrium configuration having,
This is, indeed, very close to — but decidedly different from — the value of determined, above!
Streamlined[edit]
Let's copy the expression for the "Case P" free energy derived above, then factor out a common term:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defining a new normalization energy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we can write,
|
|
|
|
in which case the coefficients of the generic free-energy expression are,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where, as above,
|
|
|
|
Now, if we define the pair of parameters,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then the statement of virial equilibrium is,
|
|
|
|
and the boundary between dynamical stability and instability occurs at,
|
|
|
|
Combining these last two expressions means that the boundary between dynamical stability and instability is associated with the parameter condition,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case M[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the dynamical stability conditions are:
|
|
|
|
and,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Together, then,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case P[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where, as above,
|
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the dynamical stability conditions are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Together, then,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare[edit]
Let's see if the two cases, in fact, provide the same answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five-One Bipolytropes[edit]
For analytically prescribed, "five-one" bipolytropes, and , in which case,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
More specifically, the expression that describes the free-energy surface is,
|
Hence, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and conclude that,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, from our detailed force balance derivations, we know that,
|
|
|
|
Zero-Zero Bipolytropes[edit]
General Form[edit]
In this case, we retain full generality making the substitutions, and , to obtain,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here, the expression that describes the free-energy surface is,
|
Hence, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the definitions of and are given below. We immediately deduce that the critical equilibrium state is identified by,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From our associated detailed-force-balance derivation, we know that the associated equilibrium radius is,
|
|
|
|
Compare with Five-One[edit]
It is worthwhile to set and in this expression and compare the result to the comparable expression shown above for the "Five-One" Bipolytrope. Here we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whereas, rewriting the above relation gives,
|
|
|
|
And, here, we should conclude that the critical equilibrium configuration is associated with,
|
|
|
|
See Also[edit]
|
Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS | |