SSC/Stability/GammaVariation

From JETohlineWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How Does Stability Change with γg?[edit]

Isolated Uniform-Density Configuration[edit]

Our Setup[edit]

From our separate discussion, the relevant LAWE is,

1(1−χ02){(1−χ02)d2xdχ02+4χ0[1−32χ02]dxdχ0+𝔉x} = 0,

where, χ0≡r0/R, α≡(3−4/γg), and

𝔉 ≡

[3ω22πγgGρ¯−2(3−4γg)]⇒γg𝔉2=[3ω24πGρ¯+4−3γg]

Also, the two relevant boundary conditions are,

dxdχ0=0        at         χ0=0;

and,

dln⁡xdχ0

=

1γg(4−3γg+3ω24πGρ¯)        at         χ0=1.

Alternatively, this last expression may be written as,

dln⁡xdχ0|χ0=1

=

𝔉2.

The Sterne37 Solution[edit]

From the general solution derived by 📚 T. E. Sterne (1937, MNRAS, Vol. 97, pp. 582 - 593), we have …

Sterne (1937)
Sterne (1937)
Sterne (1937)
Sterne (1937)

The first few solutions are displayed in the following boxed-in image that has been extracted directly from §2 (p. 587) of 📚 Sterne (1937); to the right of his table, we have added a column that expressly records the value of the square of the normalized eigenfrequency that corresponds to each of the solutions presented by Sterne37.

Based on exact eigenvector expressions extracted from §2 (p. 587) of …
T. E. Sterne (1937)
Models of Radial Oscillation
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 97, pp. 582 - 593

ω24πGρ¯

Sterne's Omega vs. Gamma

j=0;      𝔉=0;       x=1
γ−4/3
j=1;      𝔉=14;      x=1−(7/5)χ02
2(5γ−2)/3
j=2;      𝔉=36;      x=1−(18/5)χ02+(99/35)χ04
7γ−4/3
j=3;      𝔉=66;      x=1−(33/5)χ02+(429/35)χ04−(143/21)χ06
12γ−4/3

Cross-Check[edit]

Check j = 0:    The eigenvector is x=1, that is, homologous contraction/expansion, in which case both the first and the second derivative of x are zero. Hence, this eigenvector is a solution to the LAWE only if 𝔉=0. What about the two boundary conditions? Well, the central boundary condition is immediately satisfied; for the outer boundary condition, we see that the logarithmic derivative of x is supposed to be zero, which it is because it equals 𝔉/2. Finally, since 𝔉=0, we see that the oscillation frequency is given by the expression,

ω24πGρ¯=γg−4/3.

Check j = 1:    The eigenvector is x=1−75χ02, hence, dx/dχ0=−145χ0, and, d2x/dχ02=−145. This means that,

LAWE = −145(1−χ02)−[1−32χ02]565+𝔉[1−75χ02]
  = χ02[145+16810−75𝔉]+[−145−565+𝔉]
  = 75χ02[14−𝔉]+[𝔉−14],

which goes to zero if 𝔉=14, in which case,

ω24πGρ¯ =

13[γg𝔉2−4+3γg]=23[5γg−2].

Is the surface boundary condition satisfied? Well …

dln⁡xdχ0|χ0=1=[1x⋅dxdχ0]χ0=1 =

[(1−75χ02)−1(−145)χ0]χ0=1=[(−25)−1(−145)]=+7,

which matches the desired logarithmic slope, 𝔉/2.

Entropy Distribution[edit]

According to our discussions with P. Motl, to within an additive constant, the entropy distribution is given by the expression,

sℜ/μ¯

=

1(γg−1)ln⁡[P/Pc(γg−1)(ρ/ρc)γg].

Now, from the derived properties of a uniform-density sphere, we know that, ρ/ρc=1, and,

PPc

=

(1−χ02).

Hence, again to within an additive constant,

sℜ/μ¯

=

1(γg−1){ln⁡[PPc]}=ln⁡[(1−χ02)1/(γg−1)].

Notice that, if γg<1, the entropy is an increasing function of the fractional radius, χ0, and is therefore stable against convection according to the Schwarzschild criterion.

Comments on Uniform-Density Configurations[edit]

According to Sterne's stability analysis, the square of the oscillation frequency, ω2/(4πGρc), of the fundamental mode is negative for all values of γg<43. All models with γg<43 are therefore dynamically unstable toward collapse with a radial-displacement eigenfunction given by that of the fundamental mode. We appreciate as well that all models with γg<25 are (also) dynamically unstable toward collapse with a radial-displacement eigenfunction given by the 1st overtone mode.

At the same time, an examination of each model's entropy distribution indicates that models with γg>1 are unstable toward convection throughout their entire volume. Hence, we identify the following model regimes:

∞≥γg>43 Dynamically stable against collapse, but unstable toward convection throughout.
43>γg>1 Unstable toward convection throughout and, simultaneously dynamically unstable toward collapse with the eigenfunction provided by the fundamental mode. (All other radial overtone modes are dynamically stable against collapse.)
1>γg>25 Stable against convection, but dynamically unstable toward collapse with the eigenfunction provided by the fundamental mode. (All other radial overtone modes are dynamically stable against collapse.)
25>γg Stable against convection, but dynamically unstable simultaneously toward collapse due to the fundamental and 1st overtone modes.

Lane-Emden in Terms of Various Physical Quantities[edit]

In a separate discussion we derived the,

Lane-Emden Equation

1ξ2ddξ(ξ2dΘHdξ)=−ΘHn

which governs the hydrostatic structure of spherically symmetric polytropes. In this differential equation,

ΘH = HHc=(ρρc)1/n=(PPc)1/(n+1)

so the Lane-Emden equation readily can be rewritten in terms of the dimensionless density or the dimensionless pressure.

For n = 1, in Terms of Pressure[edit]

In terms of the dimensionless pressure, p≡P/Pc, the Lane-Emden equation becomes,

−pn/(n+1) =

1ξ2ddξ[ξ2dp1/(n+1)dξ]

  =

[1(n+1)]1ξ2ddξ[ξ2p(−n)/(n+1)dpdξ]

  =

[1(n+1)]1ξ2{2ξp(−n)/(n+1)dpdξ+ξ2[(−n)(n+1)]p(−2n−1)/(n+1)(dpdξ)2+ξ2p(−n)/(n+1)d2pdξ2}

  =

[1(n+1)2]p(−n)/(n+1){2(n+1)ξ⋅dpdξ−np−1(dpdξ)2+(n+1)d2pdξ2};

⇒−(n+1)2p2n/(n+1) =

{2(n+1)ξ⋅dpdξ−np−1(dpdξ)2+(n+1)d2pdξ2}.

Let's not set n = 1 yet. Instead, let's first insert the functional behavior of p(ξ) that we know is the proper function for an isolated n = 1 polytrope, namely,

p =

(sin⁡ξξ)2;

⇒dpdξ =

2sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ2−2sin2ξξ3;

⇒d2pdξ2 =

2cos2ξξ2−2sin2ξξ2−8sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3+6sin2ξξ4;

and,      [dpdξ]2 =

[2sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ2−2sin2ξξ3]2=4sin2ξcos2ξξ4−8sin3ξcos⁡ξξ5+4sin4ξξ6.

Inside the curly braces on the RHS of the Lane-Emden equation, we therefore have,

{}RHS =

2(n+1)ξ⋅dpdξ+(n+1)d2pdξ2−nξ2sin2ξ(dpdξ)2

  =

(n+1)[4sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3−4sin2ξξ4]+(n+1)[2cos2ξξ2−2sin2ξξ2−8sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3+6sin2ξξ4]−nξ2sin2ξ[4sin2ξcos2ξξ4−8sin3ξcos⁡ξξ5+4sin4ξξ6]

  =

(n+1)[2cos2ξξ2−2sin2ξξ2−4sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3+2sin2ξξ4]−n[4cos2ξξ2−8sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3+4sin2ξξ4]

  =

[2cos2ξξ2−2sin2ξξ2−4sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3+2sin2ξξ4]+n[−2cos2ξξ2−2sin2ξξ2+4sin⁡ξcos⁡ξξ3−2sin2ξξ4].

Now, if we set n = 1, this expression collapses substantially to give,

{}RHS|n=1 =

−4sin2ξξ2.

Simultaneously, the LHS of the Lane-Emden expression becomes,

−[(n+1)2p2n/(n+1)]n=1 = −[(n+1)2(sin⁡ξξ)4n/(n+1)]n=1=−4sin2ξξ2.

So, the two sides of the expression prove to be identical.

What About in Terms of Entropy?[edit]

First Try[edit]

What about, in terms of the entropy? Well, from above, once the value of γg has been specified, to within an additive constant, the dimensionless entropy, Σ, is given by the relation,

Σ≡sℜ/μ¯

=

1(γg−1)ln⁡[(PPc)(ρρc)−γg]

 

=

1(γg−1)ln⁡[ΘHn+1(ΘHn)−γg]

 

=

ln⁡[ΘHn+1−nγg]1/(γg−1)

⇒eΣ

=

[ΘH(n+1−nγg)/(γg−1)]

⇒ΘH

=

eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg).

NOTE:   If we set γg=(1+1/n), then the exponent,

[n+1−nγgγg−1]γg=(1+1/n)

=

n[n+1−(n+1)]=0,

which means that, independent of the functional behavior of the dimensionless enthalpy,

eΣ

=

ΘH0=constant,

that is, the entropy is uniform throughout the equilibrium configuration.

Generally, then, in terms of the dimensionless entropy, the Lane-Emden equation may be rewritten as,

1ξ2ddξ[ξ2ddξ(eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))]

=

−[eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg)]n.

That is,

−enΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg)

=

[γg−1n+1−nγg]1ξ2ddξ[ξ2(eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))dΣdξ]

 

=

[γg−1n+1−nγg]1ξ2{2ξ(eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))dΣdξ+ξ2(eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))d2Σdξ2+ξ2[γg−1n+1−nγg](eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))(dΣdξ)2}

 

=

[γg−1n+1−nγg]{2ξ⋅dΣdξ+d2Σdξ2+[γg−1n+1−nγg](dΣdξ)2}(eΣ(γg−1)/(n+1−nγg))

⇒−en

=

[γg−1n+1−nγg]{2ξ⋅dΣdξ+d2Σdξ2+[γg−1n+1−nγg](dΣdξ)2}.

Setting,

Υ≡[γg−1n+1−nγg]Σ,

the statement of hydrostatic balance becomes,

d2Υdξ2+(dΥdξ)2+2ξ⋅dΥdξ

=

−en.

What do I do with this???


In our above discussion of uniform-density configurations, we found that,

Σ=sℜ/μ¯

=

(γg−1)−1ln⁡[(1−ξ2/6)],

where we have made the substitution, χ02=ξ2/6. For this situation, we can write,

Υ

=

m−1ln⁡[1−ξ26],

where,

m

≡

n+1−nγg.

In this case,

dΥdξ

=

m−1[1−ξ26]−1⋅(−ξ3);

(dΥdξ)2

=

ξ232m2[1−ξ26]−2;

d2Υdξ2

=

ξ3m[1−ξ26]−2⋅(−ξ3)−13m[1−ξ26]−1;

that is to say,

−en

=

d2Υdξ2+(dΥdξ)2+2ξ⋅dΥdξ

 

=

{ξ3m[1−ξ26]−2⋅(−ξ3)−13m[1−ξ26]−1}+{ξ232m2[1−ξ26]−2}+2ξ⋅{m−1[1−ξ26]−1⋅(−ξ3)}

 

=

[1−ξ26]−2{ξ3m(−ξ3)−13m[1−ξ26]+ξ232m2+2ξ⋅m−1[1−ξ26]⋅(−ξ3)}

 

=

[1−ξ26]−2{−ξ232m−13m+ξ22⋅32m+ξ232m2−23m+ξ232m}

 

=

[1−ξ26]−2{−1m+ξ22⋅32m+ξ232m2}

 

=

[1−ξ26]−2{−m+ξ22⋅32[m+2]}1m2.

That is,

−m+ξ22⋅32[m+2]

=

−m2en[1−ξ26]2.

What do I do with this???

Second Try[edit]

From above — and, for simplicity, removing the subscript (g) on γg — we have,

Σ≡sℜ/μ¯

=

1(γ−1)ln⁡[P/Pc(γ−1)(ρ/ρc)γg]

⇒(γ−1)e(γ−1)Σ

=

(ρρc)−γPPc=Θ−nγ⋅Θ(n+1)=Θ(n+1−nγ)

⇒Θ

=

[(γ−1)e(γ−1)Σ]1/(n+1−nγ)=(γ−1)1/(n+1−nγ)e(γ−1)Σ/(n+1−nγ)=AeaΣ,

where,

A

≡

(γ−1)1/(n+1−nγ)

      and,      

a

≡

(γ−1)(n+1−nγ).

Hence, in terms of the configuration's entropy profile, the Lane-Emden equation becomes,

−AneanΣ

=

1ξ2⋅ddξ[ξ2⋅d(AeaΣ)dξ]

 

=

aAξ2⋅ddξ[ξ2⋅(eaΣ)⋅dΣdξ]

 

=

aAξ2[2ξ⋅(eaΣ)⋅dΣdξ+aξ2⋅(eaΣ)⋅(dΣdξ)2+ξ2⋅(eaΣ)⋅d2Σdξ2]

⇒−[A(n−1)a]e(n−1)aΣ

=

[2ξ⋅dΣdξ+a⋅(dΣdξ)2+d2Σdξ2].

Again, defining, Υ≡aΣ, this becomes,

−(AeΥ)(n−1)

=

{2ξ⋅dΥdξ+(dΥdξ)2+d2Υdξ2}.

Now, adopting the equilibrium profiles for an n = 1 polytrope — but without yet setting n = 1 — we see that the entropy distribution must be,

Υ=aΣ

=

a(γ−1){ln⁡[1(γ−1)]+ln⁡[PPc]+ln⁡[ρρc]−γ}

 

=

a(γ−1){ln⁡[1(γ−1)]+ln⁡[sin2ξξ2]+ln⁡[sin⁡ξξ]−γ}

 

=

a(γ−1){ln⁡[1(γ−1)]+(2−γ)ln⁡[sin⁡ξξ]}.

Hence,

dΥdξ

=

[a(γ−1)]ddξ{(2−γ)ln⁡[sin⁡ξξ]}

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]ξsin⁡ξ⋅ddξ[sin⁡ξξ]

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]ξsin⁡ξ⋅[cos⁡ξξ−sin⁡ξξ2]

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)][cos⁡ξsin⁡ξ−1ξ];

d2Υdξ2

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]ddξ[cos⁡ξsin⁡ξ−1ξ]

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)][−1−cos2ξsin2ξ+1ξ2];

(dΥdξ)2

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]2[cos⁡ξsin⁡ξ−1ξ]2

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]2[cos2ξsin2ξ−2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ+1ξ2].

So, the RHS of the Lane-Emden expression becomes,

{}RHS

=

2ξ⋅dΥdξ+d2Υdξ2+(dΥdξ)2

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]{[cos⁡ξsin⁡ξ−1ξ]2ξ+[−1−cos2ξsin2ξ+1ξ2]+[a(2−γ)(γ−1)][cos2ξsin2ξ−2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ+1ξ2]}

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]{[−cos2ξsin2ξ+2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ−1ξ2−1]+[a(2−γ)(γ−1)][cos2ξsin2ξ−2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ+1ξ2]}

 

=

[a(2−γ)(γ−1)]2{[(n+1−nγ)(2−γ)][−cos2ξsin2ξ+2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ−1ξ2−1]+[cos2ξsin2ξ−2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ+1ξ2]}.

Now, since,

AeΥ

=

Θ=sin⁡ξξ,

the LHS of the Lane-Emden expression is,

−(AeΥ)(n−1)

=

−(sin⁡ξξ)(n−1).

As a result, the entire expression reads,

−(sin⁡ξξ)(n−1)

=

[(2−γ)(n+1−nγ)]2{[(n+1−nγ)(2−γ)][−cos2ξsin2ξ+2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ−1ξ2−1]+[cos2ξsin2ξ−2cos⁡ξξsin⁡ξ+1ξ2]}.

If we leave γ unspecified but set n = 1, both sides of the expression become "-1", so the Lane-Emden expression is satisfied for all values of ξ and for any choice of γ.

Example Fundamental Modes for Isolated Configurations[edit]

For an isolated polytrope whose surface does not extend to infinity — that is, for 0<n<5 — the eigenvector for the fundamental mode of radial oscillation depends on the specification of a single parameter: γ. Then, for virtually any choice of the square of the radial oscillation frequency, σc2, the governing polytropic LAWE can be integrated (usually, numerically) to obtain the radial-displacement, x(ξ), that is consistent with that choice of σc2. While this function, x(ξ), satisfies the LAWE, its slope at the surface of the polytrope usually will not satisfy the physically relevant boundary condition. Other "guesses" for σc2 must be made until the x(ξ) function satisfies the proper boundary condition; the result provides the eigenfrequency and eigenfunction (together, the eigenvector) that are associated with the specified value of γ.

As an example, consider specifying γ=53 for an isolated, n=1 polytrope. The following table records the value of the square of the eigenfrequency that has been independently determined by three different research groups: 1.155 by 📚 Chatterji (1951); 1.1499 by 📚 Hurley, Roberts, & Wright (1966); and 1.1492896 herein. Also for comparison, the corresponding eigenfunction obtained from two of these investigations has been displayed graphically herein.

Not unexpectedly, when a different value of γ is specified, the result is a different radial oscillation eigenfrequency along with a different eigenfunction. However, as was first demonstrated by 📚 Sterne (1937), for an n=0 (uniform-density) polytrope, even though the eigenfrequency varies with the choice of γ, the radial displacement eigenfunction is identically the same for all chosen γ.

Published Fundamental-Mode Oscillation Frequencies
n ρcρ¯ γ σc2≡3ω22πGρc Publication Relevant
JETohlineWiki
Chapter
0 1 Any γ 6(γ−4/3) c📚 Sterne (1937) here
    53 2 b📚 Hurley, Roberts, & Wright (1966) here
 
1 π23 53 1.155 d📚 Chatterji (1951) here
    53 1.1499 b📚 Hurley, Roberts, & Wright (1966) here
    53 1.1492896 Our imposed surface B.C.
    2013 0.715 d📚 Chatterji (1951) n/a
    107 0.334 d📚 Chatterji (1951) n/a
 
3 54.18248 53 0.34175 a📚 Schwarzschild (1941) here
    53 0.34161 b📚 Hurley, Roberts, & Wright (1966) here
    2013 0.23979 a📚 Schwarzschild (1941) n/a
    107 0.12604 a📚 Schwarzschild (1941) n/a
    43 0.0 a📚 Schwarzschild (1941) n/a

NOTES:

  1.  σc2=32γωSch2
  2.  ω2=sHRW662
  3.  ω2=nSterne372
  4.  σc2=3γωChatterji2

How Does Stability Change with Pe?[edit]

In Bipolytropes, How Does Stability Change with ξi[edit]

Taken from an accompanying discussion.


file = Dropbox/WorkFolder/Wiki edits/BiPolytrope/TwoFirstOrderODEs/Bipolytrope51New.xlsx --- worksheet = Fun031FirstOvertone
file = Dropbox/WorkFolder/Wiki edits/BiPolytrope/TwoFirstOrderODEs/Bipolytrope51New.xlsx --- worksheet = Fun031FirstOvertone

Variation of Oscillation Frequency with ξi for (5,1) Bipolytropes Having μe/μc=0.310

Variation of 2 Modes

ξi Fundamental
(red)
1st Overtone
(blue)
Ω2 σc2 ρcρ¯ Ω2≡σc22(ρcρ¯)
1.60 3.8944 0.498473 58.398587 14.555059
2.00 3.81053 0.236047 108.69129 12.828126
2.40 2.79491 0.0870005 199.16363 8.6636677
2.609509754 0.00000 0.048214 270.5922 6.5231608
3.00 - 13.287 0.0232907 468.15 5.4517612
3.50 - 44.63801 0.0117478 902.64028 5.3020065
4.00 - 98.215 0.0064276 1656.926 5.3250395
5.00 --- 0.0022154 4900.105 5.4278831
6.00 --- 0.0008785 12544.67 5.5100707
9.014959766 --- 9.61 × 10-5 116641.6 5.6036778
12.0 --- 1.86 × 10-5 6.01 × 10+5 5.5796084