Editing SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic15/Pt2 (section)

===Murphy's Example Model Characteristics===

As in an [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic15#MurphyF2Function|earlier figure]], the following log-log plot shows what value(s) of <math>~(A_0\eta)_\mathrm{root} </math> (vertical axis) result from a wide range of interface coordinate specifications, <math>~\xi_i</math> (horizontal axis), under the simplifying assumption that <math>~(\mu_e/\mu_c) = 1</math>.  The solid blue diamonds present exactly the same information as in the previous figure, that is, they identify roots resulting from setting <math>~m=0</math> in the phase-shift specification.  But here, focusing on a regime that highlights larger roots of the first constraint equation, solid black squares identify roots for which <math>~m=+1</math>, and solid maroon triangles identify roots for which <math>~m=+2</math>.  

<span id="SecondMurphyF2Function">In this version of the figure</span>, colored dashed-line segments have been drawn to enclose two regions of parameter space in which solutions of the [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic15#KeyInterfaceRelation|key nonlinear interface relation]] produce a [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic15#Physically_Viable_Parameter_Values|physically viable model]] &#8212; that is, <math>~0 \le \xi_i \le \pi</math> and <math>~\tan^{-1}(1+2^{1/3}) \le \Delta_i \le \pi</math>.  The portion of the red-outlined rectangular region that lies to the left of the vertical, <math>~\xi_i = \xi_\mathrm{trans}</math> line accommodates some models that arise from specifying an <math>~m=0</math> phase shift  and the portion that lies to the right of this demarcation line accommodates some models that arise from specifying an <math>~m=+1</math> phase shift.  Similarly, the portion of the green-outlined rectangular region that lies to the left of the vertical, <math>~\xi_i = \xi_\mathrm{trans}</math> line accommodates additional models that arise from specifying an <math>~m=+1</math> phase shift  and the portion that lies to the right of this demarcation line accommodates models that arise from specifying an <math>~m=+2</math> phase shift.  Given the inherent periodicity of Srivastava's <math>~\phi_{5F}</math> function, it should be clear that we could equally well have identified other rectangular regions at both higher <math>~(m \ge 2)</math> and lower <math>~(m \le 0)</math> values of <math>~(A_0 \eta)_\mathrm{root}</math> in which additional physically viable models exist. It should also be clear that, because the figure presents a log-log plot and the lower limit of viable parameter values for the horizontal axis parameter, <math>~\xi_i</math>, is zero, the identified rectangular regions should be viewed as extending to the left, all the way to minus infinity.


<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellpadding="5">
<tr>
  <td align="center" colspan="2">
Examination of Table 3 Data Presented in  
[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PASAu...5..175M J. O. Murphy (1983, Proc. Astr. Soc. of Australia, 5, 175)]
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="center">
[[File:MurphyPhysicallyViableTable3d.png|center|500px|Table 3 Model Characteristics by Murphy (1983)]]
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="5">
<tr>
  <td align="center" colspan="2" width="100%">
[[File:CommentButton02.png|center|100px|Comment by J. E. Tohline on 29 April 2015:  As is argued more fully below, it appears as though the two parameter values drawn directly from Murphy's Table 3 that are shown here in red contain typographical errors. ]]
Murphy's Table 3 Data
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="center" width="50%">
<math>~\zeta_J \rightarrow \xi_i</math><p></p>
----
  </td>
  <td align="center" width="50%">
<math>~\xi_J \rightarrow (A_0\eta)_\mathrm{root}</math><p></p>
----
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">3.2678E-02</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier" color="red">10.0164</font>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">0.8154</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">12.0083</font>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">1.6598</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">20.4312</font>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier" color="red">2.6914</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">33.0249</font>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">2.7302</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">100<math>\pi</math></font>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">3.1415</font>
  </td>
  <td align="right">
<font face="Courier">91275<math>\pi</math></font>
  </td>
</tr>
</table>
  </td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>


In his Table 3, [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PASAu...5..175M Murphy (1983)] presents six pairs of "coordinate" roots, <math>~(\zeta_J, \xi_J)</math>, that not only satisfy the first constraint equation but that also, in his interpretation, identify physically viable model solutions.  The values of all six of these coordinate pairs have been re-listed immediately to the right of the log-log plot, in a separate panel of the above figure.  After mapping Murphy's coordinate notation to ours &#8212; specifically invoking the mapping <math>~(\zeta_J, \xi_J) ~\rightarrow~ (\xi_i, A_0\eta_\mathrm{root})</math> &#8212; the locations of all six models have been marked by orange circles on the plot.  Five of Murphy's models fall directly onto our generated curves and in regions marked as physically viable, giving us confidence that our analysis matches his in considerable detail.  As is explained more fully, below, we strongly suspect that the single Murphy model that does not lie on one of our generated curves &#8212; "Model 4" which, as published in Murphy's Table 3, has coordinates <math>~(\zeta_J, \xi_J) = (2.6914, 33.0249)</math> &#8212; is displaced, perhaps because of transcription errors in the published table. 


As a supplement to the preceding two figures, we now display a table of our ''analytically determined'' model characteristics that is patterned after and largely matches [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PASAu...5..175M Murphy's (1983)] Table 3. The tabulated values have been derived assuming <math>~\mu_e/\mu_c = 1</math> throughout, that is, assuming that the mean molecular weights of the core and the envelope are identical.  Vertically, the table is divided into three segments:  The top portion contains six rows of numbers that result from our derivations; the middle portion displays six columns of numbers that have been extracted directly from Table 3 of Murphy (1983) and displayed here as image segments; and the bottom portion shows additional parameter values that we have generated in an effort to understand why our "Model 4" does not match the fourth model in Murphy's table. 


<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellpadding="5">
<tr>
  <td align="center" colspan="9">
Some Model Characteristics<sup>&dagger;</sup> (assuming <math>\mu_e/\mu_c</math> = 1)
  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="center" rowspan="2">
Model
  </td>
  <td align="center" colspan="2">
Specified
  </td>
  <td align="center" colspan="6">
Analytically Determined Here
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">
<math>~\xi_i</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~m</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~\Delta_i</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~(A_0\eta)_\mathrm{root}</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~\frac{A_0}{3^{1/2}} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr) </math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~B_0</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~\frac{B_0}{3^{1/4}} \biggl(\frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c}\biggr)^{1/2} \theta_i^{-1} </math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~\xi_s</math>
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">1</td>
  <td align="right">3.2678E-02</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.1544</td>
  <td align="right">10.0614</td>
  <td align="right">307.894</td>
  <td align="center">5.77929</td>
  <td align="center">4.39209</td>
  <td align="right">1.7392</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">2</td>
  <td align="right">0.8154</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.2429</td>
  <td align="right">12.0101</td>
  <td align="right">14.729</td>
  <td align="center">1.25567</td>
  <td align="center">1.06865</td>
  <td align="right">36.356</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">3</td>
  <td align="right">1.6598</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.4918</td>
  <td align="right">19.7585</td>
  <td align="right">11.9041</td>
  <td align="center">1.01206</td>
  <td align="center">1.28146</td>
  <td align="right">44.984</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">4</td>
  <td align="right">2.6914</td>
  <td align="center">1</td>
  <td align="right">2.8365</td>
  <td align="right"><font color="red">290.9431</font></td>
  <td align="right"><font color="red">108.1010</font></td>
  <td align="center">0.14348</td>
  <td align="center"><font color="red">0.67430</font></td>
  <td align="right"><font color="red">4.9536</font></td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">5</td>
  <td align="right">2.7302</td>
  <td align="center">1</td>
  <td align="right">2.8749</td>
  <td align="right">100.00<math>\pi</math></td>
  <td align="right">115.065</td>
  <td align="center">0.12408</td>
  <td align="center">0.64370</td>
  <td align="right">4.6539</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">6</td>
  <td align="right">3.1415</td>
  <td align="center">2</td>
  <td align="right">6.283141</td>
  <td align="right">91268<math>\pi</math></td>
  <td align="right">170.44223<math>e^{2\pi}</math></td>
  <td align="center">1.8966E-05</td>
  <td align="center">0.48862</td>
  <td align="right">3.141778</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="center" colspan="9">[[File:CommentButton02.png|right|50px|Comment by J. E. Tohline on 11 May 2015: 
The heading on this last column of numbers extracted from Murphy's (1983) paper has a subscript "J" whereas the subscript should be "R" to indicate the configuration's total radius.]]<p></p>
Corresponding Values Extracted Directly from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PASAu...5..175M Murphy's (1983)] Table 3
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="9">[[Image:AAAwaiting01.png|600px|Columns extracted directly from Murphy (1983)]]</td>
<!--
  <td align="center">[[File:Table3CompleteCol1.png|center|50px|Column 1 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
  <td align="right" colspan="2">[[File:Table3CompleteCol2.png|center|123px|Column 3 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
  <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
  <td align="right">[[File:Table3CompleteCol3.png|center|67px|Column 3 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
  <td align="right">[[File:Table3CompleteCol4.png|center|117px|Column 4 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
  <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
  <td align="right">[[File:Table3CompleteCol5.png|center|71px|Column 5 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
  <td align="right">[[File:Table3CompleteCol6.png|center|83px|Column 6 from Table 3 of Murphy (1983)]]</td>
-->
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="center" colspan="9">
Attempting to Understand Murphy's "Model 4"
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">4b</td>
  <td align="right">0.048681</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.1545342</td>
  <td align="right">10.065043</td>
  <td align="right">206.75505</td>
  <td align="center">4.7358862</td>
  <td align="center" bgcolor="lightgreen">3.5999</td>
  <td align="right">2.589981</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">4c</td>
  <td align="right">1.14988</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.3234244</td>
  <td align="right">14.109506</td>
  <td align="right" bgcolor="lightgreen">12.2704</td>
  <td align="center">1.12444163</td>
  <td align="center">1.07640071</td>
  <td align="right" bgcolor="lightgreen">43.6409</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">4d</td>
  <td align="right">1.77027</td>
  <td align="center">0</td>
  <td align="right">1.5391618</td>
  <td align="right">21.721958</td>
  <td align="right" bgcolor="lightgreen">12.2704</td>
  <td align="center">0.9876639</td>
  <td align="center">1.355397</td>
  <td align="right" bgcolor="lightgreen">43.6409</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="center">4e</td>
  <td align="right">2.10961</td>
  <td align="center">1</td>
  <td align="right">1.7486314</td>
  <td align="right" bgcolor="lightgreen">33.0249</td>
  <td align="right">15.6545186</td>
  <td align="center">0.8651536</td>
  <td align="center">1.6157228</td>
  <td align="right">34.2068427</td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="left" colspan="9">
<sup>&dagger;</sup>See an [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/MurphyUVplane#Chandrasekhar.27s_U_and_V_Functions|accompanying discussion]] for a complementary critique of Murphy's Table 3 models including an evlauation of the functions, <math>~U_{1E}</math>, <math>~V_{1E}</math>, <math>~U_{5F}</math>, and <math>~V_{5F} \, .</math>
  </td>
</tr>

</table>
</div>


Our six models (top portion of the above table) have been constructed by, first, specifying the location of the outer edge of the core, <math>~\xi_i</math> along with a corresponding phase shift parameter, <math>~m</math>, to match Murphy's chosen core-interface values &#8212; in his terminology, <math>~\zeta_J</math> (middle portion of the above table).  Once the value of <math>~\xi_i</math> has been specified for each model, the value of the parameter, <math>~p</math>, the root of the cubic equation, <math>~y_\mathrm{root}</math>, and all of the parameter values listed in the upper portion of the table were determined using the parameter relations derived above and/or detailed in the [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic15#Parameter_Values|table below]].  For example,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">

<tr>
  <td align="right">
<math>~\Delta_i</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~=</math>
  </td>
  <td align="left">
<math>~\tan^{-1}(y_\mathrm{root}) + m\pi \, ;</math>
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td align="right">
<math>~(A_0\eta)_\mathrm{root}</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~=</math>
  </td>
  <td align="left">
<math>~e^{2\Delta_i} \, ;</math>
  </td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
and,
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">

<tr>
  <td align="right">
<math>~\xi_s</math>
  </td>
  <td align="center">
<math>~=</math>
  </td>
  <td align="left">
<math>~\xi_i e^{2(\pi -\Delta_i)} \, .</math>
  </td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

Comparing our tabulated numbers (upper portion of the table) with the numbers published by Murphy (middle portion of the table) adds strong support to the statement made in connection with the above figure, that is, that our analysis matches Murphy's in considerable detail.  But such a comparison also highlights the mismatch between Murphy's "Model 4" and ours &#8212; to aid in this particular comparison, the relevant numbers have been displayed in a red font in the upper portion of our table.  According to our analysis, a model with <math>~\xi_i = 2.6914</math> does not display characteristics that, in any fashion, match Murphy's model with the same core-interface value.

We initially suspected that the "Model 4" mismatch resulted from a typographical or transcription error in the value of <math>~\zeta_J</math> &#8212; in our terminology, <math>~\xi_i</math> &#8212; that appears in Murphy's published Table 3.  So we tried a variety of values of <math>~\xi_i</math>, looking for a set of generated characteristics that matched Murphy's published Model 4 characteristics.  We were unsuccessful in this effort.  The most tantalizing results from this search are displayed as cells with light-green backgrounds in the bottom segment of the above table:  (Model 4b) Setting <math>~\xi_i = 0.048681~(m = 0)</math> gives <math>~B=3.5999</math>, which matches Murphy's "Model 4" value of <math>~B</math>; (Model 4c) setting <math>~\xi_i = 1.14988~(m = 0)</math> gives values of <math>~A</math> and <math>~\zeta_J (\mathrm{i.e.,}~\xi_s)</math> that both match Murphy's values; (Model 4d) setting <math>~\xi_i = 1.77027~(m = 0)</math> also gives values of <math>~A</math> and <math>~\zeta_J</math> that both match Murphy's values; and (Model 4e) setting <math>~\xi_i = 2.10961~(m = 1)</math> gives a value of <math>~(A_0\eta)_\mathrm{root}</math> that matches Murphy's value of <math>~\xi_J</math>.  As we have been unable to find a value of <math>~\xi_i</math> whose associated parameter values match Murphy's "Model 4" values across the board, we remain at a loss to explain the mismatch between our "Model 4" and Murphy's.