SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt4 - Revision history

Joel2: /* BiPolytrope with nc = 5 and ne = 1 */

2024-01-16T05:00:19Z

BiPolytrope with nc = 5 and ne = 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 16 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__FORCETOC__		__FORCETOC__
	=BiPolytrope with n<sub>c</sub> = 5 and n<sub>e</sub> = 1=		=BiPolytrope with n<sub>c</sub> = 5 and n<sub>e</sub> = 1 (Pt 4)=
	<table border="1" align="center" width="100%" colspan="8">		<table border="1" align="center" width="100%" colspan="8">
	<tr>		<tr>

Joel2: /* BiPolytrope with nc = 5 and ne = 1 */

2024-01-16T04:16:26Z

BiPolytrope with nc = 5 and ne = 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 16 January 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==Free Energy==		==Free Energy==
	Here we use this bipolytrope's free energy function to probe the relative dynamical stability of various equilibrium models. This derivation for <math>(n_c, n_e) = (5, 1)</math> bipolytropes is similar to the one that has been [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic00#Free_Energy\|presented elsewhere in the context of <~~math~~>~~(n_c~~, ~~n_e~~) = (0, 0)~~</math>~~ bipolytropes]] and follows the analysis outline provided in our [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Bipolytrope_Generalization\|discussion of the stability of generalized bipolytropes]].		Here we use this bipolytrope's free energy function to probe the relative dynamical stability of various equilibrium models. This derivation for <math>(n_c, n_e) = (5, 1)</math> bipolytropes is similar to the one that has been [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic00#Free_Energy\|presented elsewhere in the context of (n<sub>c</sub>, n<sub>e</sub>) = (0, 0) bipolytropes]] and follows the analysis outline provided in our [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Bipolytrope_Generalization\|discussion of the stability of generalized bipolytropes]].

	===Expression for Free Energy===		===Expression for Free Energy===

Joel2: /* Expression for Free Energy */

2024-01-16T04:00:45Z

Expression for Free Energy

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, 16 January 2024
Line 199:		Line 199:
	</table>		</table>
	</div>		</div>
	(Apology: The parameter <math>~x_i</math> introduced here is identical to the parameter <math>~\ell_i</math> that was introduced earlier in the context of [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Limiting_Mass\|our discussion of the "Limiting Mass"]] of these models. Sorry for the unnecessary duplication of parameters and possible confusion!)		(Apology: The parameter <math>x_i</math> introduced here is identical to the parameter <math>~\ell_i</math> that was introduced earlier in the context of [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt3#Limiting_Mass\|our discussion of the "Limiting Mass"]] of these models. Sorry for the unnecessary duplication of parameters and possible confusion!)

	<div id="Buchdahl1978">		<div id="Buchdahl1978">
Line 253:		Line 253:
	</div>		</div>

	where we have elected to write the total gravitational potential energy in terms of the natural scale length for <math>~n = 5</math> polytropes, which, [[SSC/Structure/Polytropes#Primary_E-Type_Solution_2\|as documented elsewhere]], is,		where we have elected to write the total gravitational potential energy in terms of the natural scale length for <math>~n = 5</math> polytropes, which, [[SSC/Structure/Polytropes/Analytic#Primary_E-Type_Solution_2\|as documented elsewhere]], is,

	<div align="center" id="twoSplusWcore">		<div align="center" id="twoSplusWcore">

Joel2: /* Expression for Free Energy */

2024-01-16T03:55:02Z

Expression for Free Energy

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 15 January 2024
Line 52:		Line 52:
	</div>		</div>

	Drawing on the various functional expressions that are provided in the above derivations, including the [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Parameter_Values\|Table of Parameters]], integrals over the material in the core give us,		Drawing on the various functional expressions that are provided in the above derivations, including the [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt2#Parameter_Values\|Table of Parameters]], integrals over the material in the core give us,

	<div align="center">		<div align="center">

Joel2 at 03:37, 16 January 2024

2024-01-16T03:37:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:37, 15 January 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	</table>		</table>

			==Free Energy==
	=Free Energy=
	Here we use this bipolytrope's free energy function to probe the relative dynamical stability of various equilibrium models. This derivation for <math>(n_c, n_e) = (5, 1)</math> bipolytropes is similar to the one that has been [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic00#Free_Energy\|presented elsewhere in the context of <math>(n_c, n_e) = (0, 0)</math> bipolytropes]] and follows the analysis outline provided in our [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Bipolytrope_Generalization\|discussion of the stability of generalized bipolytropes]].		Here we use this bipolytrope's free energy function to probe the relative dynamical stability of various equilibrium models. This derivation for <math>(n_c, n_e) = (5, 1)</math> bipolytropes is similar to the one that has been [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic00#Free_Energy\|presented elsewhere in the context of <math>(n_c, n_e) = (0, 0)</math> bipolytropes]] and follows the analysis outline provided in our [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Bipolytrope_Generalization\|discussion of the stability of generalized bipolytropes]].

	==Expression for Free Energy==		===Expression for Free Energy===
	In order to construct the free energy function, we need mathematical expressions for the gravitational potential energy, <math>W</math>, and for the thermal energy content, <math>S</math>, of the models; and it will be natural to break both energy expressions into separate components derived for the <math>n_c=5</math> core and for the <math>n_e = 1</math> envelope. Consistent with the above equilibrium model derivations, we will work with dimensionless variables. Specifically, we define,		In order to construct the free energy function, we need mathematical expressions for the gravitational potential energy, <math>W</math>, and for the thermal energy content, <math>S</math>, of the models; and it will be natural to break both energy expressions into separate components derived for the <math>n_c=5</math> core and for the <math>n_e = 1</math> envelope. Consistent with the above equilibrium model derivations, we will work with dimensionless variables. Specifically, we define,

Line 521:		Line 520:
	</div>		</div>

	==Equilibrium Condition==		===Equilibrium Condition===
	===Global===		====Global====

	Recognizing from the above [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Parameter_Values\|Table of Parameters]] that,		Recognizing from the above [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Parameter_Values\|Table of Parameters]] that,
Line 623:		Line 622:
	This demonstrates that the detailed force-balanced models of <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes derived above are also all in virial equilibrium, as should be the case. More importantly, showing that these four separate energy integrals sum to zero helps provide confirmation that the four energy integrals have been derived correctly. This allows us to confidently proceed to an evaluation of the relative dynamical stability of the models.		This demonstrates that the detailed force-balanced models of <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes derived above are also all in virial equilibrium, as should be the case. More importantly, showing that these four separate energy integrals sum to zero helps provide confirmation that the four energy integrals have been derived correctly. This allows us to confidently proceed to an evaluation of the relative dynamical stability of the models.

	===In Parts===		====In Parts====
	In section <b><font color="maroon" size="+1">⑩</font></b> of our ''[[SSC/SynopsisStyleSheet#Bipolytropes\|Tabular Overview]]'', we speculated that, in bipolytropic equilibrium structures, the statements		In section <b><font color="maroon" size="+1">⑩</font></b> of our ''[[SSC/SynopsisStyleSheet#Bipolytropes\|Tabular Overview]]'', we speculated that, in bipolytropic equilibrium structures, the statements

Line 674:		Line 673:
	This is '''precisely''' the "extra term" that shows up (with opposite signs) in the above-derived expressions for the separate quantities, <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{core}</math> and <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{env}</math>. Hence our speculation has been shown to be correct, at least for the case of bipolytropes with, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (\tfrac{6}{5}, 2)</math>.		This is '''precisely''' the "extra term" that shows up (with opposite signs) in the above-derived expressions for the separate quantities, <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{core}</math> and <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{env}</math>. Hence our speculation has been shown to be correct, at least for the case of bipolytropes with, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (\tfrac{6}{5}, 2)</math>.

	==Stability Condition==		===Stability Condition===

	According to the accompanying [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Stability\|free-energy based, generalized formulation of stability in bipolytropes]], our above derived <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes — or, equivalently, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (6/5, 2)</math> bipolytropes — will be dynamically stable only if,		According to the accompanying [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Stability\|free-energy based, generalized formulation of stability in bipolytropes]], our above derived <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes — or, equivalently, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (6/5, 2)</math> bipolytropes — will be dynamically stable only if,

Joel2: Created page with "FORCETOC =BiPolytrope with n_c = 5 and n_e = 1=

Part I: (n_c,n_e) = (5,1) BiPolytrope
Part II: Example Models
2024-01-15T23:41:13Z

Created page with "FORCETOC =BiPolytrope with n<sub>c</sub> = 5 and n<sub>e</sub> = 1= <table border="1" align="center" width="100%" colspan="8"> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue" width="25%"><br />Part I: (n<sub>c</sub>,n<sub>e</sub>) = (5,1) BiPolytrope </td> <td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue" width="25%"><br />Part II: Example Models </td> <td ali..."

New page
FORCETOC
=BiPolytrope with n<sub>c</sub> = 5 and n<sub>e</sub> = 1=
<table border="1" align="center" width="100%" colspan="8">
<tr>
<td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue" width="25%"><br />[[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51|Part I:  (n<sub>c</sub>,n<sub>e</sub>) = (5,1) BiPolytrope]]
 
</td>
<td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue" width="25%"><br />[[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt2|Part II:  Example Models]]
 
</td>
<td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue" width="25%"><br />[[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt3|Part III:  Limiting Mass]]
 
</td>
<td align="center" bgcolor="lightblue"><br />[[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51/Pt4|Part IV:  Free Energy]]
 
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Free Energy=
Here we use this bipolytrope's free energy function to probe the relative dynamical stability of various equilibrium models. This derivation for <math>(n_c, n_e) = (5, 1)</math> bipolytropes is similar to the one that has been [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic00#Free_Energy|presented elsewhere in the context of <math>(n_c, n_e) = (0, 0)</math> bipolytropes]] and follows the analysis outline provided in our [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Bipolytrope_Generalization|discussion of the stability of generalized bipolytropes]].

==Expression for Free Energy==
In order to construct the free energy function, we need mathematical expressions for the gravitational potential energy, <math>W</math>, and for the thermal energy content, <math>S</math>, of the models; and it will be natural to break both energy expressions into separate components derived for the <math>n_c=5</math> core and for the <math>n_e = 1</math> envelope. Consistent with the above equilibrium model derivations, we will work with dimensionless variables. Specifically, we define,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~W^</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~\equiv</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\frac{W}{[K_c^5/G^3]^{1/2}}</math>
</td>

<td align="center">;    </td>

<td align="right">
<math>~S^</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~\equiv</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\frac{S}{[K_c^5/G^3]^{1/2}} \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

Drawing on the various functional expressions that are provided in the above derivations, including the [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Parameter_Values|Table of Parameters]], integrals over the material in the core give us,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~S^_\mathrm{core}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ \frac{3}{2} \int_0^{r_i} \biggl(\frac{P^}{\rho^}\biggr)_\mathrm{core} (4\pi \rho^)_\mathrm{core} (r^)^2 dr^</math>
</td>

<td align="center" rowspan="5" width="8%">
 
</td>
<td align="center" rowspan="5">
[[File:Mathematica01.png|275px|center|Mathematica Integral]]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ 6\pi \biggl( \frac{3}{2\pi} \biggr)^{3/2} \int_0^{\xi_i} \biggl(1+\frac{1}{3}\xi^2\biggr)^{-3} \xi^2 d\xi</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ 6\pi \biggl( \frac{3^2}{2\pi} \biggr)^{3/2} \int_0^{x_i} \biggl(1+x^2\biggr)^{-3} x^2 dx</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ \biggl( \frac{3^8}{2^7\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl[ \frac{x_i}{(1+x_i^2)} - \frac{2x_i}{(1+x_i^2)^2} + \tan^{-1}(x_i) \biggr] </math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ \frac{1}{2} \biggl( \frac{3^8}{2^5\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl[ x_i (x_i^4 - 1 )(1+x_i^2)^{-3} + \tan^{-1}(x_i) \biggr] \, ,</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
where, in order to streamline the integral for Mathematica, we have used the substitution, <math>~x \equiv \xi/\sqrt{3}</math>; and,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~W^_\mathrm{core}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ - \int_0^{r_i} (4\pi M_r^ \rho^)_\mathrm{core} (r^) dr^</math>
</td>

<td align="center" rowspan="5" width="4%">
 
</td>
<td align="center" rowspan="5">
[[File:Mathematica02.png|275px|center|Mathematica Integral]]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ - 4\pi \int_0^{\xi_i} \biggl( \frac{2\cdot 3}{\pi } \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl[ \xi^3 \biggl( 1 + \frac{1}{3}\xi^2 \biggr)^{-3/2} \biggr]
\biggl( 1 + \frac{1}{3}\xi^2 \biggr)^{-5/2} \biggl( \frac{3}{2\pi} \biggr) \xi d\xi</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ - \biggl( \frac{2^3\cdot 3^8}{\pi } \biggr)^{1/2}\int_0^{x_i} \biggl( 1 + x^2 \biggr)^{-4} x^4 dx</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ - \biggl( \frac{2^3\cdot 3^8}{\pi } \biggr)^{1/2}
\biggl[ 3\tan^{-1}(x_i) + \frac{x_i(3x_i^4 -8x_i^2 -3)}{(1+x_i^2)^3} \biggr] \biggl( \frac{1}{2^4 \cdot 3} \biggr) </math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ - \biggl( \frac{3^8}{2^5\pi } \biggr)^{1/2}
\biggl[ x_i \biggl(x_i^4 - \frac{8}{3} x_i^2 -1 \biggr) (1 + x_i^2)^{-3} + \tan^{-1}(x_i) \biggr] \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
(Apology: The parameter <math>~x_i</math> introduced here is identical to the parameter <math>~\ell_i</math> that was introduced earlier in the context of [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Limiting_Mass|our discussion of the "Limiting Mass"]] of these models. Sorry for the unnecessary duplication of parameters and possible confusion!)

<div id="Buchdahl1978">
<table border="1" align="center" width="85%" cellpadding="8">
<tr><td align="left">
While our aim, here, has been to determine an expression for the gravitational potential energy of a ''truncated'' <math>n = 5</math> polytropic sphere, our derived expression can also give the gravitational potential of an ''isolated'' <math>n = 5</math> polytrope by evaluating the expression in the limit <math>x_i \rightarrow \infty</math>. In this limit, the first term inside the square brackets goes to zero, while the second term,
<div align="center">
<math>\lim_{x_i \to \infty}\tan^{-1}(x_i) = \frac{\pi}{2} \, .</math>
</div>

We see, therefore, that,
<div align="center">
<math>
W^ \biggr|_\mathrm{tot} =
\lim_{x_i \to \infty}W^* = - \biggl( \frac{3^8}{2^5\pi } \biggr)^{1/2}\frac{\pi}{2}
= - \biggl( \frac{3^8 \pi}{2^7} \biggr)^{1/2} \, .
</math>
</div>

Taking into account our adopted energy normalization, this can be rewritten with the dimensions of energy as,

<div align="center" id="twoSplusWcore">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>W_\mathrm{grav} \biggr|_\mathrm{tot}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>
- \biggl( \frac{3^8 \pi}{2^7} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{K_c^5}{G^3} \biggr)^{1/2}
= - \biggl( \frac{3^8 \pi}{2^7} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl[ \frac{\pi}{2^3\cdot 3^7} \biggr]^{1/2} \frac{GM^2 }{a_5}
</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>
- \biggl( \frac{3 \pi^2}{2^{10}} \biggr)^{1/2} \frac{GM^2}{a_5} \, ,
</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

where we have elected to write the total gravitational potential energy in terms of the natural scale length for <math>~n = 5</math> polytropes, which, [[SSC/Structure/Polytropes#Primary_E-Type_Solution_2|as documented elsewhere]], is,

<div align="center" id="twoSplusWcore">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>a_{5}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>
\biggl[ \frac{3K}{2\pi G} \biggr]^{1/2} \rho_c^{-2/5}
= \biggl[ \frac{3K}{2\pi G} \biggr]^{1/2} \biggl[ \frac{\pi M^2 G^3}{2\cdot 3^4} \biggr] K^{-3}
= GM^2 \biggl[ \frac{\pi G^3}{2^3\cdot 3^7 K^5} \biggr]^{1/2} \, .
</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

As can be seen from the following, boxed-in equation excerpt, our derived expression for the total gravitational potential energy of an ''isolated'' <math>n=5</math> polytrope exactly matches the result derived by {{ Buchdahl78full }}. The primary purpose of Buchdahl's ''short communication'' was to point out that, despite the fact that its radius extends to infinity, "the gravitational potential energy of [an ''isolated''] polytrope of index 5 is finite."

<div align="center">
<table border="1" align="center" cellpadding="8" width="75%">
<tr><td align="center">
Equation excerpt from p. 116 of<br />{{ Buchdahl78figure }}

</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">


<math>\Omega = -(\pi\sqrt{3}/32)GM^2/\alpha \, .</math>
</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Note that a comparison between Buchdahl's derived expression and our expression in the limit <math>x_i \rightarrow \infty</math> requires the parameter substitutions,
<div align="center"><math>\Omega \rightarrow W_\mathrm{grav}|_\mathrm{tot}</math>       and       <math>\alpha \rightarrow a_5</math></div>
</td></tr>
</table>
</div>

</td></tr>
</table>
</div>

Notice that these two terms combine to give, for the core,

<div align="center" id="twoSplusWcore">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>\biggl( 2S + W \biggr)_\mathrm{core}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{2 \cdot 3^6}{\pi } \biggr)^{1/2} \frac{x_i^3}{(1 + x_i^2)^3}
= \biggl( \frac{2}{\pi } \biggr)^{1/2} 3^{3/2} \xi_i^3 \biggl( 1 + \frac{1}{3}\xi_i^2 \biggr)^{-3}\, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

Similarly, integrals over the material in the envelope give us,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>S^_\mathrm{env}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\frac{3}{2} \int_{r_i}^R \biggl(\frac{P^}{\rho^}\biggr)_\mathrm{env} (4\pi \rho^)_\mathrm{env} (r^)^2 dr^</math>
</td>

<td align="center" rowspan="5" width="8%">
 
</td>
<td align="center" rowspan="5">
[[File:Mathematica03.png|300px|center|Mathematica Integral]]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>6\pi \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} [\theta^{6}_i \phi^{2}] \biggl[ \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-1} \theta^{-2}_i (2\pi)^{-1/2} \biggr]^3 \eta^2 d\eta</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{3^2}{2\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2 \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} [\sin(\eta - B)]^2 d\eta</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{3^2}{2^5\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl\{ 2(\eta - B) - \sin[2(\eta-B)] \biggr\}_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} </math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{1}{2^5\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl\{ 6(\eta - B) - 3\sin[2(\eta-B)] \biggr\}_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} \, ; </math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

and,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>W^_\mathrm{env}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>- \int_{r_i}^{R} (4\pi M_r^ \rho^)_\mathrm{env} (r^) dr^</math>
</td>

<td align="center" rowspan="6" width="4%">
 
</td>
<td align="center" rowspan="6">
[[File:Mathematica04.png|300px|center|Mathematica Integral]]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>- 4\pi \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-2} \theta^{-1}_i \biggl( \frac{2}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl(-\eta^2 \frac{d\phi}{d\eta} \biggr)
\biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr) \theta^{5}_i \phi
\biggl[ \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-1} \theta^{-2}_i (2\pi)^{-1/2} \biggr]^2 \eta d\eta</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>-\biggl( \frac{2^3}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3}
\int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} \biggl(-\eta^2 \frac{d\phi}{d\eta} \biggr) \phi \eta d\eta
</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>-\biggl( \frac{2^3}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} [ \sin(\eta-B) - \eta\cos(\eta-B) ] \sin(\eta - B) d\eta
</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>-\biggl( \frac{1}{2^3\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl\{ - 3\sin[2(\eta - B)] +2\eta \cos[2(\eta - B)] + 4(\eta - B) + 2B \biggr\}_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s}
</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>-\biggl( \frac{1}{2^3\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl\{6(\eta-B) - 3\sin[2(\eta - B)] -4\eta\sin^2(\eta-B) + 4B \biggr\}_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s} \, .
</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

In this case, the two terms combine to give, for the envelope,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>\biggl( 2S + W \biggr)_\mathrm{env}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{1}{2^3\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl[4\eta\sin^2(\eta-B) + 4B \biggr]_{\eta_i}^{\eta_s}</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>\biggl( \frac{2}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} A^2
\biggl[\eta_s\sin^2(\eta_s-B) - \eta_i\sin^2(\eta_i-B) \biggr] \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

==Equilibrium Condition==
===Global===

Recognizing from the above [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes/Analytic51#Parameter_Values|Table of Parameters]] that,
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="3">

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~A</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~\frac{\eta_i}{\sin(\eta_i - B)} \, ,</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
[because <math>~\phi_i = 1</math>]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~(\eta_s - B)</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~\pi \, ,</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
[hence, <math>~\sin^2(\eta_s - B) = 0</math>]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~\eta_i</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~3^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr) \xi_i \biggl( 1 + \frac{1}{3} \xi_i^2 \biggr)^{-1}\, ,</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
 
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
we can rewrite this last "envelope virial" expression as,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~\biggl( 2S + W \biggr)_\mathrm{env}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>- ~ \biggl( \frac{2}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-3} \eta_i^3</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>- ~ \biggl( \frac{2}{\pi} \biggr)^{1/2} 3^{3/2} \xi_i^3 \biggl( 1 + \frac{1}{3} \xi_i^2 \biggr)^{-3} \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
This expression is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign to the "core virial" expression derived earlier. Hence, putting the core and envelope contributions together, we find,
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~\biggl( 2S + W \biggr)_\mathrm{tot} ~=~ 2(S_\mathrm{core} + S_\mathrm{env}) + (W_\mathrm{core} + W_\mathrm{env})</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~ 0 \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
This demonstrates that the detailed force-balanced models of <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes derived above are also all in virial equilibrium, as should be the case. More importantly, showing that these four separate energy integrals sum to zero helps provide confirmation that the four energy integrals have been derived correctly. This allows us to confidently proceed to an evaluation of the relative dynamical stability of the models.

===In Parts===
In section <b><font color="maroon" size="+1">⑩</font></b> of our ''[[SSC/SynopsisStyleSheet#Bipolytropes|Tabular Overview]]'', we speculated that, in bipolytropic equilibrium structures, the statements

<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~2S_\mathrm{core} + W_\mathrm{core} = 3P_i V_\mathrm{core}</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
    and    
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~2S_\mathrm{env} + W_\mathrm{env} = - 3P_i V_\mathrm{core} \, ,</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
hold separately. Let's evaluate the "PV" term. We find that,
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">

<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~
3P_i V_\mathrm{core} = 4\pi P_i r_i^3
</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~
4\pi \biggl( 1 + \frac{\xi_i^2}{3} \biggr)^{- 3}\biggl(\frac{3}{2\pi}\biggr)^{3 / 2} \xi_i^3
</math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="right">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~=</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math>~
\biggl( 1 + \frac{\xi_i^2}{3} \biggr)^{- 3}\biggl(\frac{2 \cdot 3^3 }{\pi} \biggr)^{1 / 2} \xi_i^3 \, .
</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
This is '''precisely''' the "extra term" that shows up (with opposite signs) in the above-derived expressions for the separate quantities, <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{core}</math> and <math>~(2S + W)_\mathrm{env}</math>. Hence our speculation has been shown to be correct, at least for the case of bipolytropes with, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (\tfrac{6}{5}, 2)</math>.

==Stability Condition==

According to the accompanying [[SSC/BipolytropeGeneralization#Stability|free-energy based, generalized formulation of stability in bipolytropes]], our above derived <math>~(n_c, n_e) = (5,1)</math> bipolytropes — or, equivalently, <math>~(\gamma_c, \gamma_e) = (6/5, 2)</math> bipolytropes — will be dynamically stable only if,

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td align="right">
<math>~ - (W_\mathrm{core} + W_\mathrm{env}) \biggl( \gamma_e - \frac{4}{3}\biggr)
</math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~>~</math>
</td>
<td align="left">
<math> ~ 2(\gamma_e-\gamma_c) S_\mathrm{core} \, .</math>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
Otherwise, they will be dynamically unstable toward radial perturbations. For various values of the <math>~\mu_e/\mu_c</math> ratio, Table 3 identifies the value of <math>~\xi_i</math> — and the corresponding values of <math>~q</math> and <math>~\nu</math> — at which the left-hand side of this stability relation equals the right-hand side. The locus of points provided by Table 3 defines the curve that separates stable from unstable regions of the <math>~q-\nu</math> parameter space. The red-dashed curve drawn in Figure 3 graphically depicts this demarcation: the region below the curve identifies bipolytrope models that are dynamically stable while the region above the curve identifies unstable models.

<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" width="85%">

<tr>
<td align="center" rowspan="2">

<table border="1" cellpadding="5">
<tr>
<th align="center" colspan="9">
Table 3: Points Defining Stability Curve
</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~\mu_e/\mu_c</math>
</td>
<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~\xi_i</math>
</td>
<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~q </math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~\nu </math>
</td>

<td align="center" rowspan="12" bgcolor="#EEEEEE">
 
</td>

<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~\mu_e/\mu_c</math>
</td>
<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~\xi_i</math>
</td>
<td align="center" width="25%">
<math>~q </math>
</td>
<td align="center">
<math>~\nu </math>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
1
</td>
<td align="center">
2.416
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5952
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6830
</td>

<td align="center">
0.375
</td>
<td align="center">
6.259
</td>
<td align="center">
0.1695
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6054
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.95
</td>
<td align="center">
2.500
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5805
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6884
</td>

<td align="center">
0.350
</td>
<td align="center">
7.341
</td>
<td align="center">
0.1284
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5439
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.90
</td>
<td align="center">
2.594
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5642
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6937
</td>

<td align="center">
0.340
</td>
<td align="center">
7.991
</td>
<td align="center">
0.1109
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5081
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.80
</td>
<td align="center">
2.816
</td>
<td align="center">
0.5255
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7031
</td>

<td align="center">
⅓
</td>
<td align="center">
8.548
</td>
<td align="center">
0.0990
</td>
<td align="center">
0.4790
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.70
</td>
<td align="center">
3.109
</td>
<td align="center">
0.4775
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7104
</td>

<td align="center">
0.32
</td>
<td align="center">
10.2
</td>
<td align="center">
0.0744
</td>
<td align="center">
0.4038
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.65
</td>
<td align="center">
3.296
</td>
<td align="center">
0.4481
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7124
</td>

<td align="center">
0.31
</td>
<td align="center">
12.4
</td>
<td align="center">
0.05536
</td>
<td align="center">
0.3264
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.60
</td>
<td align="center">
3.523
</td>
<td align="center">
0.4142
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7125
</td>

<td align="center">
0.305
</td>
<td align="center">
14.4
</td>
<td align="center">
0.04494
</td>
<td align="center">
0.2772
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.55
</td>
<td align="center">
3.809
</td>
<td align="center">
0.3748
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7096
</td>

<td align="center">
0.3
</td>
<td align="center">
17.733
</td>
<td align="center">
0.03412
</td>
<td align="center">
0.2186
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
½
</td>
<td align="center">
4.186
</td>
<td align="center">
0.3284
</td>
<td align="center">
0.7014
</td>

<td align="center">
0.295
</td>
<td align="center">
25.737
</td>
<td align="center">
0.02165
</td>
<td align="center">
0.14347
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.45
</td>
<td align="center">
4.719
</td>
<td align="center">
0.2733
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6830
</td>

<td align="center">
0.291
</td>
<td align="center">
75.510
</td>
<td align="center">
0.00666
</td>
<td align="center">
0.0450
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="center">
0.40
</td>
<td align="center">
5.574
</td>
<td align="center">
0.2073
</td>
<td align="center">
0.6429
</td>

<td align="center">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
 
</td>
<td align="center">
 
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</td>
<td align="center" colspan="1" bgcolor="white">
[[Image:PlotStabilityBest02.png|500px|center]]
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align="left" colspan="1">
'''Figure 3:''' Largely the same as Figure 1, above, but a red-dashed curve has been added that separates the <math>~q - \nu</math> domain into regions that contain stable models (lying below the curve) from dynamically unstable models (lying above the curve), as determined by the virial stability analysis presented here.
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>

=Related Discussions=
[[SSC/Structure/PolytropesEmbedded#Embedded_Polytropic_Spheres|Polytropes emdeded in an external medium]]
* [[SSC/Structure/BiPolytropes#BiPolytropes|Constructing BiPolytropes]]
* [[SSC/Structure/BonnorEbert#Pressure-Bounded_Isothermal_Sphere|Bonnor-Ebert spheres]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnor-Ebert_mass Bonnor-Ebert Mass] according to Wikipedia
<font color="red">Link has disappeared:</font> [http://www.astro.umd.edu/~cychen/MATLAB/ASTR320/matlabFrom320spring2011/Bonnor-EbertSphere/html/BonnorEbert.html A MATLAB script to determine the Bonnor-Ebert Mass coefficient] developed by [http://www.astro.umd.edu/people/cychen.html Che-Yu Chen] as a graduate student in the University of Maryland Department of Astronomy
* [[SSC/Structure/LimitingMasses#Sch.C3.B6nberg-Chandrasekhar_Mass|Schönberg-Chandrasekhar limiting mass]]
* [[SSC/Structure/LimitingMasses#Relationship_Between_the_Bonnor-Ebert_and_Sch.C3.B6nberg-Chandrasekhar_Critical_Masses|Relationship between Bonnor-Ebert and Schönberg-Chandrasekhar limiting masses]]

{{ SGFfooter }}