SSC/Stability/BiPolytropes/RedGiantToPN/Pt2: Difference between revisions
| Line 932: | Line 932: | ||
-m \biggl\{ 4 - 2\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr]\biggr\} | -m \biggl\{ 4 - 2\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr]\biggr\} | ||
-2\biggl\{\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] \biggr\} | -2\biggl\{\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] \biggr\} | ||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
| |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math> | |||
m(m+1) | |||
- 4m | |||
+2m \biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] | |||
-2\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] | |||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
We see that the complexity of the LAWE reduces substantially if we set <math>m = +1</math>; specifically, this choice gives, | |||
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math> | |||
\biggl[\eta^{m+2} \times \mathrm{LAWE} \biggr]_{m\rightarrow 1} | |||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math> | |||
-2 \, . | |||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
<font color="red">Close, but no cigar!</font> | |||
Next, let's set <math>\sigma_c^2 = 0</math> but let's leave <math>\gamma_\mathrm{g}</math> unspecified: | |||
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math> | |||
\Rightarrow ~~~ \eta^{m+2} \times \mathrm{LAWE} | |||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math> | |||
m(m+1) | |||
-m \biggl\{ 4 - 2\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr]\biggr\} | |||
-2\biggl\{\biggl(3 | |||
- \frac{4}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr) \biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] \biggr\} | |||
</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
| |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math> | |||
m(m+1) | |||
-m \biggl\{ 4 - 2\biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr]\biggr\} | |||
-2\biggl\{\biggl(3 | |||
- \frac{4}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr) \biggl[ 1 + \eta \cdot \cot(B-\eta) \biggr] \biggr\} | |||
</math> | </math> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
Revision as of 13:01, 28 December 2025
Main Sequence to Red Giant to Planetary Nebula (Part 2)
Part I: Background & Objective
|
Part II:
|
Part III:
|
Part IV:
|
Foundation
In an accompanying discussion, we derived the so-called,
whose solution gives eigenfunctions that describe various radial modes of oscillation in spherically symmetric, self-gravitating fluid configurations.
|
Introducing the dimensionless frequency-squared, , we can rewrite this LAWE as,
where, as a reminder, . Now, for our bipolytrope, we have found it useful to adopt the following four dimensionless variables:
This means that,
Making these substitutions, the LAWE can be rewritten as,
then, multiplying through by allows us to everywhere switch from to , namely,
|
In shorthand, we can rewrite this equation in the form,
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
and,
and,
|
|
|
|
Specific Case of (nc, ne) = (5,1)
Drawing from our "Table 2" profiles, let's evaluate and for the two separate regions of bipolytrope model.
The nc = 5 Core
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also,
|
|
|
|
Hence, the LAWE becomes,
|
|
|
|
Multiplying through by gives,
|
|
|
|
|
Let's compare this with the equivalent expression presented separately, namely, The primary E-type solution for n = 5 polytropes states that,
Hence, the LAWE may be written as,
Versus above,
|
If we set and we set , this becomes,
|
|
|
|
Next, try the solution, and :
|
LAWE |
|
|
|
LAWE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ne = 1 Envelope
|
Let's compare this with the equivalent expression presented separately, namely, The equilibrium, off-center equilibrium solution for n = 1 polytropes states that,
Hence, the LAWE may be written as,
|
Try,
|
|
|
and |
in which case,
|
LAWE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now set and set :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We see that the complexity of the LAWE reduces substantially if we set ; specifically, this choice gives,
|
|
|
|
Close, but no cigar!
Next, let's set but let's leave unspecified:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Discussions
|
Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS | |