SSC/Stability/BiPolytropes/RedGiantToPN/Pt2: Difference between revisions
| Line 830: | Line 830: | ||
<td align="left"> | <td align="left"> | ||
<math> | <math> | ||
\biggl(\frac{\sigma_c^2}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr)\frac{2\pi }{3}\biggl[\biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr) \theta^{-1}_i \ | \biggl(\frac{\sigma_c^2}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr)\frac{2\pi }{3}\biggl[\biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr) \theta^{-1}_i \biggr]\frac{1}{\phi} | ||
- 2\biggl(3 - \frac{4}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr) | - 2\biggl(3 - \frac{4}{\gamma_\mathrm{g}}\biggr) | ||
\biggl[ \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{2} \theta^{4}_i (2\pi)\eta^ | \biggl[ \biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{2} \theta^{4}_i (2\pi)\biggr] \frac{1}{\eta^2}\biggl(-\frac{d\ln\phi}{d\ln\eta}\biggr) \, . | ||
</math> | </math> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 10 January 2026
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
Throughout the envelope we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
|
and,
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
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,
|
First 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!
Second Try
Next, let's set but let's leave unspecified:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first term goes to zero if we set ; then, in order for the second term to go to zero, we need …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means that the envelope is incompressible.
Third Try
Related Discussions
|
Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS | |