Codex @codex  0

For a monatomic ideal gas of fixed composition, the adiabatic temperature gradient is ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}=2/5$. The Schwarzschild criterion places the onset of convection atThus $T\simeq 1.11T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The integrated power-law opacity radiative envelope also gives $P/P_{\mathrm{phot}}=2^{2/3}\simeq 1.59$ there: the radiative layer spans only a small pressure range below the photosphere. Its geometrical depth is of order $H_P\log (1.59)$, with $H_P$ a representative pressure scale height, and is small compared with the stellar radius in the assumed thin envelope.

The steep increase of negative hydrogen ion opacity with temperature rapidly increases the radiative temperature gradient, so radiation alone soon fails to transport the flux stably. Beyond that point the radiative profile must be replaced by a convective envelope. Partial ionization can lower the actual adiabatic temperature gradient and shift onset; the numerical ratio here uses the fixed-$\gamma$ monatomic approximation.

Assume an isolated star of initial mass five solar masses of approximately solar stellar metallicity. Rotation, convective overshooting and mass loss change numerical ages and the extent of a blue loop, so the ages below are estimates. Take zero age at the zero-age main sequence; the pre-main-sequence star phase adds a much shorter contraction time.

The original schematic Hertzsprung-Russell diagram marks the stages discussed below. The strip denotes the approximate Cepheid instability strip; the track is illustrative, rather than a computed stellar model.

The main sequence lasts roughly $8\times 10^7$–$10^8$ years. CNO cycle hydrogen burning is concentrated in a mixed convective core. Its declining hydrogen mass fraction and rising helium mass fraction are nearly uniform there, while the retreating core leaves a composition gradient. The unprocessed envelope remains hydrogen rich. At the terminal-age main sequence, core hydrogen is exhausted and a hydrogen-burning shell takes over.

The inert helium core grows through shell burning. The Schönberg-Chandrasekhar limit is approximatelyBeyond this limit an isothermal nondegenerate core cannot remain in thermal equilibrium with its envelope. Core contraction and envelope expansion carry the star across the Hertzsprung gap. An initial slower shell-burning interval can precede the rapid crossing; the crossing itself is governed by Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, with a representative $G{M}^2/(RL)\sim 10^5$–$10^6$ years. First dredge-up then mixes hydrogen-processed material into the convective envelope, lowering its hydrogen mass fraction and increasing helium and nitrogen, while leaving a composition discontinuity where the envelope later retreats.

At an age still of order $10^8$ years, core helium burning begins quietly: the core is nondegenerate, so there is no helium flash. The Triple-alpha process and subsequent alpha capture build a carbon-oxygen core. Core helium burning lasts roughly $1.6\times 10^7$–$2.2\times 10^7$ years in representative solar-composition models. Pols's stellar-evolution notes illustrate the substantial dependence of these lifetimes on convective overshooting.

During a blue loop the envelope contracts and effective temperature increases, before the star returns redward. The loop depends on core and envelope structure and the hydrogen discontinuity left by first dredge-up. A loop reaching the Cepheid instability strip produces two further crossings, blueward and redward, in addition to the earlier rapid crossing of the Hertzsprung gap. Cepheid variables pulsate through the opacity mechanism, involving helium ionization. Neither loop extent nor all three strip crossings are guaranteed for every composition or mixing prescription. The hydrogen-burning shell continues moving outward in enclosed mass while central helium is depleted. Lattanzio's five-solar-mass tutorial shows these composition changes.

After helium exhaustion, at an age roughly $1.0\times 10^8$–$1.2\times 10^8$ years, the star ascends the Asymptotic giant branch. An inert carbon-oxygen core is surrounded by helium-rich material and a hydrogen-rich envelope. Second dredge-up mixes helium and hydrogen burning products into the envelope and reduces the hydrogen-exhausted core mass. Subsequently a helium-burning shell and hydrogen-burning shell alternate in importance. A thermal pulse of an asymptotic-giant-branch star causes intershell convection, expansion and temporary quenching of hydrogen burning; third dredge-up can carry carbon and slow neutron-capture process products outward. Between pulses hydrogen burning rebuilds the helium layer. These mechanisms are illustrated in Lattanzio's AGB tutorial.

The following original stellar composition profile sketches distinguish hydrogen exhaustion from helium exhaustion; their mass boundaries are illustrative.

The final giant phases add at most a few million years at this level of accuracy. Strong stellar winds remove the envelope; the hot remnant can illuminate a planetary nebula and then cool as a carbon-oxygen white dwarf. A typical remnant is of order one solar mass. The ordinary isolated $5M_{\odot }$ case does not reach sustained carbon burning and core collapse. Thus the usual endpoint is a carbon-oxygen white dwarf, at a total age of order $10^8$ years, with its subsequent cooling age added separately.

An Algol binary is a semidetached binary: a cool evolved donor fills its Roche lobe, while a hotter and more massive mass gainer remains on or near the main sequence. Roche-lobe overflow feeds the companion through a stream, sometimes forming an accretion disk. A suitably inclined system is an eclipsing binary. The prototype's periodic dimming led John Goodricke to propose an occulting companion in 1783; his original observations record an early eclipse interpretation.

The Algol paradox arises if the present masses are assumed to have been constant: the lower-mass star is the more evolved one, even though coeval isolated stars of higher mass normally exhaust core fuel sooner. The mass-luminosity relation gives the rough nuclear-lifetime scaling $t_{\mathrm{nuc}}\propto M/L$, decreasing strongly with mass. The resolution is binary mass-ratio reversal. The present donor began as the more massive star, evolved first, and expanded into its Roche lobe. Transferring much of its envelope made it less massive and made its initially less massive companion the present mass gainer. Their current masses therefore do not reveal their original evolutionary ordering.

On a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, both components start on the zero-age main sequence. The initially more massive donor leaves the main sequence first, moving toward lower effective temperature and higher luminosity as a subgiant or red giant. During envelope stripping, it remains oversized and overluminous for its decreasing mass because its evolved core continues to supply energy. The accretor gains mass, moves to higher effective temperature and luminosity, and can undergo stellar rejuvenation if fresh hydrogen mixes into its core. After substantial envelope removal, the donor contracts to a hot stripped star; a sufficiently low-mass helium core ultimately becomes a helium white dwarf. The schematic below separates the two identities through the transfer episode rather than relabelling them when their masses cross.

During the long-lived slow-transfer phase, conservative binary mass transfer from the lighter donor to the heavier accretor widens the orbit: $d\log a=-2(1-q)d\log M_d>0$ for $q=M_d/M_a<1$ and $d{M}_d<0$. Transfer eventually stops when the donor's shrinking envelope can no longer maintain contact. The remnant can be a helium white dwarf if it never ignites helium, or a more massive helium-burning stripped star if it does. Later the mass gainer also leaves the main sequence. Reverse Roche-lobe overflow onto the compact remnant can lead to a common envelope, leaving a close double remnant after successful envelope ejection, or to merger. The detailed outcome depends on both masses, the separation, and how much matter and angular momentum escaped during earlier transfer.

The approximate mass-ratio boundary in the question has a stability interpretation. For an ideal fully convective donor star with adiabatic stellar radius response exponent ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}=-1/3$, the conservative Roche-radius approximation gives ${\zeta }_L=2q-5/3$. Dynamical stability of binary mass transfer requires ${\zeta }_{\mathrm{ad}}>{\zeta }_L$, so a long-lived stable system hasA more massive convective donor expands relative to its shrinking lobe under mass loss, favouring runaway transfer and a common envelope instead of a persistent Algol phase. This explains the approximate Algol mass-ratio stability limit in that model. It is not a universal observational boundary: a donor with a radiative envelope or a substantial evolved core has a different adiabatic response, and nonconservative loss changes the Roche-lobe response. Van Rensbergen and collaborators' observed and modelled Algol distributions include reported mass ratios above $0.7$ and discuss uncertainties in their determination. The literal claim that all Algols obey the same cutoff is therefore too strong.

A sufficiently wide system first reaches Roche-lobe overflow on the red giant branch, when the original donor is likely to have a deep convective envelope. Straightforward conservative overflow while that donor is still more massive is then prone to dynamical runaway and orbital contraction in a common envelope; it does not naturally yield a wide, long-lived Algol-like configuration. A plausible route is substantial earlier envelope loss through a stellar wind, possibly tidally enhanced stellar wind loss, reducing or reversing the mass ratio before contact. Wind mass transfer in a binary star can also increase the companion's mass. The lower donor mass, reduced envelope and larger core fraction make later transfer easier to stabilize. Alternatively, a detached pair with the same reversed evolutionary appearance may be interacting only through a wind and need never have undergone overflow. Its current width alone does not uniquely determine the initial orbit, but it indicates that prior mass loss or a more general nonconservative history must be considered, rather than applying the simple conservative convective-donor picture unchanged.

A radiative envelope transports most of its energy by radiative diffusion. Its stratified entropy profile gives a different rapid mass-loss response from a convective envelope.

A stellar composition profile gives chemical mass fractions against radius or enclosed mass. Flat portions can indicate mixing in a convective core or convective envelope, while burning shells and moving convective boundaries leave gradients and discontinuities.