Codex @codex  0

Equating the optically thin cooling time to the uniform-sphere free-fall time gives a critical gas density proportional to $T^2/{\Lambda }^2$. With hydrogen mass fraction $X$, particle ratio $\chi$ and gravitating gas fraction $f_g$, it is $[32G{m}_p/(3\pi X{f}_g)][3\chi k_{B}T/(2\Lambda ){]}^2$. At fixed temperature, gas above this density cools faster than free fall. A smaller gravitating gas fraction moves the boundary upward because gravity is faster at a fixed gas density.

The fraction of total mass in chemical elements heavier than helium, so the hydrogen mass fraction, helium mass fraction and metal mass fraction satisfy $X+Y+Z=1$. Despite the astronomical name, this includes elements such as carbon and oxygen that are not chemical metals.

In stellar homology, write $r=Rx$, $m=Mf(x)$ and $\rho ={\rho }_{c}h(x)$, with common dimensionless profiles. Integrating hydrostatic equilibrium from the surface, where the pressure is negligible, givesThe profile integral is common to the sequence. Similarly, mass conservation gives $M=4\pi {\rho }_c{R}^3{\int }_0^1{x}^{2}h(x)dx$. These prove the homology scaling of central stellar pressure:The ideal gas law consequently gives $T_c\propto \mu M/R$, with the gravitational and gas constants absorbed into the coefficient.

The radiative diffusion in a star equation has a characteristic gradient $T_c/R$. Hence $L\propto R{T}_c^4/({\kappa }_c{\rho }_c)$. Using Kramers' opacity law, and comparing fixed-composition homologous models, this becomesThe volume integral of the stellar energy-generation rate $ϵ={ϵ}_0\rho T^{\nu }$ instead givesThe dimensionless integrals behind these relations do not depend on $M$ along a homologous sequence. In stellar thermal equilibrium the two luminosities agree, proving Kramers homology with a variable nuclear exponent:For the specified proton–proton chain exponent $\nu =7/2$, the mass factor cancels. ThusThe model captures two important features of the lower main sequence: hydrogen burning primarily uses the proton–proton chain, and gas rather than radiation pressure supplies the principal support. A radiative interior and a Kramers' opacity law approximation are useful near the Sun. It is a simplified local model: the Sun has a convective envelope, the coolest main sequence stars become fully convective, and real opacities and burning exponents vary. In particular a literally constant radius is not a realistic law over the entire lower main sequence.

On this proton–proton chain branch $T_c\propto M$, because $R$ and mean molecular weight are fixed. Normalizing to the Sun gives the upper mass estimateFor the specified CNO cycle exponent $\nu =23/2$, the homology relation instead reads $R^{14}\propto M^8$. Substituting into the radiative luminosity relation givesThis branch retains the deliberately idealized fully radiative assumptions, even though real CNO cycle cores are often convective.

For a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, use the Stefan–Boltzmann law, $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4$. On the proton–proton chain branch $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto M^{11/8}$, so $L\propto T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4$. On the CNO cycle branch $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto M^{57/56}$, giving $L\propto T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{292/57}$. Thus the upper branch rises slightly more steeply toward the hot, luminous upper left in a logarithmic Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. The sketch below matches the approximate branches continuously at their respective burning crossovers; the true crossover has both heating terms and is smooth.

The proton–proton chain begins with reactions between hydrogen nuclei, so its specific heating scales as $X_H^2\rho T^{7/2}$ in this approximation. The catalytic CNO cycle involves hydrogen and CNO nuclei, and scales as $X_H{Z}_{\mathrm{CNO}}\rho T^{23/2}$. Here $X_H$ is the hydrogen mass fraction and $Z_{\mathrm{CNO}}$ the CNO mass fraction, not the total abundance of every metal. ConsequentlyKeeping $X_H$ fixed while dividing $Z_{\mathrm{CNO}}$ by 256 gives the CNO crossover temperatureThe mass estimate uses the unchanged proton–proton chain branch below crossover, together with the stipulated unchanged opacity and mean molecular weight.

The low-CNO proton–proton chain sequence therefore lies on the same locus, but extends to twice the transition mass. Beyond its later crossover the low-CNO CNO cycle sequence has the same logarithmic slope $292/57$ but a different normalization. At a fixed mass where both sequences are CNO-dominated, lowering the nuclear coefficient by 256 givesThus those low-CNO models are smaller, hotter and modestly more luminous at the same mass. At the same effective temperature, their CNO branch is lower in luminosity than the solar-composition CNO branch; these comparisons hold different quantities fixed.

After complete ionization, each hydrogen nucleus supplies one ion and one Electron, while each helium-4 nucleus supplies one ion and two Electrons. Neglecting the small metal mass fraction $Z$ and putting $Y\simeq 1-X$, the mean molecular weight therefore satisfiesUse stellar homology to compare models with common dimensionless profiles. The stellar mass conservation equation, stellar hydrostatic equation and ideal gas law giveThe radiative diffusion in a star equation then gives $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^4/({\kappa }_c{\rho }_c)$. Inserting the specified opacity yields $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^7/(Z{\rho }_c^2)\propto {\mu }^7{M}^5/Z$. Independently, integrating the stellar energy-generation rate over the mass gives $L_{\mathrm{nuc}}\propto X^2{\rho }_c{T}_c^{5}M\propto X^2{\mu }^5{M}^7/R^8$. Equating these in stellar thermal equilibrium gives the radiative homology with fifth-power hydrogen burning and inverse-cubic opacity:At fixed solar mass these reduce to $L\propto {\mu }^7/Z$ and $T_c\propto {\mu }^{5/4}/(X^{1/4}{Z}^{1/8})$. The stellar homology approximation, rather than merely the local power laws, is what permits these relations between whole stars.

Equal luminosities imply ${\mu }_2/{\mu }_1=(Z_2/Z_1{)}^{1/7}=2^{-1/7}$. Thusso $X_2=0.8$ to one significant figure. Retaining the unrounded hydrogen mass fraction when comparing central temperatures givesThe first model has the higher central temperature.

For homogeneous hydrogen burning at fixed $M,Z$, fuel conservation gives $M{E}_0\dot{X}=-L$. Since $d\mu /dX=-5{\mu }^2/4$ and $L=L_0(\mu /{\mu }_0{)}^7$, the homogeneous fuel-depletion luminosity feedback obeysIntegration with the initial mean molecular weight ${\mu }_0$ givesThis idealized stellar evolution law stops when $X=0$; it does not predict a physically attainable infinite luminosity. Indeed $\mu =4/3$ at fuel exhaustion, giving $t_H=M{E}_0[1-(3{\mu }_0/4{)}^8]/(10{\mu }_0{L}_0)$, strictly before the formal singularity.

In the hydrogen–helium approximation, take helium to be helium-4, and assume essentially all neutrons remaining at the onset of efficient nuclear burning enter it. Each helium-4 nucleus contains two neutrons and two protons, henceHere $n_p,n_n$ count constituent nucleons, not just free particles after burning. Neglecting the small nucleon mass difference and nuclear binding-energy correction, the helium mass is $4m_u{n}_{\mathrm{He}}$ and the total baryon mass is $m_u{n}_B$. Thus neutron-limited helium synthesis givesFor $n_n/n_p\simeq 1/7$, this yields $Y_p\simeq 1/4$ and the hydrogen mass fraction is $X_p\simeq 3/4$. The assumptions require $n_p\ge n_n$ and negligible free neutrons, deuterium and helium-3: the phrase hydrogen and helium must here mean predominantly hydrogen-1 and helium-4, not an arbitrary mixture of helium isotopes.

To derive the nonrelativistic electron-degeneracy pressure in a hydrogen-helium mixture, take fully ionized hydrogen and helium with hydrogen mass fraction $X$, the Electron number density isHere helium nuclei have mass $4m_p$ in the approximation used in the question. Filling the two spin states of each momentum mode up to the Fermi momentum $p_0$ givesThe isotropic momentum flux gives pressure $\frac{1}{3}\int pvdn$. For nonrelativistic Electrons $v=p/m_e$, so the electron degeneracy pressure isSubstitute the composition-dependent $n_e$ and simplify powers of two:Comparing $5/3=1+1/n$ gives the polytropic index $n=3/2$. The result assumes complete Electron degeneracy, $p_0\ll m_{e}c$, and negligible nuclear mass corrections.

Now adopt the stated approximate partially degenerate equation of state, keeping composition and hence $K,\mu$ fixed during contraction. Set $q=m/M$ and define the mass-averaged temperature ${\overline{T}}_M={\int }_0^{1}Tdq$. The stellar virial theorem from part (a) givesFor an index-$3/2$ stellar polytrope, the permitted gravitational-energy formula is $\Omega =-6G{M}^2/(7R)$. Also, using $\bar{\rho }=3M/(4\pi R^3)$,Thus, with $A=3K{\int }_0^1[3\rho /(4\pi \bar{\rho }){]}^{2/3}dq$,The normalized density $\rho /\bar{\rho }$ is a fixed function of $q$ for this homologous polytropic structure. Therefore its integral and $K$ fix $A$, which is independent of $M$ and $R$ for a common composition. The mean here is mass-weighted, rather than a volume average.

For the mass-averaged temperature maximum in a partially degenerate polytrope, put $\alpha =2\mu GM/(7\mathcal{R})$ and $\delta =\mu A{M}^{2/3}/(3\mathcal{R})$, both positive. As a function of $s=1/R$ the temperature is the concave quadraticIt reaches its maximum when $R=2\delta /\alpha =7A{M}^{-1/3}/(3G)$, withAt large radius, contraction increases the temperature as in a thermally supported star. Once Electron degeneracy provides a sufficiently large fraction of the support, further contraction can lower the thermal temperature. The formal zero-temperature radius is $R_{\mathrm{deg}}=\delta /\alpha =R_{\max }/2$, with $R_{\mathrm{deg}}\propto M^{-1/3}$. The continuation to negative temperatures would be unphysical; the adopted sequence only describes its positive-temperature part.

The contraction-limited central temperature has the same mass scaling. Indeed, if the total polytropic pressure is $P=K_{\mathrm{tot}}{\rho }^{5/3}$, the approximate equation of state gives $T=(\mu /\mathcal{R})(K_{\mathrm{tot}}-K){\rho }^{2/3}$. The fixed density profile therefore fixes $T_c/{\overline{T}}_M$. A sufficiently small mass never reaches the central temperature required for sustained hydrogen burning, producing a hydrogen-burning minimum mass. Such an object becomes a cooling, degeneracy-supported brown dwarf instead of settling onto the main sequence. More massive contracting objects can ignite hydrogen before reaching this degeneracy-limited maximum. This conclusion uses the nonrelativistic, fixed-composition model; it does not require extrapolation into the relativistic regime.

Under the usual interpretation that the extra force simply slows otherwise adiabatic expansion, without changing reaction rates or injecting particles, the primordial hydrogen mass fraction would be larger. A smaller Hubble parameter makes cooling slower, delays the end of the deuterium bottleneck, and permits more free-neutron decay after freeze-out before nuclear assembly. If the reduced expansion also keeps weak conversions effective longer, the lower eventual cosmological weak freeze-out temperature further reduces the neutron-to-proton ratio. Both effects lower the primordial helium mass fraction and raise the remaining hydrogen mass fraction.

For fixed initial neutron fraction $x_{n,1}=n_n/(n_n+n_p)$, the post-freeze-out estimate is $x_n=x_{n,1}{e}^{-(t_N-t_1)/{\tau }_n}$, where $t_N$ is the onset of efficient nuclear assembly. Thus $Y_p\simeq 2x_n$ decreases when cooling delays $t_N$. The extra time is the time to reach the nuclear-assembly temperature, not an increase in the specified clock interval $300-1$ seconds. An unspecified force that also reheats the plasma, changes weak rates or causes recollapse would require additional information; the simple expansion-only interpretation is essential to this expectation.

Let $n_n$ and $n_p$ count the available neutrons and protons immediately before their incorporation into nuclei. In the usual neutron-limited helium synthesis approximation, all surviving neutrons go into ${}^4\mathrm{He}$ and the remaining protons form ${}^1\mathrm{H}$. Each helium nucleus contains two neutrons and two protons, soUsing the equal-nucleon-mass approximation and neglecting trace nuclei and binding-energy corrections, the primordial helium mass fraction isThe ratio is the pre-assembly nucleon ratio, not the number ratio of free hydrogen nuclei to helium nuclei afterward. The derivation assumes enough protons to bind all the neutrons, as in standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The familiar $n_p/n_n\simeq 7$ gives $Y_p\simeq 1/4$ and hydrogen mass fraction $X_p\simeq 3/4$.

Let $X$ be the hydrogen mass fraction, $f_g={\rho }_g/{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}$ the gravitating gas fraction, and $\chi =n_{\mathrm{tot}}/n_H$ the total-particle-to-hydrogen ratio. The optically thin gas cooling time and free-fall time of a uniform sphere arewhere ${\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}=m_p{n}_H/(X{f}_g)$. Equating them gives the cooling-to-free-fall equality curve:At fixed composition, its shape is $n_{\mathrm{crit}}\propto T^2/{\Lambda }^2$. Gas above this curve cools faster than it falls; gas below it cools more slowly. Strong line cooling produces a deep low-density trough. In the high-temperature free-free regime, $\Lambda \propto T^{1/2}$ gives $n_{\mathrm{crit}}\propto T$.

The displayed uniform self-gravitating-cloud example uses $f_g=1$, $X=0.76$, $\mu \simeq 0.59$ and $\chi \simeq 2.24$. Holding these ionized-gas factors fixed makes the diagram transparent, but near the atomic threshold their actual temperature dependence changes numerical normalizations. With these conventions the supplied cooling values imply $n_{\mathrm{crit}}(1.5\times 10^4\mathrm{K})\simeq 9.6\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $n_{\mathrm{crit}}(10^7\mathrm{K})\simeq 0.107\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. For gas supported in a dark-matter-dominated dark matter halo, take $f_g<1$: at fixed $n_H$ the free-fall time of a uniform sphere is shorter and the critical curve shifts upward by $1/f_g$.

To add virial mass contours in a cooling diagram, use the uniform self-gravitating sphere consistently. Its Newtonian gravitational potential energy is $-3G{M}^2/(5R)$ and its thermal kinetic energy is $(3/2)M{k}_{B}T/(\mu m_p)$. The virial theorem gives $k_B{T}_{\mathrm{vir}}=\mu m_{p}GM/(5R)$, while $M=(4\pi /3)R^3{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}$. Eliminating $R$ givesThus constant total gravitating mass gives slope three in the logarithmic density-temperature plane, with larger mass contours lying at smaller density. A different density profile changes the structural coefficient; the customary halo temperature scale $k_B{T}_{\mathrm{vir}}=\mu m_{p}GM/(2R)$ shifts the mass contours but preserves their slopes. The horizontal illustrative formation-density lines are $n_{H,\mathrm{vir}}\simeq {\Delta }_v(2\times 10^{-7})(1+z{)}^3\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, using ${\Delta }_v=18{\pi }^2$. They show why increasing formation cosmological redshift helps gas reach the rapid-cooling region.

At the low-mass end, a dark matter halo's virial temperature may not reach the atomic threshold. The atomic and molecular cooling thresholds for galaxy formation therefore favor an atomic-cooling mass of order $10^8{M}_{\odot }$ at early formation epochs, with its precise value varying as approximately $(1+z{)}^{-3/2}$. Smaller primordial systems require molecules; photoheating and stellar feedback further suppress their luminous output.

At the high-mass end, the virial temperature at a fixed assembly density scales as $M^{2/3}$. Beyond the line-cooling interval the gas becomes increasingly hot, while thermal bremsstrahlung improves only as $T^{1/2}$. Hence at fixed assembly density $t_{\mathrm{cool}}/t_{\mathrm{ff}}\propto T^{1/2}\propto M^{1/3}$ in that regime. Large systems can remain pressure-supported hot atmospheres for many dynamical times, instead of promptly fragmenting into one stellar object. This is the upper galaxy mass from gas cooling: it associates efficient condensation with roughly galactic, rather than group or cluster, masses and motivates the broad $10^8$–$10^{12}{M}_{\odot }$ interval.

The diagram gives characteristic cooling scales, not exact universal mass bounds. Density profiles, gas fraction, enrichment and formation epoch move the boundaries; the two supplied values alone do not determine a complete numerical cutoff. Some gas can cool in dense cores of larger dark-matter haloes, early smaller progenitors can form stars before merging, and subsequent galaxy mergers can assemble more massive galaxies. Long-lived hot atmospheres also require heating to prevent excessive late-time cooling. These qualifications explain why the cooling criterion for galaxy formation is useful without equating each dark dark matter halo to one galaxy.

The supplied rate law gives a local logarithmic temperature sensitivity, evaluated at fixed number densities. Since $\eta \propto T^{-1/3}$,Thus a power law here describes the tangent logarithmic slope near the chosen temperature, not an exact power law over all temperatures. For the three reactions, the factors $A{Z}_i^2{Z}_j^2$ are $1/2$, $24$ and $192/7$, respectively. At $T_6=15$ the local temperature exponent of a thermonuclear reaction givesHence $\alpha \simeq 4$, $\beta \simeq 16$, $\gamma \simeq 16$ and $\gamma >\beta$. The larger reduced mass for reaction 34 produces the last inequality. Composition changes contribute separately to an evolving reaction rate; they are held fixed for this derivative.

For the effective proton-proton reaction network, let the event rates beThe factors of one half count identical pairs once. Event 11 consumes two protons and makes one deuteron; event 21 consumes a deuteron and a proton and makes helium-3; event 33 consumes two helium-3 nuclei and makes one helium-4 nucleus and two protons. Under the stipulated fast-capture approximation, event 34 consumes helium-3 and helium-4 and supplies one mass-seven nucleus, and event 17 consumes that lithium-7 nucleus and a proton and makes two helium-4 nuclei. ThereforeFor closure, ${\dot{n}}_7={\lambda }_{34}{n}_3{n}_4-{\lambda }_{17}{n}_1{n}_7$. The stoichiometry conserves $n_1+2n_2+3n_3+4n_4+7n_7$, the baryon number density at fixed volume. In particular the mass-seven capture produces two helium-4 nuclei, not one.

The beryllium-to-lithium step is electron capture. Eliminating beryllium assumes that its capture flux tracks its production on the slow evolutionary timescale. More generally one retains ${\dot{n}}_{\mathrm{Be}}=R_{34}-{\lambda }_e{n}_{\mathrm{Be}}$ and ${\dot{n}}_7={\lambda }_e{n}_{\mathrm{Be}}-R_{17}$; setting the former to zero gives the effective equation used above. Fast capture relative to slow evolution alone would not prove that lithium exceeds beryllium: if both reach steady state their ratio is $n_{\mathrm{Be}}/n_7={\lambda }_{17}{n}_1/{\lambda }_e$. The mass-seven abundance assertion is thus part of the stipulated schematic limit, not a consequence to impose on every detailed solar model.

The enormous separation between the one-second deuterium destruction time and the other stated timescales justifies deuterium quasi-equilibrium in proton-proton burning:Substitution givesThe approximation is to the rapidly adjusting intermediate abundance, not to the slow proton abundance.

Near the centre the helium-3 relaxation time is also short compared with solar age and with the timescale of significant hydrogen evolution. Put $A={\lambda }_{33}$, $B={\lambda }_{34}{n}_4$ and $C={\lambda }_{11}{n}_1^2/2$. For slowly varying background quantities, the stable positive root of $A{n}_3^2+B{n}_3-C=0$ gives the helium-3 equilibrium abundanceThe other root is negative and unphysical. The production-minus-destruction function decreases strictly with positive $n_3$, so this is the unique attracting equilibrium. For $n_3=n_{3e}+x$, with the background held fixed during relaxation,Dropping the quadratic perturbation term gives the helium-3 relaxation timeIf the equilibrium itself evolves slowly, an additional forcing term $-{\dot{n}}_{3e}$ appears; tracking is accurate when this drift is small over one relaxation time. The given central value $6\times 10^5$ years is much shorter than the roughly $4.6\times 10^9$-year age of the Sun.

To estimate the temperature for helium-3 freeze-out, take the cooler pp-I-dominated regime and keep the background proton mass density approximately fixed for this order-of-magnitude scaling. ThenUsing the local exponents four and sixteen, this gives $n_{3e}\propto T^{-6}$ and $\tau \propto T^{-10}$, not $\tau \propto T^{-16}$: the equilibrium abundance changes with temperature. Normalizing at the central temperature givesSetting this equal to solar age yieldsThis is the requested power-law estimate. The exponents were evaluated locally at the central temperature, so extrapolation over this large range is approximate. Keeping the supplied full exponential rate factors in the same fixed-density pp-I estimate giveswhich gives about $6.8\times 10^6\mathrm{K}$. Thus the robust scale is a few million kelvin, roughly six to seven million in these estimates. A unique precise solar transition temperature cannot be obtained from the given numbers without the mass density, composition and pp-II contribution as functions of radius.

Finally, use mass fractions $X_i\simeq i{m}_u{n}_i/\rho$. The hydrogen mass fraction is depleted most strongly in the central burning region, so $X_1$ increases outward and approaches the nearly unprocessed envelope value. Convective mixing makes the outer envelope composition approximately uniform.

In the hot core helium-3 is quickly destroyed and remains close to its small equilibrium abundance. Moving outward, its destruction rates fall much faster than its production rate, so the equilibrium ratio $n_{3e}/n_1\propto T^{-6}$ rises. Where the relaxation time becomes comparable with solar age the abundance ceases to follow that rising equilibrium. Farther out, production itself becomes too slow to accumulate much helium-3, so $X_3$ falls again toward the envelope value. The result is a broad off-centre maximum, rather than a central maximum. These are the solar hydrogen and helium-3 abundance profiles requested by the sketch.

hydrogen rises from a depleted centre to an almost uniform envelope; helium-3 has a small central abundance and an off-centre peak before declining outward. The figure shows qualitative shapes with independently normalized vertical axes, not a fitted or computed solar model.

The optically thin gas cooling time is thermal energy density divided by the radiative loss rate. Write $\chi =n_{\mathrm{tot}}/n_H$ for the number of thermal particles per hydrogen nucleus, $X$ for the hydrogen mass fraction, and $f_g={\rho }_g/{\rho }_{\mathrm{grav}}$ for the gas fraction of the gravitating mass. ThenThe last expression is the free-fall time of a uniform sphere. Equating the two times gives the cooling-to-free-fall equality curveAt fixed temperature, $t_{\mathrm{cool}}/t_{\mathrm{ff}}=\sqrt{n_{H,\mathrm{crit}}/n_H}$: above the curve, $t_{\mathrm{cool}}<t_{\mathrm{ff}}$; below it, cooling is slower. The temperature dependence is approximately $n_{H,\mathrm{crit}}\propto T^2/{\Lambda }^2$. Strong line cooling therefore creates low-density troughs, whereas the fully ionized bremsstrahlung tail gives $n_{H,\mathrm{crit}}\propto T$.

For the diagram choose a self-gravitating uniform gas cloud, $f_g=1$, with $X=0.76$, proton mass $m_p\simeq 1.67\times 10^{-24}\mathrm{g}$, and the fully ionized particle ratio $\chi =2+3(1-X)/(4X)\simeq 2.24$. Using this fixed ratio is a convenient sketch normalization; the varying low-temperature ion fraction changes the coefficient by a factor of order unity. The supplied cooling values then give $n_{H,\mathrm{crit}}\sim 10^{-9}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ at $1.5\times 10^4\mathrm{K}$ and $n_{H,\mathrm{crit}}\sim 0.1\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ at $10^7\mathrm{K}$. A dark-matter-dominated potential has $f_g<1$, shortening the free-fall time and moving the equality curve upward by $1/f_g$.

To relate the plane to mass, use the virial theorem for a uniform self-gravitating sphere. Its gravitational potential energy is $-3G{M}^2/(5R)$, so $k_B{T}_{\mathrm{vir}}=GM\mu m_p/(5R)$, where $\mu =1/(X\chi )$. With $M=(4\pi /3)\rho R^3$, the virial mass contours in a cooling diagram satisfyThe coefficient $5$ is for this uniform-sphere convention; other halo profiles change it. The horizontal mean-density label is $n_{H,0}\simeq 2\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Real collapsing clouds are overdense, and their characteristic densities rise at earlier epochs.

The cooling criterion for galaxy formation requires a cloud to lose shock-generated virial heat rapidly enough to contract and fragment. At higher virial masses and temperatures, hydrogen-helium line cooling ceases to be efficient, so a growing bound aggregate can remain a hot, pressure-supported atmosphere rather than condense as one giant luminous galaxy. Combined with virial mass contours and the densities at which clouds assemble, the diagram gives a characteristic upper galaxy-scale cooling mass, conventionally of order $10^{12}{M}_{\odot }$ in the simple baryonic-cloud argument. Larger aggregates are predominantly groups or clusters containing smaller galaxies and hot gas.

This upper galaxy mass from gas cooling is a physical scale, not an exact universal mass cutoff derivable from the two cooling labels alone. Composition, formation density, geometry, metals and a dark-matter potential shift it. Cooling that is slower than free fall but faster than the available cosmic time can still yield gradual central condensation. Mergers of existing stellar galaxies can also assemble a larger stellar system without rapidly cooling the entire gas mass of its host halo.

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.

Along the pp-chain homologous sequence, $R$ is constant and therefore $T_c\propto M$. Normalizing to the Sun gives the transition mass

For the CNO cycle law $ϵ\propto \rho T^{23/2}$, the nuclear scaling becomesThe opacity law is unchanged, so $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto M^{11/2}{R}^{-1/2}$. Equating them givesand then

The effective temperature follows from the Stefan–Boltzmann law $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_e^4$. Thus the pp branch has $T_e\propto M^{11/8}$ and $L\propto T_e^4$, whereas the CNO branch hasOn a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, both branches rise toward larger luminosity and, conventionally, leftward toward larger temperature. They join near $4M_{\odot }/3$; the CNO branch has the steeper $L$--$T_e$ logarithmic slope and lies to the cooler side of the extrapolated constant-radius branch at fixed luminosity.

If $X$ is the hydrogen mass fraction and $X_{\mathrm{CNO}}$ the combined carbon-nitrogen-oxygen mass fraction, the reaction-pair and catalyst abundances give approximatelyThe CNO nuclei are catalysts, so their abundance multiplies the CNO-cycle rate rather than being consumed by the completed cycle.