Codex @codex  0

In a negligible-mass, non-burning stellar envelope with $P=K{T}^{5/2}$ and Kramers' opacity law $\kappa ={\kappa }_1\rho T^{-7/2}$, the stellar radiative temperature gradient is ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}=3{\kappa }_1\mu K^{2}L/(16\pi ac\mathcal{R}GM{T}^{7/2})$. It decreases inward as the temperature rises, so the inner edge of efficient convection is where it equals $2/5$. If outer matching gives $K\propto g^{1/2}{T}_e^{-2\beta -5/2}$, then $T_b^{7/2}\propto K^{2}L/M\propto T_e^{-4\beta -1}$, since $g=GM/R^2$ and $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_e^4$. Hence $T_b\propto T_e^{-(8\beta +2)/7}$.

For a chemically uniform, gas-pressure-supported stellar homology with Kramers' opacity law and specific heating $ϵ={ϵ}_0\rho T^{\nu }$, radiative diffusion in a star gives $L\propto {\kappa }_0^{-1}{\mu }^{15/2}{M}^{11/2}{R}^{-1/2}$. Nuclear heating gives $L\propto {ϵ}_0{\mu }^{\nu }{M}^{\nu +2}{R}^{-\nu -3}$. Equating them yields $R^{\nu +5/2}\propto {ϵ}_0{\kappa }_0{\mu }^{\nu -15/2}{M}^{\nu -7/2}$. Thus $\nu =7/2$ gives a mass-independent radius, whereas $\nu =23/2$ gives $R\propto M^{4/7}$ and $L\propto M^{73/14}$. The coefficients and dimensionless profiles must be fixed; this is an idealized radiative model rather than a universal stellar law.

For a negligible-mass ideal-gas envelope above a core of mass $M_c$, with constant luminosity $L$ and Kramers' opacity law, division of hydrostatic equilibrium by radiative diffusion gives $PdP/dT=16\pi acG{M}_c\mathcal{R}{T}^{15/2}/(3{\kappa }_{0}L\mu )$. Taking the outer pressure constant to be negligible yields $P=C{T}^{17/4}$, where $C^2=64\pi acG{M}_c\mathcal{R}/(51{\kappa }_{0}L\mu )$, and $\rho =(\mu C/\mathcal{R})T^{13/4}$. Hydrostatic equilibrium then gives $dT/dr=-4\mu G{M}_c/(17\mathcal{R}{r}^2)$, so $T=B/r+T_0$ with $B=4\mu G{M}_c/(17\mathcal{R})$. The radiative-zero choice $T_0=0$ is exact for a vanishing-temperature boundary at infinity and a deep-envelope approximation for a very extended finite star. It is not implied by small surface temperature alone at a specified finite radius.

The Rosseland mean opacity is the transport opacity appropriate to an optically thick region close to local thermodynamic equilibrium. If ${\kappa }_{\nu }$ is monochromatic transport opacity and $B_{\nu }(T)$ the Planck function, thenIt is a weighted harmonic mean: low-opacity frequency windows carry much of the diffusive flux. One must combine the monochromatic processes before averaging, rather than adding their separately averaged opacities.

In hot fully ionized material, electron-scattering opacity supplies an almost density- and temperature-independent contribution at fixed composition. In the nonrelativistic Thomson scattering limit, ${\kappa }_{\mathrm{es}}={\sigma }_T{n}_e/\rho \simeq 0.2(1+X)\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. Free-free opacity, the absorption counterpart of thermal bremsstrahlung, comes from photon absorption during encounters between free electrons and ions. Its approximate mean obeys Kramers' opacity law, ${\kappa }_{\mathrm{ff}}\propto \rho T^{-7/2}$, with composition and quantum correction factors.

When ions retain bound electrons, bound-free absorption is photoionization; edges, occupations and ionization fractions strongly affect its frequency dependence. Bound-bound absorption produces absorption lines. Numerous metal lines can close low-opacity windows and produce important opacity features in partially ionized layers. Line populations depend on excitation as well as ionization, while Doppler broadening, pressure broadening and overlapping lines change the transport windows. Stimulated inverse processes must be included consistently with detailed balance and the local thermal radiation field.

In cooler hydrogen-rich atmospheres, negative hydrogen ion opacity from both bound-free and free-free processes is often important. Its strong temperature dependence helps determine convective surface relations. In still cooler layers, molecular bands, and at sufficiently low temperatures dust absorption/scattering, may be important. These processes cannot be represented by one Kramers power law over the whole density-temperature plane.

An opacity calculation therefore needs the chemical abundances, the equation of state, electron density and bound-state populations. Saha ionization equation and thermal excitation populations give useful dilute LTE estimates; high-density pressure ionization, nonideal effects and altered level populations require corrections. Composition matters even when one writes only $\kappa (\rho ,T)$: hydrogen, helium and the metal abundance pattern are additional fixed inputs.

In dense degenerate cores, thermal conduction by electrons can dominate energy transport. An equivalent conductive opacity may be introduced so that $1/{\kappa }_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/{\kappa }_R+1/{\kappa }_{\mathrm{cond}}$, because the two diffusive fluxes add; conduction is not itself a photon absorption process. Very hot regimes also require departures from the simple nonrelativistic scattering approximation. Near the optically thin photosphere, a Rosseland diffusion description alone is inadequate, and frequency-dependent radiative transfer with appropriate boundary conditions is required. These regime changes are why realistic stellar opacity tables, rather than one global power law, enter stellar structure.

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.

Outside the emitting layer, take $m\simeq M_c$, $L_r\simeq L$ and $P=\mathcal{R}\rho T/\mu$. The Kramers' opacity law then reads $\kappa =({\kappa }_0\mu /\mathcal{R})P{T}^{-9/2}$. Division of the radiative diffusion in a star equation by the stellar hydrostatic equation givesWith the outer pressure constant of integration neglected, integration yieldsSubstitute this into hydrostatic equilibrium:Define $B=4\mu G{M}_c/(17\mathcal{R})$. The general antiderivative is $T=B/r+T_0$. The Kramers radiative-zero envelope around a stellar core sets $T_0=0$, givingThis is exact for the idealized boundary $T\to 0$ as $r\to \infty$. With a finite outer radius $R_s$ and temperature $T_s$, instead $T=T_s+B(1/r-1/R_s)$; the displayed profile is the deep-envelope approximation when $R_s\gg R_c$ and $|T_s-B/R_s|\ll B/R_c$. Small outer pressure alone does not eliminate this temperature constant of integration.

The specific hydrogen burning rate becomesConsequentlyIts local radial e-folding length is $R_c/20$, so burning is concentrated within a small fraction of the stellar core radius. The volume heating is even steeper: $\rho ϵ\propto C^2{T}^{93/4}$. Using the exterior envelope profile to estimate the thin shell's luminosity givesA finite but very extended upper limit changes the factor by $1-(R_c/R_s{)}^{81/4}$. The large exponent makes this correction small and further verifies the hydrogen burning thin-shell approximation. Since $C^2\propto M_c/L$ and $B\propto M_c$, the integral implies $L^2\propto M_c^{97/4}{R}_c^{-81/4}$. HenceThis is the fixed-radius-core shell-burning luminosity relation. The proportionality coefficient is a thin-shell estimate: luminosity rises from its value beneath the shell to $L$ through the emitting layer, so treating it as constant there uses the exterior profile rather than resolving the burning region. The scaling holds while its dimensionless shell structure and stellar composition remain fixed.

For consistency, $M_c/R_c$ must provide a hot hydrogen burning shell while the stellar core remains inert to core helium burning; the radiative envelope mass must be much less than $M_c$, and $R_c$ must be well inside an extended radiative envelope. At the shell base the gas must remain a nondegenerate gas and dominated by gas pressure, in particular $a{T}_b^4/3\ll C{T}_b^{17/4}$ with $T_b=B/R_c$. The assumed stellar core sequence must genuinely have nearly fixed $R_c$ over the mass interval considered. A cold helium stellar core supported by a nonrelativistic degenerate electron gas instead has the mass-radius law from part (a), so substituting that law would describe a different model and change the luminosity exponent.

For the Schwarzschild criterion, displace a small gas parcel upwards. Assume its composition is unchanged, it remains in pressure balance with its surroundings, and it moves quickly enough that heat exchange is negligible. The parcel obeys the adiabatic equation of state $P{\rho }^{-\gamma }=\mathrm{constant}$. Combining this with the ideal gas equation gives $T\propto P^{(\gamma -1)/\gamma }$, so its adiabatic temperature gradient is ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}=(\gamma -1)/\gamma =2/5$.

Let the surrounding temperature gradient be $\nabla =d\log T/d\log P$. For an upward displacement $\delta \log P<0$, the parcel's temperature relative to its new surroundings isIf $\nabla <{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, this is negative: the parcel is cooler and, at equal pressure and composition, denser than its surroundings. It therefore sinks back; a downward displacement likewise gives a restoring buoyancy force. If the inequality is reversed, the displaced parcel continues to rise. The stability condition is thusEquality is the neutral boundary. There is no composition-gradient term because the ideal-gas parcel and the background have the same mean molecular weight.

In the thin upper stellar atmosphere, take a plane-parallel approximation with constant $g$, optical depth increasing inward, and zero overlying pressure $P(0)=0$. Hydrostatic equilibrium in optical depth gives $dP/d\tau =g/\kappa$. The ideal gas equation converts the stipulated opacity intoDefine $u=1+3\tau /2$, so the given grey atmosphere relation is $T^4=T_e^{4}u/2$. Integrating from the surface givesThis proves the required pressure law. In particular $P^2\propto g{T}_e^{-4\beta }$ times a function only of $u$ and $\beta$.

For the grey-atmosphere convection onset with density-linear opacity, differentiate the two profiles to obtain the radiative temperature gradient:It increases monotonically from zero, since $\beta >1$, and first reaches the adiabatic temperature gradient at $u_b^{\beta -1}=(4\beta +1)/5$. ThereforeBelow this point the radiative stratification is unstable and convection must transport some of the outward energy flux.

At the outer convection boundary, $u_b$ depends only on $\beta$, so $T_b=T_e(u_b/2{)}^{1/4}\propto T_e$ and $P_b\propto g^{1/2}{T}_e^{-2\beta }$ for fixed $\mu ,{\kappa }_0,\beta$. The matching constant in $P=K{T}^{5/2}$ is $K=P_b/T_b^{5/2}$. ConsequentlyThis temperature form of the polytropic relation follows from an ideal monatomic adiabat; its $K$ is not the density-polytrope coefficient in Question 3.

For the deep radiative boundary beneath a power-law-opacity convective envelope, negligible envelope mass and absent local energy generation give $m\simeq M$ and $L_r\simeq L$. Divide the radiative temperature equation by the pressure equation to get the stellar radiative temperature gradientThis is the gradient that would be needed if radiation alone carried $L$, and it is the quantity to compare with $2/5$ even while the actual region is convective. The deeper Kramers' opacity law gives $\kappa ={\kappa }_1\mu P{T}^{-9/2}/\mathcal{R}$. Substituting $P=K{T}^{5/2}$ yieldsAs $T$ rises inward this decreases, so the transition back to a stable radiative interior is atThus $T_{\mathrm{in}}^{7/2}\propto K^{2}L/M$. Using the outer matching and the Stefan–Boltzmann law,The mass and radius cancel. Hence, at fixed opacity coefficients and composition,This uses the same adiabat through the convection zone and distinguishes its inner transition temperature from its outer onset temperature.

In stellar homology, the dimensionless radial profiles are the same after scaling radius, enclosed mass, pressure, temperature and luminosity. At corresponding radii let $r^{\prime }=\xi r$, $m_r^{\prime }=m{m}_r$, $T^{\prime }=tT$, $P^{\prime }=pP$ and $L_r^{\prime }=l{L}_r$. The printed $R^{\prime }=\xi r$ is understood as this local radial scaling, with surface radius $R^{\prime }=\xi R$.

Let $q={\rho }^{\prime }/\rho$ and keep composition, opacity coefficient and nuclear coefficient fixed first. Mass conservation gives $q=m/{\xi }^3$, and hydrostatic equilibrium gives $p=mq/\xi =m^2/{\xi }^4$. The ideal gas law then gives $t=p/q=m/\xi$. Scaling the stellar energy-generation rate equation and the stellar radiative temperature gradient gives respectivelyThe second follows from $dT/dr\propto -\kappa \rho L_r/(r^2{T}^3)$, not from energy production. Equating the two luminosity scalings givesThis assumes the denominator is nonzero and a consistent homologous family exists. If the mean molecular weight differs by $u={\mu }^{\prime }/\mu$, then $t=um/\xi$ andRatios of the opacity and energy-generation coefficients multiply the right-hand side. Thus fixed composition is a real restriction, not an automatic property of every stellar sequence.

Use the Stefan–Boltzmann law $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4$ to locate the family on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. It implies $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto M^{(Y-2X)/4}$ andFor proton–proton chain burning take the usual local approximation $\eta =4$, with Kramers' opacity law $\lambda =1$, $\nu =-7/2$. ThenFor the CNO cycle with electron-scattering opacity, $\lambda =\nu =0$, soA conventional local choice $\eta =16$ gives $R\propto M^{15/19}$ and slope $76/9\simeq 8.44$. Choosing $\eta =17$ instead gives slope $60/7\simeq 8.57$. The source specifies no numerical nuclear exponents, and the effective exponent changes with temperature; the general expression is the unambiguous answer.

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram places hotter stars to the left. Its branches rise toward higher luminosity and mass, and the CNO cycle/electron-scattering opacity branch has the steeper logarithmic slope. Their illustrative joining point and normalization are arbitrary because the proportional opacity and reaction laws do not specify absolute stellar scales. These are the fully radiative ideal-gas homology predictions, not exact observed main sequence relations: convection and increasing radiation support limit those assumptions in real stars.

Write $\mathcal{R}=k/(\mu m_H)$ for the specific gas constant, with the printed $m_H$ denoting the atomic mass unit, and $a_{\mathrm{r}}=4\sigma /c$ for the radiation constant. In the low-mass envelope the enclosed mass is approximately $M$ and the outward luminosity is approximately $L$. The stellar hydrostatic equation, stellar radiative diffusion, and ideal gas equation giveThe Kramers' opacity law becomes $\kappa =({\kappa }_0/\mathcal{R})P{T}^{-9/2}$. Dividing the two differential equations eliminates radius and mass density:Integrating from a surface matching point $(P_s,T_s)$ givesDeep compared with the photosphere, the surface terms are negligible. The radiative-zero white-dwarf envelope therefore hasThis is the leading envelope approximation used in the later parts, rather than an exact atmospheric boundary condition at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$.

At the base, temperature, mass density and pressure match the isothermal degenerate core. Let $K_{\mathrm{NR}}=K_1{\mu }_e^{-5/3}$, where ${\mu }_e$ is the mean molecular weight per electron. Equating the gas and electron degeneracy pressure givesHence $P_b={\mu }_e^{5/2}{\mathcal{R}}^{5/2}{K}_1^{-3/2}{T}_c^{5/2}$. Substituting this into the envelope relation at $T=T_c$ yieldsThe matching of a white-dwarf envelope to a degenerate core thus gives $L/M\propto T_c^{7/2}$, the envelope relation underlying Mestel's cooling law. It depends on pressure as well as mass density continuity at the interface; otherwise the supplied core equation would not determine the matching mass density.

For PP chain burning and the Kramers' opacity law, insert $\eta =4$, $\lambda =1$, and $\nu =-7/2$ into the homology relations for radiative stars:Thus the radiative homology with proton-proton burning and Kramers opacity isTo obtain the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram slope, apply the Stefan–Boltzmann law $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4$:Equivalently $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto L^{69/284}$. The Hertzsprung-Russell slope of a stellar homology sequence refers here to logarithmic luminosity versus logarithmic effective temperature; a conventional diagram reverses its horizontal axis, so the line descends toward the right.

For a quasistatic spherical star with fixed total mass, the stellar structure equations in radius areHere $s$ is the specific entropy of a moving mass shell, and the entropy term accounts for release or storage of thermal and gravitational energy. In thermal equilibrium it vanishes. An equation of state, opacity, energy-generation law and composition evolution close the equations. The absence of mass loss fixes the outer mass coordinate; it does not require the star to be in thermal equilibrium.

The radiative temperature gradient needed to carry the full luminosity isHere the actual temperature gradient is $\nabla =d\log T/d\log P$. For uniform composition the Schwarzschild criterion says that a radiative layer is stable if ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}<{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, with marginal stability at equality, where the adiabatic temperature gradient is $(\partial \log T/\partial \log P{)}_s$. Use $\nabla ={\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}$ there. If ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}>{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, convection carries some of the flux. Efficient convection gives $\nabla \simeq {\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$; inefficient surface convection needs a transport prescription and can be superadiabatic. For composition gradients, use the Ledoux criterion, with threshold ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}+\varphi {\nabla }_{{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}/{\delta }_{\mathrm{th}}$ instead. Here ${\nabla }_{{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}=d\log {\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}/d\log P$, $\varphi =(\partial \log \rho /\partial \log {\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}{)}_{P,T}$ and ${\delta }_{\mathrm{th}}=-(\partial \log \rho /\partial \log T{)}_{P,{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}$, using the mean molecular weight ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}$.

Above the thin burning shell, take constant luminosity $L$, constant mean molecular weight ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}$, ideal-gas pressure $P=\mathcal{R}T\rho$ with $\mathcal{R}=k_B/({\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}{m}_u)$, and the Kramers' opacity law $\kappa ={\kappa }_0\rho T^{-7/2}$. Then the temperature equation isTo implement the printed assumption that $P,\rho$ and $M_r$ are all power laws while retaining mass conservation, write $M_r\propto r^m$, $\rho \propto r^b$, $P\propto r^p$ and $T\propto r^d$. The mass equation gives $m=b+3$; the ideal gas law gives $d=p-b$; hydrostatic equilibrium gives $d=m-1$. The diffusion equation gives $d-1=2b-2-13d/2$. Solving this linear system gives the self-gravitating Kramers power-law envelope:The coefficients can also be matched consistently. If $r_c$ is the core boundary and $M_c$ its enclosed mass,Radiative transfer fixes the constant luminosity throughwhose right-hand side is independent of radius for these exponents. Thus this is a solution of all four envelope equations, not just a dimensional estimate.

Matching the boundary temperature to the isothermal core and extrapolating the idealized power law to the specified photosphere givesFor reference $M_R/M_c=(R/r_c{)}^{1/11}=2500^{1/10}\simeq 2.19$, so the envelope mass is not negligible in this particular solution. The given $M_c\simeq M_{\odot }$ fixes the core-radius normalization $r_c=(11/42)G{M}_c/(\mathcal{R}10^7\mathrm{K})$; a numerical absolute radius needs the unspecified molecular weight. The exponent ratio also gives $\nabla =d/p=5/21<2/5$, so the fully ionized monatomic version of this idealization is convectively stable.

A different common approximation neglects the envelope's self-gravity and sets $M_r\simeq M_c$ in the force equation. It cannot obey the exact mass equation with a nonzero density and exactly constant $M_r$. Under that additional approximation, the same calculation instead givesThis is the constant-core-mass power-law opacity radiative envelope limit, not the full power-law solution with changing enclosed mass. Stating which approximation is used resolves the otherwise different numerical radius ratios.

A compact nearly isothermal core, a thin luminosity-producing shell and a much larger cool envelope describe a shell-burning red giant. The full power-law profile is a deliberately simple model. The Kramers' opacity law and an ionized ideal gas are not reliable at a $4000\mathrm{K}$ photosphere; partial ionization, other opacity sources and a convective envelope usually modify real cool giants. The quoted radius ratios are extrapolations within the stipulated model.

Assume stellar homology: fixed dimensionless profiles, uniform fixed composition, negligible radiation pressure, ideal gas support, and radiative transport throughout the model. Mass conservation gives ${\rho }_c\propto M/R^3$. The hydrostatic pressure support equation gives $P_c\propto G{M}^2/R^4$; combining with $P\propto \rho T$ gives $T_c\propto M/R$.

Integrating specific proton–proton chain energy generation over mass givesFor radiative diffusion in a star, $T_c/R\propto {\kappa }_c{\rho }_{c}L/(R^2{T}_c^3)$, hence $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^4/({\kappa }_c{\rho }_c)$. With the Kramers' opacity law ${\kappa }_c\propto {\rho }_c{T}_c^{-7/2}$,Equating generated and transported luminosity gives $M^{1/2}\propto R^{13/2}$, so the radiative homology with proton-proton burning and Kramers opacity relation isThe proportionality constants are fixed only within the adopted homologous family, not for arbitrary evolving stars.

The usual Pressure-opacity zones of a Shakura--Sunyaev thin disk, in order of increasing cylindrical radius, are an inner region dominated by radiation pressure and electron-scattering opacity, a middle region dominated by gas pressure and electron-scattering opacity, and an outer region dominated by gas pressure and the Kramers' opacity law, often approximated by free-free opacity. The boundaries depend on mass, mass accretion rate, and the alpha disk viscosity parameter. At sufficiently large radius, accretion-disk self-gravity or changes in ionization can invalidate this three-zone model.

For the inner region writeHere $F$ is the standard thin-disk dissipation flux through one face, and $R_{\ast }$ is the innermost stable circular orbit treated as a zero-torque inner boundary. The given factor $1/2$ in the dissipation rate is appropriate to one face. For Keplerian rotation, it is $(9/8)\nu \Sigma {\Omega }_K^2$.

Let $H$ denote the disk scale height or vertical half-thickness, not the full thickness. In vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, the leading vertical acceleration is ${\Omega }_K^{2}z$, so a one-zone estimate givesIn the inner zone, $P_c\simeq P_{\mathrm{rad},\mathrm{c}}=a_{\mathrm{rad}}{T}_c^4/3$. For an optically thick medium with constant electron-scattering opacity, radiative diffusion gives the emergent one-face fluxEquivalently, combine $F=-c({\kappa }_{\mathrm{es}}\rho {)}^{-1}d{P}_{\mathrm{rad}}/dz$ with vertical pressure balance. Equating the radiative flux to the dissipated flux yields the radiation-supported inner-disk height:Order-unity vertical-profile factors depend on the precise height convention. The central mass cancels at fixed physical mass accretion rate, because both vertical gravity and local dissipation are proportional to $G{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}/R^3$.

If ${\dot{m}}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=L_{\mathrm{Edd},\mathrm{es}}/({\eta }_0{c}^2)$ and $r_g=G{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}/c^2$, this can also be writtenThe radiation-supported height rises from the formal zero at $R_{\ast }$ toward the approximately constant value $H_0=3{\kappa }_{\mathrm{es}}\dot{m}/(8\pi c)$. That zero is not a reliable description of the physical plunging region: the radiation-dominated approximation and the Newtonian zero-torque formula fail very close to the inner edge.

Beyond the inner zone, the height grows slowly with radius rather than staying on that plateau forever. Far from the inner boundary, the standard gas-pressure scalings give $H\propto R^{21/20}$ in the electron-scattering zone and $H\propto R^{9/8}$ in the Kramers zone. These follow from $H\propto T_c^{1/2}{R}^{3/2}$ with $T_c\propto R^{-9/10}$ and $R^{-3/4}$, respectively. A schematic profile is

vertical half-thickness H
  ^
  |                                               / outer gas/Kramers
  |                                          ____/
  |                                     ____/ middle gas/scattering
  |              ______________________/
  |          ___/ inner radiation/scattering plateau
  |       __/
  |     _/
  +----|----------------------------------------------> radius R
      R_*              zone boundaries are schematic

The height formula also tests the thin disk assumption. For a nonrotating hole with $R_{\ast }=6r_g$, the largest $H/R$ in this inner approximation occurs at $R=(9/4)R_{\ast }$. At $\dot{m}={\dot{m}}_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ and ${\eta }_0=0.1$, it is about $0.37$, so a disc this close to the conventional Eddington accretion rate is only marginally thin. Slim accretion disk effects and advected heat can then matter.

Analyze a local temperature perturbation at fixed radius and fixed surface density of a disk $\Sigma$. The thermal timescale of an accretion disk is shorter than its viscous timescale, so mass redistribution is negligible during the perturbation. Let $Q^{+}$ be viscous heating and $Q^{-}$ radiative cooling, measured consistently through one face or both faces, and define net cooling by $\dot{Q}=Q^{-}-Q^{+}$. A temperature increase is unstable if it decreases net cooling.

With gas pressure dominant, vertical hydrostatic equilibrium and the ideal gas law giveFor the alpha disk prescription with temperature-independent $\alpha$, $\nu =\alpha c_{s}H\propto T_c$, and the Keplerian rotation heating law isOne must not hold the steady-state $\dot{m}$ fixed while perturbing the temperature: the stress and heating respond through $\nu$, even though $\Sigma$ is temporarily fixed.

At an equilibrium temperature $T_0$ where $Q^{+}=Q^{-}=Q_0$, if $Q^{-}\propto T_c^q$ and $Q^{+}\propto T_c$, thenThe cooling exponent therefore decides the sign.

For hot, ionized, optically thin gas, the usual intended cooling model is thermal bremsstrahlung, whose volume emissivity scales as ${\rho }^2{T}_c^{1/2}$. Integrated vertically,Thus $q=0$, andA hotter annulus expands vertically, lowering its density enough to offset the direct increase in bremsstrahlung emission; viscous heating still rises.

For an optically thick medium with the Kramers' opacity law, $\kappa \propto {\rho }_c{T}_c^{-7/2}\propto T_c^{-4}$ at fixed $\Sigma$. Thermalized radiative diffusion givesIts falling opacity lets a hotter annulus radiate much more efficiently.

For an optically thick medium with dominant electron-scattering opacity, $\kappa$ is nearly independent of temperature. Provided enough true absorption is present to thermalize the radiation,This conclusion differs from the thermal instability of a radiation-pressure-dominated alpha disk, where the heating has a different temperature dependence. The question explicitly excludes that pressure regime.