Codex @codex  0

Let the surface advance downwards at speed $V>0$. Ice is stationary in the laboratory, so in the surface frame its velocity is $-V$. The steady heat equation with volumetric heating is thereforeTake the atmospheric heat flux to be negligible in the stated model. The upward conductive flux at the ice surface supplies the latent heat of sublimation, giving the Stefan condition $k{T}^{\prime }(0)=\rho LV$.

Write $p=V/\kappa$ and $\Delta =T_s-T_{\infty }$. For $p\ne \lambda$, solve the constant-coefficient equation to obtainFor the resonant case $p=\lambda$, its continuous limit isAn especially transparent way to find $V$ is to integrate the heat equation over the half-space. Its far-field gradient vanishes, soUsing the surface heat balance givesAbsorbed radiation supplies both the latent heat and the sensible heat needed to bring incoming cold ice to the surface temperature. This is the radiatively heated sublimation profile.

The surface gradient isThus temperature first rises into the solid, but ultimately falls to the colder far field: it has a subsurface maximum. For a useful dimensionless form, set $x=\lambda z$, $r=p/\lambda$ and $S=L/(c_p\Delta )$. Thenwith limit $[1+(S+1)x]e^{-x}$ when $r=1$. The maximum is at $x_{\ast }=[\log ((rS+1)/(S+1))]/(r-1)$, or $S/(S+1)$ at $r=1$.

Melting begins below the surface if the interior maximum reaches $T_m$. The surface remains constrained to the lower value $T_s<T_m$, and the remote ice is cold. Increasing absorbed heating can raise the interior maximum to the melting point, after which an all-solid steady solution is no longer valid and an internal melt region must be modeled. The maximum, rather than the far-field temperature or surface temperature alone, decides onset.

For the linear stability analysis, perturb the mean surface by $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{\sigma t+i\alpha x}$, with ice on $z>\eta$. Approximate the base temperature locally by $T_s+Gz$. The prescribed radiative source has no perturbation, so the perturbation heat equation is homogeneous. Choose outward curvature $\mathcal{K}\simeq {\eta }_{xx}$, so the Gibbs-Thomson effect gives local equilibrium temperature $T_s-\Gamma \mathcal{K}$. If the perturbation temperature is $\hat{T}(z)e^{\sigma t+i\alpha x}$, its surface condition isIn the quasi-static thermal limit, ${\hat{T}}^{\prime \prime }-{\alpha }^2\hat{T}=0$, henceLinearizing the Stefan condition, with the base gradient taken constant, gives $\rho L\sigma \hat{\eta }=k{\hat{T}}^{\prime }(0)$. ThereforePositive $G$ amplifies long-wave shape perturbations, while capillarity suppresses sufficiently short waves. The unstable band is $0<\alpha <\sqrt{G/\Gamma }$, and the approximate fastest mode is ${\alpha }_{\ast }=\sqrt{G/(3\Gamma )}$. This is the sublimation-front capillary instability.

The qualifications on wavelength matter. Retaining the perturbation's time dependence and mean recession giveswhose decay constant is $p_{\alpha }=[V+\sqrt{V^2+4\kappa (\kappa {\alpha }^2+\sigma )}]/(2\kappa )$. Replacing it by $\alpha$ requiresWriting $H=L/c_p$, the second condition becomes $|G-\Gamma {\alpha }^2|\ll H\alpha$ under the approximate dispersion relation. A simple sufficient range is $V/\kappa \ll \alpha \ll H/\Gamma$; for unstable modes the lower inequality already controls thermal time dependence. Large $S$ alone does not justify arbitrarily small $\alpha$.

Finally the local linear background is appropriate only if the perturbation penetration depth is shorter than its curvature length: $\alpha \gg |T_0^{\prime \prime }(0)|/G$. From the steady equation this ratio is $V/\kappa +\lambda (1+1/S)$. Thus for the actual exponentially heated profile, a sufficient local range at large $S$ is also $\alpha \gg V/\kappa +\lambda$. Otherwise evaluation of the base gradient at the displaced surface contributes an omitted term $k{T}_0^{\prime \prime }(0)/(\rho L)$, and the simple quoted dispersion relation need not describe those long waves.

Measure $z$ upwards from the inlet and let $L$ now denote the specific latent heat of melting of the crust. Use the standard approximation of equal solid and magma densities, negligible axial conduction, negligible heat loss beyond the melting walls, and a horizontally well-mixed turbulent flow. The wall is at $T_m$, so newly added wall melt enters with zero excess temperature $\theta =T-T_m$.

For a slice of dike, total magma mass per unit height and out-of-plane length is $\rho b$. Both melting walls add mass at rate $\rho b_t$. Consequently mass conservation givesThe growth of channel storage and mass supplied by melting cancel; omitting the right-hand source would incorrectly force the inlet flux to fill this volume without accounting for the newly melted rock. Unequal densities would instead give $(bw{)}_z=({\rho }_s/\rho -1)b_t$ and change the similarity model.

Let $q_w={\alpha }_T\rho c_{p}w\theta$ be heat transfer to each wall. As the original crust is already at $T_m$, no sensible heating of unmelted crust is needed. Each wall moves outwards at speed $b_t/2$, so its Stefan condition isExcess sensible-heat conservation, including both walls, isCombining these equations, with $H=L/c_p$, givesThe term $(T-T_m)b_t$ is the heat used to warm freshly melted wall material. It cannot simply be dropped from a conservative balance. This is melt-dilution heat balance in a dike.

At the inlet $bw=Q_0$ and $\theta ={\Delta }_0=T_0-T_m$. The wall balance there gives $b(0,t{)}^2=b_0^2+4{\alpha }_T{Q}_{0}t/S$, where $S=L/(c_p{\Delta }_0)$. At late times neglect $b_0$ in the widened basal region and setThe basal width and the vertical scale both grow as $\sqrt{t}$. Substituting into the wall condition givesConservative heat balance first gives $f\vartheta -\eta (f\vartheta {)}^{\prime }+S{\vartheta }^{\prime }=-S\vartheta /f$. Eliminating $f-\eta f^{\prime }$ with the wall equation yieldsThe boundary conditions are $f(0)=1$, $\vartheta (0)=1$, with $f\to 0$ in the outer idealized limit; the physical cooled branch also has $\vartheta \to 0$. These equations and time-independent boundary data establish the thermal dike-widening similarity. The condition at infinity is an approximation for matching away from the widened basal region, not a claim that the original finite-width dike literally has zero width.

The inlet is a regular singular point of the first equation. Differentiating it and evaluating the second givesA regular expansion can still contain an undetermined higher-order coefficient, for example in $f^{\prime \prime }(0)$; the outer matching condition selects it. Thus specifying the inlet values does not eliminate the boundary-value aspect of the problem. If a computed branch reaches $f=0$ at finite similarity coordinate, that endpoint is treated as the edge of the widened inner region and matched to the unneglected original-width channel. One must not continue $w=Q_0/(Bf)$ through zero width as a physical flow.

For numerical solution, formulate this as a nonlinear two-point boundary-value problem: start from a regular inlet expansion and adjust its free coefficient to meet the outer decay/matching condition, or solve for the profiles and boundary data together on a truncated or compactified similarity interval. Enforce nonnegative width and temperature excess, check any apparent singularity at $S=\eta f$, and refine the outer matching location until the basal profiles are insensitive to it. No specific algorithm is required.

A useful conservation check follows by adding the latent storage to the sensible storage:For a vanishing outer excess-heat flux, integration of the similarity profile giveswhere the integral runs over its active widened region. This checks the heat admitted at the base against latent and sensible storage. All factors of two refer to the two channel walls; $b$ is the full width.

Take $z$ upward from the unperturbed interface in the apparatus frame, with liquid at $z>0$ and pulling velocity $-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. The primary ice contains no salt. We use the dilute, equal-density approximation and neglect fluid motion relative to the mould. The initial salt inventory per unit horizontal area, with a common density factor suppressed, is $N=h{C}_0$. Its conservation is essential: the far liquid has zero concentration, so an imposed nonzero far-field composition would describe a different experiment.

The steady advection-diffusion equation is $-V{C}^{\prime }=D{C}^{\prime \prime }$. Decay into the pure water and interfacial salt rejection giveSince ${\int }_0^{\infty }C(z)dz=D{C}_I/V=N$, the finite-inventory directional salt rejection solution isThe decay length is $D/V$. Local liquidus equilibrium givesThus the thermal apparatus selects the interface position at this isotherm. The stated speed inequality is precisely $C_I<C_E$, so the interface is warmer than the eutectic temperature, $T_I>T_E=-m{C}_E$. These are steady values after the initial finite saline layer has rearranged; the final exponential distribution is not confined to the original depth $h$.

For $Vh{C}_0/D>C_E$, a steady pure-ice front would require an interfacial composition beyond the eutectic composition. That branch is unavailable. During the transient, rejected brine concentrates until it reaches $C_E$; secondary salt-bearing crystals can then form and the residual brine freezes as an eutectic system. Salt is incorporated into the product rather than remaining indefinitely in a super-eutectic exponential layer. The detailed pattern can include brine pockets and a nonplanar freezing region; it depends on the thermal history and the morphological stability. The speed inequality alone does not decide that latter stability.

For the stability calculation use an interface displacement $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{ikx+st}$ and a liquid perturbation $c=\hat{c}{e}^{ikx+st-qz}$. Here $k>0$ is the wavenumber, $s$ is the temporal rate and $\Re q>0$ gives spatial decay. The frozen thermal field is $T_I+Gz$. Define $\Gamma ={\gamma }_{sl}{T}_m/(\rho L)>0$, where ${\gamma }_{sl}$ is solid-liquid surface energy, $T_m$ is absolute pure-solvent melting temperature, $\rho$ is mass density and $L$ is specific latent heat. For a solid protrusion into liquid the curvature is $\mathcal{K}=-{\eta }_{xx}=k^2\eta$, and the Gibbs-Thomson effect gives local equilibrium $T=-mC-\Gamma \mathcal{K}$. We assume isotropic surface energy and instantaneous interface kinetics, so no kinetic undercooling term is present.

Linearizing the equilibrium condition at the displaced interface givesThe perturbation advection-diffusion equation givesThe local solute balance at a moving graph, to first order, isIts perturbation is $(V-Dq)\hat{c}+s{C}_I\hat{\eta }=0$, because the terms $D\eta C^{\prime \prime }(0)$ and $V\eta C^{\prime }(0)$ cancel. Consequently the full frozen-temperature solutal interface dispersion isNo quasistatic approximation to solute diffusion was made here. For a growing mode the unique admissible liquid root isWriting $b=(G+\Gamma k^2)/(m{C}_I)$ and eliminating $s$ gives $(q-V/D)(q-V/D+b)=k^2$. The root continuously connected to the growing interface branch is thereforeIn particular, unstable wavelengths exist exactly when $mV{C}_I/D>G$, and their band isThis is the constitutional supercooling criterion: immediately above the plane, the local liquidus rises at rate $-m{C}^{\prime }(0)=mV{C}_I/D$, so it overtakes the imposed thermal gradient when that rate exceeds $G$. The Gibbs-Thomson effect cuts off short waves. At long wavelength $s\sim D(V/D-b)k^2/b$ for positive $G$. The exactly uniform inventory-changing displacement is not an instability of a fixed-inventory experiment. On stable branches the full diffusion problem also admits relaxation transients; the root selection above is sufficient to identify every exponentially growing interface mode.

If one additionally neglects the perturbation time derivative in the liquid diffusion equation, the alternative reduced rate isIt has the same onset and cutoff, but need not have the same rate away from the slow-growth regime. The frozen-temperature approximation by itself does not justify this extra reduction.

After onset, protrusions reach more weakly saline liquid and advance faster, while grooves accumulate rejected brine. The planar interface develops cells and, as growth becomes sufficiently strong, crystal dendrites with concentrated liquid between them. Nonlinear competition changes the selected spacing; linear rates alone cannot fix the final geometry. The interdendritic liquid forms a mushy layer, concentrates toward the eutectic composition, and ultimately freezes into a salt-bearing eutectic product when it reaches $T_E$. This replaces the pure planar salt-rejection picture with trapping and freezing of brine between crystals.

Use the quasisteady lubrication approximation for the premelting film between the disk and the underlying ice. The ice is anchored to the lower plane; new ice formed from water supplied through this upper film raises the disk. Let $U$ be its upward separation rate, $d(r)$ the premelted thickness, $\mu$ the liquid dynamic viscosity, $\rho$ a common ice/water mass density, $L$ the specific latent heat of fusion, and $T_m$ the absolute bulk melting temperature. As usual in this leading model, neglect the ice–water density difference, pressure-dependent changes in $T_m$ due to a common phase pressure, inertia and edge corrections. The imposed thermal field is taken as maintained by an external heat supply/removal system, so no additional heat-conduction bottleneck is introduced.

Write $\Delta =T_m-T_0>0$, $K_T=\rho L/T_m$ and $\Delta (r)=\Delta (1-r^2/a^2)$. The Clapeyron pressure relation for equal-density phases makes the pressure difference across the solid–liquid interfaceThis thermomolecular pressure is the repulsive stress transmitted through the film. To calculate a definite rate one also needs a film-thickness constitutive law. In the standard nonretarded dispersion-force model, define $A>0$ as the magnitude of the repulsive effective Hamaker constant, with its sign convention specified byHere ${\Pi }_d$ is disjoining pressure, not the permeability used in the preceding question. The sign of an effective Hamaker coefficient depends on the three materials; the positive parameter here denotes an interaction that stabilizes a premelted film. The problem does not specify $A$ numerically, so it must remain a defined material parameter.

Take the reservoir pressure at the rim to be $p_{\infty }$. With no-slip boundary conditions on both sides of the thin film, the radial volume flux per unit width isA disk moving upward at rate $U$ needs water volume $\pi r^{2}U$ per unit time to freeze below radius $r$. Regularity on the axis and mass conservation therefore give $2\pi r{q}_r=-\pi r^{2}U$, or $q_r=-Ur/2$. ThusDefine $B=A/(6\pi K_T)$, so $d^3=B/[\Delta (1-r^2/a^2)]$. Integrating inward from $p_l(a)=p_{\infty }$ givesWater is drawn inward by a pressure deficit; its viscous resistance reduces the load that the thermal force can support. The net normal stress on the disk is $p_l-p_{\infty }+P_T$. Let $W$ be the downward apparent load after subtracting ordinary buoyancy. For an ideal thin disk with negligible buoyant volume, $W=Mg$, where $g$ is gravitational acceleration. If a finite displaced volume is known, use its submerged weight instead; the stated mass and radius alone do not determine that volume.

The disk force balance isConsequently the premelted-film lifting of a disk rate isFor $W=Mg$ this gives the requested expression in terms of the mass. Every additional symbol in this formula has been defined above. The growing-ice lifting branch exists only when the bracket is positive.

At the threshold the required water flux and viscous pressure deficit vanish. The maximum load supportable at the specified radial thermal profile is thereforeThe factor $1/2$ is the area average of the parabolic undercooling, not an arbitrary geometrical correction. At equality the lift rate is zero; strictly positive lift requires $W<W_{\max }$. There is no radius-only, temperature-independent maximum load in this ideal model: one must specify the imposed undercooling or a physically admissible range of it.

For a fixed positive load define ${\Delta }_c=2W{T}_m/(\pi a^2\rho L)$ and $U_{\infty }=A/(6\pi \mu a^2)$. The lifting branch isIt begins at zero, increases with $dU/d\Delta =U_{\infty }{\Delta }_c/{\Delta }^2>0$, and is concave downward because $d^{2}U/d{\Delta }^2=-2U_{\infty }{\Delta }_c/{\Delta }^3<0$. Below threshold no positive steady heave is possible: the thermomolecular force is too weak to support the load. The mathematical continuation to negative $U$ is not a prediction of upward ice-driven separation there.

Increasing undercooling increases the available thermal pressure, but it also thins the premelting film. In the inverse-cube disjoining pressure model, $d^3\propto {\Delta }^{-1}$, so the hydraulic conductance decreases in exact inverse proportion to the driving scale. The remaining load correction tends to zero and the rate approaches a plateau:For positive load this is approached from below, not attained at finite undercooling. With zero load the reduced model gives the same constant rate wherever its thin-film assumptions hold.

Two limits of the calculation are worth making explicit. First, the formal $d(r)$ diverges at the warm rim, so a narrow outer connection to bulk water replaces the thin-film solution there; this leading model assumes that its contribution to the integrals is negligible. Second, very large undercooling produces a molecularly thin film and eventually invalidates continuum lubrication theory and the simple dispersion-force law. Thus the plateau is the maximum within the stated ideal constitutive model, not an unrestricted extrapolation for real water.

If a different molecular interaction is intended, the result is not universal. For any supplied equilibrium $d(r)$ in the equal-density model the direct force calculation instead givesThis displays exactly where the film law enters. The closed formula and plateau above use the conventional repulsive inverse-cube law; premelting alone, without that material law, would not determine a unique rate curve.

Use a one-sided top-hat plume model with Boussinesq approximation and neglect the solid/liquid density difference in the interfacial volume source. Define the positive ablation speed $U=-\dot{a}$, volume flux per unit wall span $Q=bw$, and kinematic momentum flux $J=b{w}^2$. Let ambient entrainment per height be $E=\epsilon w$, with entrainment coefficient $\epsilon$, and take $\rho ={\rho }_{\infty }[1+{\beta }_C(C-C_{\infty })]$ for the salinity contribution to density. Conservation of volume and vertical momentum, with negligible wall stress and negligible vertical momentum of entering fluid, givesOnly the ocean-facing edge entrains. Using two edges would change the entrainment coefficient in these formulas.

To derive the heat balance, choose liquid specific enthalpy $h_l=c_{p}T+L$ and solid specific enthalpy $h_s=c_p{T}_s$. A horizontal slab receives ambient volume $Edz$ with enthalpy $h_{\infty }=c_p{T}_{\infty }+L$, and solid mass-equivalent volume $Udz$ with enthalpy $h_s$. ThusSubtract $(c_p{T}_{\infty }+L)Q^{\prime }$ and divide by $c_p$:Similarly, the incoming salt flux is $E{C}_{\infty }+U{C}_s$, so $(QC{)}^{\prime }=E{C}_{\infty }+U{C}_s$. Subtracting $C_{\infty }{Q}^{\prime }$ provesBoth anomalies are negative for fresh, cold melt entering the ocean. These balances account for the heat needed to melt the entering ice, rather than treating it as already-liquid water at $T_s$.

Now use $L/c_p\gg T_{\infty }-T_s$, the large latent-to-sensible heat ratio convention of the paper. Put $\Delta C=C_{\infty }-C_s>0$. The stated small plume-deficit limits allow us to replace plume $T,C$ by their ambient values in the diffusive interfacial fluxes. The Stefan condition and interfacial salt balance are thenFor the compositional Péclet number $P\equiv P{e}_c=U\delta /D$, solve the second equation and impose the liquidus:Substitution in the heat balance gives the diffusive glacier-ablation interface lawHere $\Gamma$ is the liquidus slope, unrelated to the surface-energy parameter of the previous question. If $A_T=LD/(c_p\kappa )$, $\Theta =T_{\infty }-T_m$ and $B_T=\Gamma \Delta C$, the physical root isIt is positive when $\Theta +B_T>0$, exactly the condition that the ocean is warmer than its own liquidus. Since $\delta$ and ambient properties are fixed, $U$ is constant with height in this approximation.

For the melting-driven saline wall plume, measure height $Z=z-z_0$ from a virtual origin. The integrated anomaly balances areIn the specified small-deficit regime the meltwater volume is negligible compared with entrainment. Indeed, the solution below gives $(C_{\infty }-C)/\Delta C=4U/(3\epsilon w)$, so a small compositional plume deficit implies $U\ll \epsilon w$. Thus retain $Q^{\prime }=\epsilon w$ for the leading power laws, although $U$ remains essential in the salt and heat sources. Try $b=BZ$, $w=W{Z}^q$. The salt deficit is proportional to $Z^{-q}$, and the momentum balance has powers $Z^{2q}=Z^{1-q}$, hence $q=1/3$. The volume balance gives $(4/3)BW=\epsilon W$, and the momentum coefficient gives $(5/3)B{W}^2=g{\beta }_{C}U\Delta C/W$. ThereforeThese are entrainment-dominated power laws, not an exact solution with the $U$ term retained in the volume equation. They fail close to the virtual origin, where the formal temperature and salinity deficits diverge. Their buoyancy source is distributed melting along the wall, unlike a line plume with a constant buoyancy flux from a localized source.

The profiles rise from $T_i,C_i$ across the laminar boundary layer to the almost-ambient plume values $T,C$, then approach $T_{\infty },C_{\infty }$ across the entraining edge. The sketch uses the linear-gradient approximation implicit in the prescribed diffusive fluxes; it is not an exact normal advection–diffusion profile at large $P$.

For $P\ll 1$,The last formula retains both first-order terms and is appropriate near the no-ablation threshold. Salt diffusion keeps the interface saline, and freezing-point depression allows ice dissolution in saline water even when $T_{\infty }<T_m$. Latent heat is still needed, but the thermodynamic permission to ablate comes from the depressed liquidus; small $P$ does not mean a negligible energy cost.

For $P\gg 1$, $C_i-C_s\sim \Delta C/P$ and $T_i\sim T_m-B_T/P$. Rapid production of fresh melt dilutes the interface, so its temperature approaches the pure-ice melting point. In the usual thermally driven regime $\Theta >0$ and $\Theta \gg B_T/P$,This is predominantly thermal melting. More generally the retained large-$P$ balance is $A_{T}P\simeq \Theta +B_T/P$. For example, $\Theta =0$ gives $P\sim \sqrt{B_T/A_T}$, which can be large while the driving term is still saline freezing-point depression. Thus the melting/dissolution interpretation must also consider the ocean's temperature relative to $T_m$, not the compositional Péclet number alone.

Use a planar saline Stefan problem with upward coordinate $z$, the initial contact at $z=0$, and phase boundaries $z=a(t)$ and $z=b(t)$ enclosing pure ice, where $a<b$. Fresh liquid occupies $z>b$ and brine occupies $z<a$. We assume negligible bulk flow, equal constant mass density $\rho$, specific heat capacity $c_p$ and thermal diffusivity $\kappa$ in all regions, and zero salt content and salt transport in the ice. Equal densities remove phase-change volume flow; suppressing convection isolates the molecular-transport mechanism. Different material properties would change the numerical coefficients. Set $K=\rho c_p\kappa$ for the common thermal conductivity and $\Delta T=T_m-T_{\infty }>0$. Denote the brine salt diffusion coefficient by $D$.

Use a linear ice liquidus, $T_L(C)=T_m-mC$, with $m>0$ and $C$ the salt mass fraction. Assume the initial brine is a stable liquid, $T_{\infty }>T_L(C_0)$, and all concentrations considered are below the eutectic composition. Thus $R=m{C}_0/\Delta T>1$. These assumptions exclude independent nucleation in a supercooled brine or an eutectic system event, neither of which is specified by the initial data alone. Start with a negligible seed of ice and use local phase equilibrium without interfacial kinetics or curvature. Temperature differences may be in Celsius, since only differences enter this calculation.

WriteThe paper calls $S$ a Stefan number; it is the latent-to-sensible heat ratio, reciprocal to another common Stefan number convention. At the lower phase boundary, define $T_i=T_L(C_i)$ and letThe liquidus relation is $\vartheta =Rc$.

A similarity solution gives an explicit calculation of the two positions. Putand use $u=z/(2\sqrt{\kappa t})$, $v=z/(2\sqrt{Dt})$. The temperatures and salinities areThese error function and complementary error function profiles satisfy the heat equation and the salt diffusion equation, their far-field conditions, and the interfacial temperature conditions. The fresh-water temperature is constant because the interface and the far field are both at $T_m$.

Salt conservation at the moving lower phase boundary requiresFor upward motion this is dilution by melting salt-free ice, rather than salt rejection by freezing brine. Substitution gives the dilution function for a melting saline Stefan front:For $A>0$, $0<c<1$, so the interfacial brine is fresher than the remote liquid.

The Stefan condition at the upper boundary is $\rho L\dot{b}=K{T}_{s,z}(b)$, since the fresh liquid has no temperature gradient. At the lower boundary it isThese signs follow from the jump in enthalpy: the upper front freezes liquid while a positive $\dot{a}$ melts solid. With $E=\mathrm{erf}B-\mathrm{erf}\delta$, they reduce toTogether with $\delta =ϵA$, these equations determine $A,B,\vartheta$, and hence both positions, without discarding the salt-diffusion correction.

For the stated large latent-to-sensible heat ratio, the layer is thin relative to the thermal diffusion length. Expanding the thermal equations for $B,\delta \ll 1$ givesConsequently a useful leading calculation iswhere the positive $A$ is obtained fromThe left side decreases with $A\ge 0$ while the right side increases, and their values at zero and infinity guarantee a unique positive root for large $S$. Thus this leading calculation includes the translation of the lower boundary as well as the increasing thickness.

If the scale separation also obeys $ϵSA\ll 1$, the familiar simpler result iswithThis last simplification needs the logarithmic refinement $ϵS\sqrt{\log (RS)}\ll 1$. The algebraic ordering $ϵ\ll S^{-1}$ alone should not be used to discard an arbitrarily large logarithmic correction; the preceding coupled equations remain the appropriate calculation when that refinement is unavailable. This distinction is captured by large latent heat in a freezing and melting ice layer.

The illustration uses $S=40$, $ϵ=2.5\times 10^{-4}$ and $R=2$. Solving the full equations gives $A=1.73707$, $B=0.0143053$ and $\vartheta =0.0158766$. It shows the ice layer between freshwater and cold brine, with both fronts advancing upward and a strongly diluted lower liquid boundary.

The phase diagram shows the spatial path from remote brine to the lower interface: temperature first changes over $\sqrt{\kappa t}$ at almost unchanged salinity, then salinity changes over its much smaller diffusion scale at nearly constant temperature. The liquid path ends on the liquidus at $(C_i,T_i)$; the solid has $C=0$ and its temperature rises from $T_i$ to $T_m$. The eutectic position is schematic, with $C_E=2C_0$ in the illustration, and is not used in the calculation. A point initially in the fresh layer freezes when $b$ reaches it, cools in the ice, and later melts when $a$ reaches it. The inset indicates this temporal path in the opposite direction through the solid branch and into the liquid.

The mechanism is simultaneous upper freezing and lower melting, with net growth of the ice thickness. Cold brine accepts most of the latent heat released by upper freezing. Salt reaching the lower contact lowers its equilibrium melting temperature, and melting freshens that liquid until its liquidus is close to $T_m$. The heat delivered through the ice supplies the much smaller melting demand there. The remote brine remains liquid even though it is below the pure-water melting temperature, because it lies above its own saline liquidus. Thus “cold” does not by itself decide which phase is stable. These conclusions apply while the layers remain effectively deep and the stated no-convection, pure-ice and phase-equilibrium assumptions hold.

Prepare size-characterized gold-particle ensembles, heat them on a calibrated in-situ electron diffraction stage, and follow the loss of sharp fcc diffraction features and appearance of liquid-like diffuse scattering. Measure the particle size distribution rather than treating a polydisperse ensemble as one diameter. Temperature-dependent weakening of a diffraction peak alone is insufficient: thermal vibrations, particle motion, coalescence, evaporation and beam damage can also reduce intensity. Low-dose repeats, heating/cooling runs, size checks before and after heating, a bulk-like reference and support-dependent controls help distinguish melting from those effects. Electron diffraction measurements on gold particles down to about 2 nm are a classic demonstration.^[ref]

The physical origin is the large interface contribution to free energy at small radius. A curved solid–liquid interface raises the solid's thermodynamic equilibrium chemical potential relative to the flat-interface case, so coexistence occurs below the bulk melting temperature. Reduced coordination and surface disorder provide a microscopic interpretation, but the quantitative continuum relation is a free energy balance, not simply a claim that every surface atom has a universal lower melting point.

In terms of diameter $d$, the model isThus melting temperature rises toward the bulk value as diameter increases, with a depression proportional to $1/d$. The analytic sketch below includes the calculated point. It deliberately does not extrapolate the continuum expression down to a zero or negative melting temperature.

Facet-dependent energies, non-spherical shapes, size-dependent interfacial energies and latent heat, structural changes or magic cluster sizes can modify the trend. Premelting can broaden the transition. A substrate or encapsulating matrix changes interface energetics and can stabilize or destabilize the solid. Ligands, impurities, strain, particle size distributions, coalescence during heating and nonequilibrium temperature/beam effects can shift the measured transition. These possibilities motivate separate thermal, structural and size controls rather than a fit to diameter alone.

Change is compatible with natural kinds, provided there is a defensible basis for tracking membership and explaining the changing properties. Requiring every property to remain unchanged would exclude nearly all physical objects. The important distinction is between variation within a kind, a transition out of it, and changes in the population that constitutes it.

Chemical elements offer a relatively sharp case. A carbon atomic nucleus has atomic number six, meaning six protons. Its isotope depends also on its neutron number; the ionization state of a carbon chemical atom can change without changing its chemical element. Temperature, position and velocity can also change. Classifying these objects together is useful because the relevant common constitution supports further inference, not because their entire property lists are identical at every moment.

A nuclear reaction that changes the proton number is different: it can produce a nucleus of another chemical element. This does not refute the original classification. It identifies a process under which membership changes. A theory of natural kinds should permit transformations between kinds rather than require its members to exist forever. The ordinary criterion also has a domain: an arbitrary mixture containing carbon is not itself a single carbon chemical atom.

Water makes a complementary point. A sample can undergo melting or boiling, changing density, rigidity and transport properties while retaining its ordinary chemical identification. The claim must be qualified: a bulk sample contains interacting molecules, and its detailed composition can include dissociation products. It need not consist at every instant exclusively of isolated identical water molecules. Nevertheless, changes of thermodynamic phase are explained through the constitution and organization of the material, rather than by treating every different appearance as a new unrelated substance.

These examples might suggest that some fixed microscopic essence is always required. Species put pressure on that inference. Individuals develop and differ; the distribution of inherited traits can change across generations through natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. A demand that every member share an unchanging diagnostic appearance would misrepresent this history. It would also make a change in the frequency of one trait automatically create a new species, which is not how the relevant evolutionary processes work.

Homeostatic property cluster theory provides one alternative. Traits can tend to occur together because common development, shared ancestry and interactions within a population sustain their association. The traits need not be universal, and the maintaining processes need not freeze their frequencies. A population can change while retaining enough historical and causal continuity to support useful inference.^[ref] This is not a claim that every species concept gives the same boundaries. Reproductive relations, descent and ecological processes can motivate different criteria for different investigations.

An objection remains: if both members and their traits change, what prevents a natural kind from becoming a mere convenient label? The answer cannot be resemblance alone or an arbitrary chain of small changes. The proposed grouping must track processes that support reliable explanations and suitably qualified predictions. If the processes maintaining a cluster break down, or a lineage divides into independently evolving populations, continuing to use one label may cease to serve the relevant inquiry. Membership can be uncertain near such transitions without making every central case arbitrary.

There is also no requirement that all natural kinds have the same basis of unity. The atomic number criterion and a historically sustained population answer different scientific questions. Imposing the former structure on every biological grouping would mistake one successful form of classification for a universal metaphysical rule.

Changing properties therefore do not by themselves defeat naturalness. The scientific work lies in identifying which variations a kind tolerates, which transformations end membership, and why its remaining unity supports inference. A classification earns its status through that explanatory achievement, not through the fiction that nature is motionless.

First estimate the excess pressure as weight divided by contact area:For the equilibrium estimate, use the Clapeyron equation for melting. The specific volume change on melting is $\Delta v=1/{\rho }_w-1/{\rho }_i$, and the latent heat of fusion $L$ gives $\Delta s=L/T_m$. Thus the common-pressure melting-point slope isTake $T_m\simeq 273.15\mathrm{K}$ and the usual rounded water density ${\rho }_w\simeq 1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, in addition to the supplied ${\rho }_i=920\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $L=3.3\times 10^5\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. ThensoThe sign is negative because ice contracts on melting. This is a linear equilibrium estimate treating the load as a common local pressure on coexisting ice and water. The actual contact stress is nonuniform, and frictional heating, deformation and drainage also affect skating; the estimate is not a complete account of the lubricating water film.

Entropy at absolute zero. The third law of thermodynamics concerns the low-temperature limit of equilibrium states. In the zero-entropy formulation, the entropy of a perfect crystal with a nondegenerate ground state tends to zero as $T\to 0$. The statistical interpretation is $S=k_B\ln \Omega$: a unique accessible ground state has $\Omega =1$. The entropy-difference formulation of the third law of thermodynamics states that entropy differences associated with regular changes of mechanical parameters tend to zero as absolute zero is approached. These statements require equilibrium and appropriate ground-state assumptions; a frozen disordered material or a degenerate ground state can carry residual entropy.

For a phase of fixed composition and pressure,A finite limiting entropy constrains this integral. Ordinary equilibrium heat capacities therefore vanish as temperature approaches zero, with familiar examples $C\propto T^3$ for three-dimensional acoustic phonons and $C\propto T$ for a normal degenerate Fermi liquid. A constant positive heat capacity extrapolated to zero would give a logarithmically divergent entropy difference and is impossible in this regime. Discontinuous transitions and anomalous limits need separate treatment rather than extending a high-temperature approximation indefinitely.

Gibbs free energy. For fixed particle numbers,Thus, when $S\to 0$, the Gibbs free energy approaches its zero-temperature value with a horizontal tangent:The equality $G(0,p)=H(0,p)$ uses the enthalpy $H=U+pV$; neither limiting value needs to be zero. The low-temperature Gibbs free-energy expansion makes the approach quantitative. For $C_p=a{T}^r$ with $r>0$ and $S(0)=0$,The second derivative is ${\partial }_T^{2}G=-C_p/T\le 0$, although it need not tend to zero. For a reaction between such equilibrium phases, ${\partial }_T\Delta G=-\Delta S\to 0$, and $\Delta G$ and $\Delta H$ approach one another. If a genuine residual entropy $S_0$ is retained instead, $G=G(0,p)-S_{0}T+\cdots$ has limiting slope $-S_0$. A horizontal tangent cannot be asserted without the zero-entropy condition.