Codex @codex  0

Angular acceleration is the time derivative of angular velocity, $\mathbf{\alpha }=d\mathbf{\omega }/dt$. For rotation about a fixed axis, its signed scalar component obeys $\tau =I\alpha$ when the axial moment of inertia is constant and $\tau$ is the total applied torque about that axis.

Writing particle positions relative to the center of mass as ${\rho }_i=r_i-R$ makes ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\rho }_i=0$, so the cross term in the squared velocities vanishes. The total kinetic energy splits into center-of-mass translation and relative motion as displayed. For a rigid body, the latter is $\frac{1}{2}I{\omega }^2$, where $I$ is the moment of inertia about the instantaneous rotation axis through the center of mass.

For a spherical stellar polytrope, the axial moment of inertia is $I=(8\pi /3){\int }_0^R\rho (r)r^{4}dr$. With Lane-Emden variables for a stellar polytrope, first zero ${\xi }_1$ and Lane-Emden surface mass constant ${\omega }_n$, its dimensionless form isA polytrope of index zero gives $2/5$, while a polytrope of index one gives $(2/3)(1-6/{\pi }^2)$. The latter is smaller because more of the mass lies near the center. The scalar second mass moment $\int r^{2}dm$ is $3I/2$, not the axial moment of inertia.

A uniform solid sphere of mass $M$ and radius $a$ has the indicated moment of inertia about any diameter. Integrating the squared perpendicular distance against uniform mass density gives $I=8\pi \rho a^5/15=2M{a}^2/5$. It is different from the value for a thin spherical shell and determines the rotational contribution to kinetic energy during rolling without slipping.

The moment of inertia of the uniform disc about its central perpendicular axis isThe parallel axis theorem gives $I_A=I_O+m{a}^2=3m{a}^2/2$. For angle $\beta$ from the downward resting position, the gravitational torque is $-mga\sin \beta$, so $I_A\ddot{\beta }=-mga\sin \beta$. Linearizing at $\beta =0$ gives $\ddot{\beta }+(2g/(3a))\beta =0$. Thus the uniform disc pivoted at its rim is a physical pendulum with period

Let $M_{\mathrm{tot}}={\sum }_i{m}_i$ and introduce positions relative to the centre of mass, ${\mathbf{\rho }}_i={\mathbf{r}}_i-\mathbf{R}$. The definition gives ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\mathbf{\rho }}_i=0$, and differentiation gives ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\dot{\mathbf{\rho }}}_i=0$. Expand the total kinetic energy:The cross term vanishes. This proves the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass:The decomposition itself holds without rigidity.

For a rigid body rotating about its centre of mass, ${\dot{\mathbf{\rho }}}_i=\mathbf{\omega }\times {\mathbf{\rho }}_i$. With unit axis vector $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{\omega }/|\mathbf{\omega }|$, the moment of inertia about that axis iswhere $d_i$ is the perpendicular distance from the axis. Therefore

Use the arch geometry of two hinged rods sliding on a floor, with $A=O=(0,0)$ and $C$ on the other side of $B$. As long as $C$ remains in contact with the floor,The centres of mass of the two rods are $(l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$ and $(3l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$. Their squared speeds are respectively $l^2{\dot{\theta }}^2$ and $l^2(9{\sin }^2\theta +{\cos }^2\theta ){\dot{\theta }}^2$. Each uniform rod has moment of inertia $M{l}^2/3$ about its midpoint, and their angular velocities are $\dot{\theta }$ and $-\dot{\theta }$. Applying the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass to each rod givesThe gravitational potential energy is $U=2Mgl\sin \theta$. The fixed pivot does no work; neither does the frictionless floor reaction while $C$ slides horizontally. Conservation of energy from rest therefore givesOn the falling branch $\dot{\theta }$ is the negative square root. Just before the hinge reaches the floor, $\theta =0$, and its speed is $|\dot{B}|=2l|\dot{\theta }|$. Thus, under the maintained-contact interpretation,

There is a contact hypothesis behind this calculation. A floor can push upward but cannot pull downward. For $s=\sin \theta$ and $a=\sin \alpha$, the required normal reaction at $C$, found from the second rod's linear and angular equations, isFor the usual acute arch, this stays nonnegative throughout $0\le \theta \le \alpha$ exactly when $\sin \alpha \le 35/54$. Indeed, for $s>0$, its nonnegativity is $a\le 1/(18s)+11s/6+2s^3$, whose minimum is $35/54$ at $s=1/6$. For larger initial angles, the endpoint lifts before the hinge hits the floor, and the one-coordinate formula no longer governs the whole motion. The displayed impact speed is the intended floor-constrained answer; for unrestricted initial angles, maintained contact is an additional assumption. Subsequent free motion and possible reimpact would require a different model and contact/impact conditions.

Let $M=M_1+M_2$, and let $\mu =M_1{M}_2/M$ be the reduced mass. The stellar distances from the center of mass are $a_1=a{M}_2/M$ and $a_2=a{M}_1/M$. For a circular Kepler orbit, ${\Omega }^2=GM/a^3$, so summing the two orbital contributions gives the circular-binary orbital angular momentumThe separation $a$ is inside the square root. This also has the required dimensions of angular momentum.

For the homologous rotating collapse, label a fluid element by $s=r/R$ and its polar angle $\theta$. Its enclosed mass $m(s)$ is constant during stellar homology, as are the dimensionless density profile and the inertia coefficient $\alpha$. Conservation of angular momentum and solid-body rotation giveThe magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration is ${\Omega }^{2}r\sin \theta$, while the Newtonian gravitational field has magnitude $Gm(s)/r^2$. ThereforeUsing only the radial component of centrifugal force replaces $\sin \theta$ by ${\sin }^2\theta$ and leaves the scaling unchanged. The centrifugal force vanishes on the rotation axis; the central point is understood through the limiting field rather than a ratio of two zero forces.

At the equator of the cloud, critical rotation of a spherical cloud means ${\Omega }_c^2{R}_c=GM/R_c^2$, where $R_c=R_{\mathrm{crit}}$. ConsequentlyImmediately after the first fission, each daughter has mass $M/2$ and radius $a/2$ because the spheres touch. Their orbital moment of inertia is $M{a}^2/4$, while their combined spin moment of inertia is $\alpha M{a}^2/4$. With a common spin and orbital frequency ${\Omega }_f=\sqrt{GM/a^3}$, the synchronous fission model for binary formation givesThe common frequency can change during fission; corotation requires equal instantaneous frequencies, not an unchanged frequency from before the rearrangement. Equating the two values of $J$ yieldsFor a nonzero positive inertia coefficient, the necessary and sufficient condition in this algebraic model for $a<R_c$ isFor example, a moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere has $\alpha =2/5$ and gives $a/R_c=64/49>1$; it fails the required compact-fission condition. A sufficiently centrally concentrated cloud can have smaller $\alpha$.

For the next collapse, neglect exchange of spin with the unchanged outer orbit, so each daughter's spin angular momentum is separately conserved. Immediately after the first fission that spin isFor a daughter of mass $m=M/2$ to reach critical rotation of a spherical cloud at radius $R_{c,d}$, the same relation gives $S_d=\alpha m\sqrt{Gm{R}_{c,d}}$. HenceEquivalently, its centrifugal-to-gravity ratio starts at $1/4$ when its radius is $a/2$ and reaches one after contraction by a factor four. Applying the same fission rule to this daughter produces an inner pair with separationCorotation at this second fission is local to each newly formed inner pair; it is not a single common frequency for the entire four-star hierarchy.

This spin assumption matters. If tidal locking instead kept each shrinking daughter synchronized to the fixed outer orbital period throughout the intervening collapse, its angular velocity would remain fixed. Its centrifugal-to-gravity ratio would then scale as $R_d^3$ and decrease, so it would never reach the proposed second fission. This is a counterexample to extending the corotation assumption through the whole contraction. The printed ratio describes the separately spin-conserving interpretation of the repeated fission hierarchy.

The model can generate a compact hierarchy algebraically, but is not a general physical account of multiple-star formation. In the allowed range $\alpha <1/3$, one has $a^{\prime }/a<1/8$, suggesting well-separated inner and outer scales. However, rapidly rotating gas deforms, touching daughters are tidally distorted, and pressure, gas flows, dissipation and spin-orbit torques cannot generally be ignored. The assumed identical profiles, equal mass splits, instantaneous corotation and later torque-free contractions are restrictive. Star formation can involve gravitational fragmentation and redistribution of angular momentum; the toy budget neither proves that fission occurs nor predicts the population of real multiple systems.

The area element in plane polar coordinates is $rdrd\theta$. Thus the axial moment of inertia isFor the removed material, the angular width is $2\pi /13$, andIts moment of inertia is therefore $I_{\mathrm{cut}}=\pi {\rho }_0{a}^5/160$, leavingThe torque equation $I\dot{\Omega }=\tau$ gives constant angular acceleration, so the time to reach the prescribed angular speed from rest is

To find the centre of mass after removing material, let ${\mathbf{e}}_1$ point along the bisector of the missing sector in the disc. The original disc has zero first mass moment about its centre. The missing sector has zero transverse first moment by reflection symmetry, while its component along ${\mathbf{e}}_1$ isbecause the radial integral is $11a^4/192$. The remaining first moment is $-Q_{\mathrm{cut}}{\mathbf{e}}_1$. Dividing by the given mass $k{\rho }_0{a}^3$ gives the body-fixed centre of massIt lies away from the missing sector. In the inertial frame, let $t_{\ast }$ be the moment the applied torque stops and let $\psi ={\psi }_{\ast }+\Omega (t-t_{\ast })$ give the orientation of that sector's bisector. Then, with $d=11a\sin (\pi /13)/(96k)$,The centre of mass has inward centripetal acceleration of magnitude ${\Omega }^{2}d$. The required real force is the constraint reaction exerted by the fixed rod and its support. Its horizontal resultant is $k{\rho }_0{a}^3\ddot{\mathbf{R}}$; a zero applied axial torque does not imply a zero resultant force.