Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2013 / iii / Paper 53 / 1

Assume $K>0$ and a positive central mass density. For this polytrope of index one, the spherical hydrostatic pressure support equation becomesDifferentiate the second equation and use mass conservation. With $k^2=2\pi G/K$, this givesThe regular central solution, with $\rho (0)={\rho }_c$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(0)=0$, isThis is also the index-one solution of the Lane-Emden equation. The mass density remains positive up to its first zero, so the free surface is at $kR=\pi$, givingTaking a later zero would include a region of negative mass density and would not describe a physical star.

Integrating the mass givesConsequentlyThe radius is independent of the central mass density, whereas the mass is proportional to it; this is the special polytropic mass-radius relation at index one.

A nonspherical configuration requires the vector form of hydrostatic equilibrium and the Poisson equation, rather than the spherical mass-coordinate equations:For the same index-one polytrope, hydrostatic balance inside the positive-density region gives $\Phi =C-2K\rho$. Thus its interior mass density must obey the Helmholtz equationA positive separated solution with the required boundary values isIts maximum is ${\rho }_c$ at the centre of the cube and it vanishes on every face. Its Laplacian is $-3{\pi }^2\rho /L^2$, so it satisfies the interior equations whenTogether with $P=K{\rho }^2$ and $\Phi =C-2K\rho$, this explicitly constructs the cubic polytropic interior.

The mass integral separates into three elementary sine integrals:ThereforeThis construction satisfies the equations inside the prescribed cube. It does not by itself establish the existence of an isolated self-gravitating star: the interior potential must also match the exterior vacuum field generated by that very mass density. That additional physical requirement is addressed in part (c).

The cubic construction is a formal interior solution, not an isolated stellar equilibrium. The problem is more basic than whether a cubic star would be stable: the cubic polytrope fails isolated gravitational matching.

For a direct corner-force obstruction for a cubic polytrope, examine the corner at the origin. Every first derivative of the sine-product mass density vanishes there, so $\Phi =C-2K\rho$ predicts $\nabla \Phi (0)=0$. But the actual Newtonian gravitational potential of a positive mass density confined to this cube hasand similarly for the other two components. The integral is finite and strictly negative because the mass density is positive throughout the interior. The physical gravitational field is continuous up to this boundary point, so it cannot match the zero gradient of the proposed interior potential. An additive constant in the potential cannot fix that disagreement. The counterexample to a global interpretation is therefore the very constructed mass density: it solves the local equations but not the global gravitational boundary problem.

A nonrotating isolated fluid supported by an isotropic barotropic pressure normally has a spherical equilibrium. Rotation, tides and magnetic stresses can produce smooth departures from sphericity, but none of these is included in the cubic model, and no rigid walls exist to support its faces and corners. Observationally, ordinary stellar photospheres are consistent with approximately spherical shapes, or with oblateness and tidal distortions where those effects matter; there is no basis for expecting sharply bounded cubic stars. Thus the theoretical obstruction and the expected observations agree.